The Monterey Planning Board
October 12, 2006
Minutes of the meeting
Members present: Maggie Leonard, Laurily Epstein, Brian Puntin, Cindy Hoogs, Stephen Rose, Mike Erkkinen (8:03).
Public present: Sydney Smithers of Cain, Hibbard & Myers, Mike Parsons and Jess Worman of Kelly, Granger, Parsons & Associates, and Rick Mielke.
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Sydney Smithers, an attorney representing Barry and Marjorie Jaffe, was present to discuss the Jaffe land division plan and the legal brief concerning that plan which was e-mailed to the Planning Board the previous day. Planning Board member Maggie Leonard reported to the board that Town Counsel Jerome Scully had called at 4:30 p.m. and recommended that the board endorse the plan as a Form A. He told Leonard that he had read the legal brief submitted by the applicant and that he had also spoken with the chief planner from the Department of Housing and community Development, Don Schmid\ It was after the conversation with Schmidt that Scully then called to reverse his decision on the plan. (The Planning Board received two prior letters from Scully stating that the plan depicted a Subdivision and should not be approved as a Form A.)
Attorney Smithers reiterated that the plan does not create any new road frontage and that it does not create building lots. According to Smithers and Mike Parsons, the (35) “lots” created are actually parcels. The distinction between a lot and a parcel is that inherent in the definition of a lot is that it is “used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings.” (Monterey Zoning Bylaws, Definitions.) Leonard asked “Say one of these parcels is sold, what happens then?” Both Smithers and Parsons demurred to answer repeating that the question is not the purview of the Planning Board, and that the board is simply to concern itself with the plan as it is depicted. He stated that the plan is a single lot perimeter plan and, as such, is entitled to a Form A endorsement from the Planning
Board.
Planning Board member Cindy Hoogs made a motion to include wording on the plan that would alert any potential buyer to the limitations of the parcels, lest Planning Board approval be misconstrued. The motion was seconded by Maggie Leonard and unanimously approved by the board. Hoogs suggested the following language to be included on the final plan:
Endorsement of this plan does not imply that any of the parcels comply with zoning.
Parcels 1 through 35 do not constitute buildable lots under current Monterey zoning and parcels 1 through 35 may not be combined to form one or more building lots without further action from the Planning Board.
The right of way for access parcels 1 through 17 as shown on the plan shall not be used as frontage or access for any building lots without further action by the Planning Board.
Both Parsons and Smithers agreed to the language agreed upon by the board and Parsons said that he would have it printed on the plan. The time line for the plan was discussed. Parsons submitted the plan on September 14, 2006 and at that time the Planning Board had 21 days to respond (or it would be approved by default). On September 29, 2006, the Planning Board received an extension from Parsons, as the applicants’ representative, stating that the Planning Board had 21 days from whenever the Jaffes revoked the extension in writing to the Planning Board. As the Jaffes representative attorney Smithers quickly penned a note officially revoking the extension. The Planning Board has 21 days from this meeting (October 12, 2006) to either endorse or vote down the plan. That would make November 2, 2006, the day that the Planning Board must
submit the plan to the Town Clerk.
Rick Mielke, the caretaker for the Jaffes, suggested that three board members sign the plan as is, and that after Parsons adds the agreed upon language, then the fourth board member could sign it and it would be finalized without having to go until the next Planning Board meeting. The board declined the offer.
After the triumvirate left the meeting board members agreed that Town Counsel should bolster his reversal in writing so that there is a cogent paper trail on the proceedings. It was unanimously voted to request another letter from Town Counsel outlining his reasons for reversing his decision.
The minutes from 9/28/06 were approved as written.
The board reviewed the Common Driveway recommendations from Highway Superintendent Maynard Forbes (see attached). Forbes was not able to attend the meeting. The board had questions about some of the recommendations, such as limiting the length of common driveways. Maggie Leonard said that it might be useful to check out the condition of existing common driveways in town, such as Riverwood on Beartown Mtn. Rd., Heron Pond Park on Tyringham Rd., and Mt. Hunger Estates on Mount Hunger Rd. Board members also thought that it would be useful to read up on the drainage specs in the Subdivision Control Regulations.
The board discussed the upcoming public hearing, on October 26, 2006, on additions and amendments to the Subdivision Control Regulations. Leonard reported that the legal procedures for having a public hearing had been fulfilled, i.e. meeting notice posted in a paper of record 14 days in advance of the hearing, certified legal notices sent to abutting towns and Regional Planning and the Dept. of Housing and Community Development. Cindy Hoogs said that once the Subdivision Control Regulations are amended and approved by the Planning Board, then the board must file it with the Registry of Deeds.
The mail was opened and read.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Maggie Leonard
| 
