Board Members:
- William Vogt, Chair
- Marie Raftery
- Christine Rasmussen
- Katherine Fletcher
- Nancy Socha
- Wayne Slosek
- Jennifer Carmichael, secretary
- Consultant: Philip Arnold
In addition: added when they spoke.
- Vogt recapped conversation with Patrick Sheehan, owner-developer of DeSisto/37 Interlaken. Vogt invited Sheehan to a PB meeting. Sheehan declined and said he felt mistreated in Stockbridge. Vogt pointed out there had been an election in between. Sheehan said he probably would not attend a PB meeting but might send his lawyer. Vogt’s communication by phone with Sheehan or his email to Sheehan copied to all PB members, Jim Balfanz, and Select Board member Roxanne McCaffrey, apparently was another OML violation and this report to the PB was the correction to the violation, as suggested by Town Attorney Donna Brewer.
- Sign application for 5 East St., David Vanslette, contractor, agenda item skipped.
- Mike Parsons presenting on behalf of Stone Ridge Assoc. — agenda item skipped.
- Update from consultant Phil Arnold
- Driveways — Public Hearing on May 4th
- Signs — bylaw determines size, number, and location of signs in both residential and business districts. Discussion followed. White: be sure this bylaw is consistent with new house number bylaw. Question from attendee: does the number sign now required at residences count as one of the signs? Question from attendee: does the bylaw govern political signs? White: there appears to be an inconsistency with size allowed in same zone in the bylaw. Rasmussen said rewrite of this bylaw was prompted by Lost Lamb Bakery requesting more signs than permitted.
- There was a question and discussion among PB members with respect to moving permitting authority from SB to PB. Who is permitting authority for projecting signs? SB For temporary signs? SB For permanent signs in business district? Want to change to PB. For Special Permits? Want to change to PB.
- Parking — recommendation — abandon it as no business would/could be in compliance.
- ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) Discussion prior to Arnold writing bylaw. In what districts are ADUs allowed — business and residential? If in business what about new bylaw that restricts a residence on ground floor? Could an 800 sq.ft. or smaller ADU be “By Right”. PB member asked, if a Special Permit is required, who is the permit granting authority? McCaffrey asked if the size takes into account handicapped accessibility. Another PB member asked, does an ADU have to be detached or could it also be in a residence?
- Discussion of NRPZ deferred because the latest version was not on web site. It was mentioned that the percent preserved in a development was changed to 50% and the “devisor” (the number by which developable acres is divided into building lots) was changed. Both changes would increase density.
- Rasmussen suggested a presentation May 12 with Jeff Lacy and Randall Arendt. PB members wanted a discussion instead to fully understand NRPZ before any presentation or public information session. Final decision PB meeting Monday April 26 via Zoom
- Rasmussen asked approval to read something into minutes. Refused until it could be emailed to PB members so they would know what they were approving.
- Suggestion made to shift communications re: scheduling meetings from Rasmussen to Carmichael; evidently it is more common for the secretary rather than a board member to do that task.
Meeting adjourned
Editor’s note: If permit granting authority is taken from SB, would that remove a governmental check and balance? Comment: Long kerfuffle at end of meeting about SU policy for submissions. The policy is printed in every issue and requirements are the same for everyone: 400 words or less, no personal attacks, and no anonymous submissions — letters signed and articles attributed.
