 |
Planning Board meeting minutes: 1/26/12
Members Present: Maggie Leonard; chair, Stephen Enoch, Bridget Krans and Barry Karson
Public Present: Mike Parson of Kelly, Granger and Parsons
Meeting to order: 7:13PM
- Mike Parsons for Pearl Realty – adequacy of a way: Previously the board wanted the road to be upgraded prior to lot two being built on. Mr. Parsons felt that this was a bit harsh. Mr. Parsons pointed out that Sean is able right now to pull a building permit as is. Mr. Parsons proposed that if Sean Tucker was to make two lots out of the current lot marked lot number two then he would go along with building an adequate road. He wanted to have the ability to have two lots out of the remaining lot. None of the wording on the plans have changed except that lot one retains the right to be a building lot and lot two will be split into two building lots. The board felt that this was a reasonable compromise. Bridget made a motion that the plan was accepted as presented. The board
agreed unanimously. Mr. Parsons submitted a check for $40.00 along with his plan. Bridget put the check and the plans in the interdepartmental mailbox.
- Previous Meeting Minutes: minutes from 12/22/11 still need to be approved as Bridget did not bring them. 1/12/12 written by Maggie was accepted as written.
- Bylaw Revision: Which definition of structure does the board want to use? The board thought that using the definition given by the state building code would be a good idea. Barry wondered why certain things were not listed such as a dock. Maggie suggested maybe we could add in including but not limited to. Barry felt that if we were defining it then docks were a structure. Maggie felt that we could add in docks but she did not think that the list needed to be exhaustive. The members present decided to go with the state building code. The board decided to take the suggestion of loading docks under advisement for if there came a time when it was felt that loading docks needed to be explored. The table of use regulations: under trailers and mobile home parks Mr. Bobrowski had no to each in
every district. Maggie agreed that we did not allow mobile home parks but noted that we do allow temporary use of trailers. The temporary use of a trailer requires a permit. The board agreed to adding temporary trailers allowed by permit, no mobile home parks and no trailer parks. Table B: Exempt and Institutional uses, the board wondered what was meant by “Public Market” and also “Essential Services”. The board is waiting to hear from Mr. Bobrowski regarding the definition of these two phrases. Table C: the board was fine with this. No one had any questions. Table D: Recreational uses: The board thought it would be nice if there could be a golf course allowed in the business district. The board also questioned not allowing any private clubs in the ag- res or lakeshore district. Bridget and Barry wondered as to the definition of “private club”. Bridget did not agree with having to get a special permit for having a group of
people join together to play tennis on a shared piece of property. Stephen felt that we just needed to move along and stop discussing semantics. Maggie wondered if we could just not put it in at all. Stephen felt that it needed to be part of the bylaw and someone would need to make a judgment call when the permit was requested. Maggie stated that she did not have a problem just excising it. The point was made however that then anyone could form any type of private club. The board agreed that it would be safer to leave it in. Restaurant uses: no changes were discussed. Commercial and office uses: no changes suggested. Table H: Motor Vehicle Related Uses: The board wondered what “salesroom for motor vehicles with no repair services except in a garage” meant. Maggie is going to request clarification of this. Table I: Light Manufacturing, Manufacturing and Related Uses- the board felt that this cannot be no across the board because there are so
many people already doing it. The board also felt that photovoltaic facilities need to be board of appeals. Stephen wanted to know what other towns are doing with this. Great Barrington rejected a permit for one and currently do not have a bylaw for one. Stephen felt that it was not an issue that we wanted to tackle right now but we needed to put something in the bylaw that would give us the language to hold off while we created a specific bylaw for photovoltaic facilities. Maggie felt that was a good idea. The question is what language we can use in this bylaw to allow us to put it off until we can do it properly. Barry wondered what would happen if something was passed before we got to it and then we would not have any control over it. The board agreed to put it as no across the board and explain at the meeting that we are going to create a bylaw for this and require a special permit. Table J: accessory uses- Larry requested that the word
“commercial” be added to the line with “airstrip or helipad”. Larry also felt that it was use by right. The board agreed that it was fine as it is. Parking requirements: the board felt that they were fine as written.
- Dan Moriarty Special Permit application: Mr. Moriarty lives on 14 Heberts Cove and wants to raise his house 2 feet to stop flooding. The only reason he needs a special permit is because he is making the house taller. It will not be 35 feet high. The board did not see a problem with it. The house will go from 17. 55 feet in height to 19.55 feet in height. Bridget made the motion to approve the permit and the members present unanimously agreed.
- The new bylaw will be on the May town hearing Maggie thought since the Selectmen have not said otherwise. Stephen wondered if we should try to have it at a different time since the school vote will also be on the May warrant. Maggie felt that in a way it might be better to have a separate special meeting. Bridget wondered if it would be advantageous to have it put on the warrant before the school vote. Maggie will ask the Selectmen if it would be possible to get a “good” spot on the town warrant.
- Greany J. - This case has a bearing on the Kerson application that was turned down by the board of appeals. The Kearson application was turned down for five specified reasons. These are available on the town website. Maggie wanted to make sure that the members of the board were familiar with the case law. The board discussed it and felt that each case was different and judgments needed to be made on a case by case basis.
- Mail opened: Gould Farm; Harvest Barn Bakery needs a special permit for a restaurant. Stephen recused himself; Larry will have to recuse himself. Bridget and Maggie will discuss it.
- Meeting adjourned: 9:40 PM
- Submitted by Bridget Krans
| |
