Present:
- Bill Vogt, Chair
- Marie Rafferty, Vice Chair
- Wayne Slosek
- Gary Pitney
- Nancy Socha
- Carl Sprague via Zoom
- Kate Fletcher via Zoom
Also present: Jennifer Carmichael, secretary and Doug Goudy for Wheeler and Taylor (W/T), Patrick White, Carole Owens
- Minutes of August 3 approved as amended.
- 10 Elm Street sign — Goudy requested clarification of sign bylaw. W/T moved from Main Street to Elm Street and will need new signs. Final conclusion: a total of 30 square feet of signage is allowed. W/T may divide the total between a 4 square foot sign on a post and two signs not to exceed 26 square feet affixed to the building. Goudy will return with a final plan and formal request.
- Al Thorne for Tim Minkler, Old Tree Farm Road, requested that PB acknowledge it does NOT have to approve the swap between Minkler and his neighbor of two small parcels of land without frontage. The purpose of the swap is to create a contiguous strip for new driveway. Motion approved.
- Discussion of site visits to Shutesbury and Wendell, MA. Strong suggestion from Patrick White to look at multiple sites in Stockbridge as well as or instead of site visits out of town. Sprague made the same suggestion at last PB meeting.
- Local sites suggested were Stone Hill, White Pines, and a development near Suburban Medical on Stockbridge Road.
- Chair mentioned he would like consultant Jeff Lacy to look at some of these sites
- Slosek made point that they can go to distant sites and observe what was done but would not know what was there before. Sprague mentioned that with local sites we would be able to.
- Slosek said there was ample “open space” at Stone Hill, but Vogt and Rafferty argued that was not public land. Slosek said that it cannot be built on, therefore, is it preserved/open space? He requested a definition of open space.
- Chair asked PB to discuss any unresolved issues in Draft Six of NHRPZ. As in the last issue, SU encourages all to watch the tape of these discussions at CTSB (on air or online). The discussion is at the end of the meeting and presents the range of opinions better than a print summary.
Editors Notes: (a) The request of the Chair that an amendment to minutes be in writing is unique to the PB. Is it requisite? (b) Does the Chair’s proposed invitation to Lacy mean that the consultant did not visit Stockbridge development sites or did not visit Stockbridge at all before suggesting NHRPZ? (c) Slosek’s question is key to understanding NHRPZ. It does not appear from the renderings that the “open space” created is accessible to the public; is it?
