<FCFORMSHEADER>
<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

	<fcobject objtype="oDocument" formid="96" objname="Meeting Minutes">

		<subject index="0" >October 25, 2005</subject>

		<field id="8010" index="0" type="text">Meeting Minutes</field>

		<field id="2000" index="0" type="number">0</field>

		<field id="3999" index="0" type="number">0</field>

	</fcobject>

</firstclass>

</FCFORMSHEADER>

STOCKBRIDGE PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 25, 2005 MEETING

MINUTES

PRESENT:  All present.

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  Minutes of the October 11th meeting were reviewed and Member Plakun moved to accept them as submitted.  Member Pitney seconded, and the motion carried with one abstention.

Member Coates publicly thanked his fellow board members for their extra work during his extended absence.

Chairman Rose reopened the continued public hearing for the Lavan House on Main St.  The public hearing was opened in late May, and at that hearing it became apparent that abutter concerns regarding the planting plan and the proposed lighting changes would need to be addressed in a modified plan.  Member Blau recused himself because he wasn’t present for the beginning of the public hearing.  Member Plakun recused himself because he is an employee of Austen Riggs.  Mr. Kevin Kinne, the applicant’s representative, gave a brief overview of the discussions that ultimately led to the modifications submitted at this meeting.  Austen Riggs Center, Inc. had worked closely with the Rutbergs, who are abutters to the east, on changing the plantings along their shared property line.  There will now be a privet hedge with lilacs and maples (10’ – 15’ tall) instead of the originally planned more formal choices.  Mr. Kinne also said that the lighting issues had been addressed.  Currently the only lighting for the parking area is attached to the house and is on a motion sensor.  The new lighting plan calls for three post mounted, downward shining, lights in parking area, one on the sidewalk to the house, and one at the house entrance.  Member Hobbs asked for some more specifics on the post mounted lights.  The posts are 8 feet high and are shaded so the light shines down toward the ground.  Member Coates asked if any lights will be shining eastward, and was told there wouldn’t be after the project is done.  Chairman Rose asked Mr. Rutberg, who was in the audience, if he had anything to add.  Mr. Rutberg said he was not thrilled with the pole mounted lights, but that at least they weren’t 12 feet high.  He asked if limitations could be set on how long they were on at night, and proposed 11:00 p.m..  He also said that he was concerned that the use of the property had changed over time without any input from the Town, and was worried about the future plans for the building.  He felt that the house should conform with the regulations for a multi-family dwelling, because in essence that is what it has become.  Chairman Rose pointed out that the use of the house was not part of the application, so could not be discussed by the Board.  Mr. Kinne added that he felt that improving the parking was for the benefit of the neighbors and he believed that Austen Riggs had worked with the neighbors through the process.  With no further discussion or input, Member Pitney moved to close the public hearing.  Member Coates seconded, and the motion carried.

The Board then briefly discussed its options for limiting how late the outside lights could be on.  Members Hobbs and Bartle were concerned that lights on after 9 p.m. or so would cause an annoyance to the neighborhood.  Mr. Ffrench, another abutter, asked when the project would be finished.  The project was then found that while the new parking area was still within the 50-foot setback, it is much less nonconforming than the current situation; that the amended lighting plan addresses abutter issues and that requiring motion sensors and a required shut off time, it will further mitigate impacts; that the use is not changing dramatically, so traffic and pedestrian impacts will not change; and that moving the parking area to the rear of the property will positively impact public health, safety and welfare.  With no further discussion, Member Hobbs moved to approve the application and modified plan as submitted, with the conditions that the lights in the parking area be on motion sensors and that those same lights be turned off for the night at 10:00 p.m. daily.  Member Bartle seconded, and the Board voted as follows:

Rose – YES
Pitney – YES
Bartle – YES
Coates – YES
Hobbs – YES

Chairman Rose reopened the public hearing on the special permit application of Kampoosa Clearing for property on East St., and then recused himself, as did Member Coates, since they were not present when this public hearing began in August.  Ms. Shaun Leary and Ms. Sara Steiner appeared for the applicants.  At the last meeting, the Board had taken issue with the fact that the applicants wanted to put up a two-family house on 6.5 acres, which also contained a former motel that was now an apartment complex.  It had been determined that there wasn’t enough acreage to split the lots and build a two-family house; 12 acres would be needed to give the motel enough acreage.  Ms. Leary updated the Board, saying her research with the Building Inspector revealed that no permits had ever been granted for any work on the property.  Her clients still wanted to construct a duplex, which the Board continued to take issue with.  Their argument was that allowing two principle uses on one lot (apartment building and a single family house) already subjected the property to pretty intensive use; making the single family house a duplex just exacerbated the situation and made it more nonconforming.  Ms. Leary said that there were no neighbors in sight of the project, and it is on a main road, so additional impacts will be minimal.  Also, the additional apartment rental will make the property economically viable.  Member Plakun commented that at the last meeting the Board had instructed Ms. Leary to speak with her clients about modifying the application; he wanted to know what new material she had to present.  She indicated that she didn’t have a modified plan.  The Board agreed to further continue the public hearing until November 8th so Ms. Leary can confer with her clients, pending receipt of a written waiver of time limits from the applicant.

