 |
Planning Board Meeting 5/17/12
Members Present: Alan Salamon, Maggie Leonard; Chair, Bridget Krans, Roger Tryon (newly elected at the annual town meeting), Larry Klein, Stephen Enoch and Barry Karson
Meeting to Order: 7:09 PM
- Maggie and Roger were sworn in. Barry was also sworn in.
- The board welcomed Roger Tryon who is the newest member of the planning board.
- Maggie received the “cleaned up” version of the revised bylaw. Once Maggie gets the hard copy she turns it into the town clerk to send to the AG.
- The board discussed who the next chair should be. It was decided that Maggie and Stephen will be co- chairs. The motion was made by Alan, Bridget seconded it and it was unanimously approved.
- The board talked about what would be needed to have meetings including board members that are not present. Larry felt that we needed a special 4 speaker phone. Also an account with a conference number needs to be set up. Larry mentioned that there are some free services that offer a conference call feature. Larry wondered if the absent participant can vote on something that involves plans that need to be viewed. Maggie felt that if they were not present to look at the map they should not vote.
- Meeting minutes from 4/26/ 12: approved as written
- Hume sign permit: Hume (AKA New England Keswick) has submitted an application for new signs. One sign will be at the end of Cronk Road, one will be at the entrance to the camp and also a sign at the intersection and Cronk Road and Chestnut Hill. They are also looking to put a directional sign on the telephone pole at the corner of route 23 and Sandisfield Road. Larry pointed out that we cannot approve signs that are going to be put on a telephone pole. Even if the signs are currently on the pole and just need to be changed the planning board cannot approve it. Roger felt that they would not get permission to put it on a telephone pole. Stephen felt that we could tell the applicant that the sign they want to erect on the telephone pole is grandfathered but the Planning Board cannot approve of them
putting it on the telephone pole. All of the signs that they are asking for approval of are grandfathered. Barry wondered if saying they are grandfathered is accurate when new owners and a new entity comes in. Once it changes is it still grandfathered? The board agreed that if the signs are put up exactly where they were for New England Keswick then they are grandfathered. Barry felt that whenever property is transferred then the grandfather status is no longer. Don Torrico the Monterey Building Inspector felt that the signs were grandfathered. Stephen reiterated that we are not the granting authority for putting a sign on a telephone pole. Stephen suggested that we take the stance that all the signs are fine but we cannot grant you the authority to put a sign on a telephone pole. Stephen pointed out that we cannot grandfather a sign on a telephone pole. He felt that if they wanted to put a sign on a post they would need a new permit. Maggie felt that was splitting hairs. Larry
felt that he agreed with Barry that signage was not a candidate for being grandfathered. Barry pointed out that in the current bylaw it states that if the signs are altered in any substantial way then they are no longer grandfathered. Larry pointed out that the bylaw is referring to size. If the size is changed then it is no longer grandfathered. Maggie felt that it was not a big deal either way. The important issue is to get them signs in time for camp. Larry wondered why we did not raise these issues when the applicant was sitting with the planning board. Bridget wondered if these signs were coming from an applicant where there was never a sign before would the signs be OK for a permit. The answer was no- they would have to get a special permit from the ZBA. Stephen suggested we focus on each sign except the one on the telephone pole. Alan stated that if they came in with the approval of the telephone company then we could approve the sign. Barry and Maggie felt that we could
state that we approve the sign but we cannot find on whether or not they can put it on a telephone pole. Larry wondered what we do if they get in trouble. The other members of the board stated that we don’t care- that is not our issue. Larry disagreed and felt that it was our place. Barry called the question. Stephen made a motion to vote to approve the signs as grandfathered entities with the understanding that telephone poles are not the board’s jurisdiction. Maggie seconded the motion. The motion was passed with Barry voting against.
- KSA Special Permit Application: KSA and their abutters are asking for new conditions to their special permit for camp as well as year round operations. Alan suggested that we do not deal with the specifics because our job is to just inform the ZBA if it is more detrimental to the neighborhood. Maggie felt that KSA was trying to be a good neighbor and amend their special permit. Stephen pointed out that if they received this new special permit then they would not need to go to litigation. This all stems from the abutters of KSA challenging a decision the ZBA made in granting KSA a special permit to operate standard operating hours to host events. The amendments that are being asked for is an attempt to settle out of court. Such amendments include but are not limited to no more than 3 celebratory events on the
weekends per month, the weekday events will be kept to camp, sports activities and day time activities, also no use of the public address system except for camp, no loud music before 10AM or after 11 PM, no restaurants or retail stores shall be conducted, the tennis facility can operate from 6AM- 10PM and the lights need to face away from abutters and turn off sharply at 11PM. The board did not feel that this special permit had any planning board issues. Alan felt that we could state that with respect to the responsibility of the planning board the board did not feel that there were any issues in this special permit that was in need of the board’s decision. Alan made a motion that we notify the ZBA that the planning board has no opinion since it does not pertain to the planning board issues.
- Special Permit- Jeffrey Lombardo: 62 Worth Lane- There is an existing shed in the set back and Mr. Lombardo would like to tear it down and rebuild it. It will be 6 feet higher than the old shed roof. The only dimensions that are changing is the roof due to the new pitch. The building is 14x15. The new shed is going to be 14x16. The board decided that this one foot was not an issue. Larry pointed out that they are pouring new footings so the same footprint is not being used. Alan suggested that we find that we approve it. Larry wanted us to point out the discrepancies in the dimensions. Maggie thought that they were asking for a special permit because the roof is going higher and that the lot is non-conforming. Barry wondered if this structure was grandfathered. The existing structure encroaches on the 15
foot setback. Maggie wondered if we needed to go look at it to see if a six foot height increase will be detrimental to anyone’s view. Barry moved to approve the plan as submitted. Larry was still concerned about the change in the footage. Barry pointed out that the drawings were not done by an architect and it was just a misstep. Larry seconded Barry’s motion. Maggie questioned if there would be an increase in glare. Maggie wanted to “tick off” the points of the bylaw so that she could hit those points in the finding. The motion that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood passed unanimously.
- Mail- The bill for Mark Bobrowski’s final $1,000.00 was received. Maggie will take care of that. Maggie shared an email she received on “walkability”. She will forward the email to the rest of the board.
Meeting adjourned: 9:00 PM
| |
