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

<!DOCTYPE FIRSTCLASS SYSTEM "firstclass.dtd">

<firstclass>

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

		<subject index="0" >October 12, 2004</subject>

		<field id="8010" index="0" type="text">Planning Board 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 12, 2004 MEETING

MINUTES

PRESENT:  Doug Rose, Eric Plakun, Gary Pitney, Barbara Hobbs, Bob Bartle, Paul Coates

ABSENT:  Allan Blau

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.  Minutes of the Sept. 28th meeting were reviewed and initially the Board voted to approve as submitted.  However, when Member Plakun arrived he asked that the discussion be reopened to allow for amendments.  After discussion, Member Plakun moved to approve the minutes as amended, Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

Chairman Rose read a memo from the Executive Secretary, announcing that CPR and defibrulator classes were being offered to board and committee members.

Board secretary submitted an invoice for annual dues for MA Federation of Planning and Appeals Boards.  Member Bartle moved to pay the invoice, Member Hobbs seconded, and the motion carried.

Chairman Rose opened the public hearing on the LPOD special permit application for Stone Ridge Associates by reading the public hearing into the record.  The special permit is for road and infrastructure work within 150 feet of Mohawk Brook.  Chairman Rose then called for a motion to immediately continue the public hearing until Oct. 26th at 7:35 p.m. so that all Board members may be present to review the application.  Member Coates questioned the difference between “opening” a public hearing and “starting” a public hearing.  Chairman Rose explained that the hearing had to be opened because the legal notice published indicated that it would be opened on this date.  Case law indicates that as long as no testimony is heard, a public hearing is not “started”.  With no further discussion, Member Plakun moved to continue the public hearing until Oct. 26th, Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried 5-1, with Member Coates voting against the motion.

A representative from Kelly Granger and Parsons, working for St. Paul’s Church on Main St., submitted a Form A application for a boundary line adjustment between the Church and the Plante property next door.  Member Rose made it known that he was a member of the church, and Member Bartle acknowledged that he does work for the church as well.  The applicant and the other board members were comfortable with any perceived conflict of interest, since only four members needed to vote on this application and six were present.  The application calls for a five-foot strip of land to be conveyed back to the Plantes, taking away seven feet of frontage on Pine Street as well.  In going through the regulations, the Board determined that the plan was missing the remaining area and street frontage of the Plante property.  With no further discussion, the Board deemed the plan incomplete under Section 3.20.c of the Subdivision Regulations.  The applicant will return on Oct. 26th at 7:30 p.m.

The Board then took up a Sign Permit application review for property owned by Linda Heinrich at 24 East St.  She would like to replace an existing sign with one the same size and at the same location, but with a different name.  The proposed sign is 20” x 28”.  The new sign will be illuminated; the current sign has fixtures on it, but they are not in use.  After a brief discussion, Member Plakun moved to recommend the following to the Selectmen:  that the current sign might be grandfathered under Section 6.8.1.g, which would allow it as submitted; that the sign may be allowed under Section 6.8.3.c, if the apartments are part of a special permit in that district; or if it does not meet either criteria, it is too large, under Section 6.8.3.b, which allows for signs not larger than 2 square feet.  Member Bartle seconded, and the motion carried.

Shannon Boomsma, from White Engineering, appeared informally to find out if activities that have been determined exempt in the LPOD still needs to go through some sort of determination review, or if that process is necessary at all.  She represents a number of homeowners whose houses are in the LPOD, and are being required by the Town to hook into town sewer.  Under Section 6.5.4.b, municipal activities are exempt.  Member Plakun questioned whether individual hookups are an extension of a municipal activity.  He was also concerned that any new construction could use the same exemption when hooking up to the sewer in the future.  Chairman Rose will ask Town Counsel’s opinion.

The Board performed a completeness review on the Definitive Subdivision Plan of Stone Ridge Associates, originally submitted on September 27th.  Town Counsel had reviewed the application in advance of the meeting, and forwarded an opinion that the application as submitted was deficient in two categories.  One, under Section 4.202.c, it was missing lots that directly abut the property on the plan.  Two, under Section 4.202.d, it was missing the road width of a right of way road on the plan, and there was concern that the name of the road would eventually be denied by the 911 group, because it was too close to Stone Hill Rd. and would create confusion for emergency personnel.  Town Counsel recommended that the Board require the applicant to agree in writing to an extension of the timeframe for action by the Board until the date that the application is deemed complete.  Some Board members, however, felt that if the application was incomplete it should not be accepted at all.  An applicant earlier that evening had been denied a Form A because the application was incomplete, and the Board did not want to hold applicants to different standards.  Member Bartle moved that the Board not accept the Definitive Subdivision Plan submitted by Stone Ridge Associates because it was incomplete under Sections 4.202.c and 4.202.d., and Member Coates seconded.  Member Plakun said that this application is different situation than a Form A.  A subdivision application is a much more complicated thing, with a much longer process.  In addition, Town Counsel had given a clear indication as to how to proceed in a manner that will continue the momentum created over the past few months regarding this project.  Member Bartle felt that anything short of denying because of incompleteness was holding Stone Ridge Associates to a different standard than all other applicants.  With no further discussion, the Board voted not to accept the application because of incompleteness as follows:

                   Hobbs – yes
                   Coates – yes
                   Bartle – yes
                   Plakun – no
                   Pitney – no
                   Rose – yes

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.