Chairman Rose then opened the Lake and Pond Overlay District special permit public hearing for Barbara Berk at 28 Lake Dr. in Stockbridge.  Ms. Pam Sandler appeared with Philip Heller and Shannon Boomsma, representing Ms. Berk.  The application calls for the demolition of a porch and replacing it with a one-story addition, in the same footprint, on the east side of the house, and also the construction of a covered deck on the north side of the house.  The property is .86 acres, with 159’ of frontage.  The building is 112.5’ from the lake.  The closest side yard setback is on the south side, and is 16.24’.  Ms. Berk would like to tear down an 8’2” x 32’ deck and replace it with a one story addition with a frost wall foundation.  The addition will not be closer to the lake than what is currently, nor will it get any closer to the south side of the property.  The new covered deck is 8’ x 5’, and is compliance with side yard setbacks to the north.  Current lot density is 3.3%; new will be 3.4% (allowed is 10%).  The floor area is increasing from 5.1% to 5.3% (20% is allowed).  The Stockbridge Selectmen forwarded their recommendation for approval after reviewing the application at a recent meeting.  Mr. Heller added that the house is set back 82’ from the road, so is not very visible to neighbors.  He submitted an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission, and also submitted a modified timing schedule.  Ms. Boomsma then reviewed the environmental work being done.  The property is maintained lawn currently, and that will not change.  There is no plan to remove any vegetation.  There are some wetlands issues, so small equipment will have to be used on-site to minimize impacts.  There are no changes for the driveway or parking area.  The house site is flat and no grade changes are called for.  The silt fence is shown on the plans to stop runoff during construction.  The site will be replanted before winter, with final landscaping work to be done next spring.  The fill excavated for the frost wall foundation will be kept on site.  Member Hobbs commented that this seemed like a pretty straight forward application, and with no further discussion she moved to close the public hearing.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.  Member Blau then moved to recommend approval to the Selectmen under Section 6.1.2 of the bylaws as submitted.  Member Hobbs seconded and the motion carried.  Member Plakun then moved to approve the Berk LPOD special permit application as submitted because it meets all the applicable standards and is located, designed and constructed so as to have no significant adverse impact on public health, safety or the environment, provided that the applicant adheres to Section 6.5.5 regarding the application or discharge of pollutants, fertilizers, etc. and that all soil excavated remain on-site.  Member Hobbs seconded, and the Board voted as follows:

Rose – YES
Pitney – YES
Bartle – YES
Blau – YES
Coates – YES
Hobbs – YES
Plakun – YES

Lori Robbins, Haldor Reinholt, and Darrin Harris appeared for the continued public hearing on the Definitive Subdivision Plan for property off Mahkeenac Road in Stockbridge.  The public hearing was originally opened May 10th, but extensive work with the applicant and the Town’s environmental consultant required several extensions and continuations of the public hearing.  The applicant has agreed in writing to all extensions.  Members Hobbs and Rose recused themselves as abutters to the property. Mr. Harris submitted a modified plan for the property that still allows for four lots but moves the cul de sac out of the path of the intermittent stream.  The new dead end road is 470 feet.  The town’s consultant, Scott Horsley, is still recommending a bioretention system to handle storm water runoff.  This system will take the first ½” of storm water and filter it for contaminants; the rest will go into a detention basin.  Mr. Horsley is also requiring a fabric liner under the proposed swale next to the road.  Mr. Harris showed the Board where he has added a 10-foot buffer between the new road and the wetland area by reconfiguring the road layout.  Mr. Reinholt pointed out that the building envelopes and driveways on the plan are for information only; they are not part of the official plan.  Member Coates commented how impressed he was with the effort the applicant had made to improve this plan.  Mr. Horsley’s memo indicated that he was waiting for engineering plans for the bioretention facility.  The Board said that if Mr. Horsley signed off on that piece of the project, they would be satisfied with the application as modified.  The applicant agreed to continue the public hearing until Nov. 8th to give enough time to create material for Mr. Horsley to review.  If it can’t be done by Nov. 8th, the hearing will be further continued until Dec. 13th.  The applicant agreed in writing to extend the deadline until Dec. 20th.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.