Stockbridge Updates
Your bi-weekly source for news and opinion
HomeArchiveVol. III No. 2 1/15/2022Notes from the Planning Board (PB), January 4, Hybrid meeting
Vol. III No. 2 1/15/2022

Notes from the Planning Board (PB), January 4, Hybrid meeting

Present:

  • Bill Vogt, Chair
  • Marie Rafferty, Vice Chair
  • Nancy Socha
  • Wayne Slosek
  • Gary Pitney via Zoom
  • Kate Fletcher vis Zoom
  • Carl Sprague via Zoom
  • Jeff Lacy, consultant via Zoom
  • Jennifer Carmichael, Secretary
  • Patrick White, Select Board via Zoom
  1. Minutes approved as written
  2. As requested, Consultant Jeff Lacy prepared example of NHRPZ Draft 8 "density neutral". "density negative", and "conventional development" of 37 Interlaken (Desisto School Property). On the 313-acre estate, there would be 52 houses using conventional zoning; 34 using NHRPZ density negative; 38.6 using density neutral.
  3. Questions for consultant:
    1. The consultant said Cottage Era Bylaw "could be grafted onto NHRPZ" — Slosek asked, was NHRPZ at odds with Cottage Era Bylaw?
    2. Sprague asked if setbacks, length of driveways, and other elements in current zoning bylaws would still apply or if NHRPZ take the place of those? Apparently, NHRPZ takes the place of those.
  4. After questions, the Consultant left and PB discussed NHRPZ.
  5. Chair floated idea of dropping NHRPZ.
  6. Discussion followed including if PB should take up the Cottage Era Bylaw.
  7. One member said PB spent almost two years on NHRPZ to the detriment of other responsibilities of PB. She said PB spent so much time on NHRPZ, PB could not do a simple sign bylaw. Therefore, NHRPZ should be dropped, and no more time wasted.
  8. She also asked Chair — how much money was spent? Chair said he did not know. (According to Town Administrator Michael Canales in an earlier meeting, all $40,000 allocated for consultants last year was spent.) Of the additional $40,000 voted by Town Meeting, it is not clear how much of that money was spent by Lacy on his site visit and the materials created for this meeting, etc.
  9. Another PB member said time and money had been spent on NHRPZ – why throw it out? Why not pass it as an option for developers?
  10. However, the Chair moved to drop NHRPZ, that is, to discontinue working on it. He said there was no majority on this Board to approve this bylaw. Even if it were voted on right now and passed 4/3, he did not feel PB should bring something to Town Meeting that was not more enthusiastically supported.
  11. The motion to discontinue work on NHRPZ passed 7/0.

Meeting adjourned.

 

photo
Photo: Joan Gallos