Present:
- Bill Vogt, Chair
- Marie Rafferty, Vice Chair
- Gary Pitney
- Wayne Slosek
- Nancy Socha
- Present via Zoom:
- Kate Fetcher
- Carl Sprague
- Chair announced all suggestion made about NHRPZ Draft 6 were given to the consultant. After an hour and 45-minute conversation, the consultant prepared Draft 7.
- In the previous issue, SU suggested that this review process has gone on too long at too high a cost without uniform support even from the majority of PB members. SU asked the Chair to call for a vote to drop consideration of NHRPZ if the majority of PB members did not support it.
- Seemingly in answer, the Chair said. “With further [review we could] come to some meeting of the minds. make progress, produce something, and eventually vote. We’re not going to vote tonight and we’re not going to do it at the next meeting.” With that he called for continuation of the review of Draft 7.
- He also called for a survey of the Town to determine if townspeople support NHRPZ.
- The consultant, Jeff Lacy, was present and apparently did not agree with changes made to NHRPZ and said he would not condone or support things like “density neutral” when he knew they “were a disaster”. He would only support “density negative”. Density negative refers to: calculating the number of units permissible if the property remained R4 and allowing fewer units under NHRPZ versus the same number.
- White said, “I don’t know if this proposal (NHRPZ) meets our needs.” He thought the needs in Stockbridge were more for senior housing and what is called workforce housing. He did not see the need for more resort-style development or expensive housing. Lacy said that incentives could be built in to encourage that sort of development.
- Again, Lacy mentioned that Stockbridge PB removed many of the aspects of NHRPZ originally suggested by him.
Meeting adjourned.
