Town of Lenox
Planning Board
Minutes
August 28, 2007
Members present: Kim Reopell-Flynn, Chair (KRF), Joe Kellogg (JK), Kate McNaulty-Vaughn (KMV), Steve Sample (SS) and Pam Mackie (PM). PM arrived at 6:20 PM.
Also in attendance: Mary Albertson (MA), Town Planner. Peggy Ammendola was not present – with notice.
KRF called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM in the Land Use Meeting Room.
Minutes submitted for approval:
April 12, 2007: Hold for later discussion and approval. JK to send his comments.
August 14, 2007: Hold for later discussion and approval. The Board requested that names and comments from members of the public be added to the minutes. The Board will work with Peggy to accomplish this task. KMV requested that Sarah M. Schultz from SK Design be included – her name was omitted from the record.
Buccaneer Continued Public Hearing:
At 6:25 PM, KRF recessed the meeting to allow the members to move to the auditorium to accommodate the Buccaneer Public Hearing attendees. At 6:40 PM, KRF called the meeting to order in the auditorium. KRF noted that the Public Hearing for Buccaneer Development, Inc. concerning property at 12 East Street owned by Bernard D. Starr and Jana Starr to consider a special permit request under Section 14 for designation as an Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) was opened on August 14 and continued to this evening.
KRF began the continued hearing by explaining that the Board consulted Town Counsel regarding questions raised at the August 14, 2007 public hearing. Town Counsel is reviewing the questions outlined by the BOARD and hopes to have a written response by early September. The BOARD also prefers that the applicant complete the peer review of the water and sewer designs prior to rendering a decision. KRF thanked the public for their patience and noted that the Board anticipates continuing the hearing to September 11, 2007. Emil George, project attorney and Jim Scalise, project engineer were present to represent the Buccaneer project.
Emil George gave an update on his efforts to research affordable housing options. He stated questions were raised regarding age discrimination if the affordable units are restricted to 55 years and older. Federal funding may prohibit age restriction on the affordable units. He suggested the development team prefers the current design; however, they can create a separate lot for the affordable housing units. This would separate the affordable units for the retirement community and allow the affordable units to be available to all age groups. One way they could accomplish this is with a separate 40B application for the affordable units. KMV asked if the project would be certified as a 40B project and suggested the development team hire a 40B consultant. Emil George noted 40B is a
possible solution for the affordable units. JK asked why federal guidelines would apply to this project and if they were applying for grant funding. JK suggested the Curtis Building as an example of a senior housing project with age restrictions. Emil George responded that they are looking at all options to provide affordable units. JK asked about the frontage if a separate lot is created? Emil George suggested that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) can waive the frontage requirement under a 40B application.
KRF asked Emil George if he had any additional information. Emil George responded that he realized the Board needed to continue the public hearing and he did not have any additional information to offer this evening.
KRF stated that the Board received 13 letters in opposition to this project. She stated that the Board will review every letter prior to the next meeting. The letters are entered for the record but would not be read word for word this evening. KRF asked individuals wishing to speak in opposition to speak into the microphone and state their name and address for the record.
Susan Dana – 49 East Street. Stated the project is absurd. She noted that the project is not in keeping with the character of the existing single family neighborhood. It is crowded and dense.
James Herrick – 411 Walker Street. He asked why there was so much discussion regarding affordable housing? He stated that the project is in a R1-A district. The abutting homes are single family homes on one acre lots. He suggested that eight lots could be allowed in the R1-A and the developer proposes 34 retirement units. The project is too dense. He did not understand how condominiums can be allowed in a R1-A district. KRF explained that the word condominium is an ownership term and not a structure. JK explained that the Board can require affordable housing as a condition of the OSRD Special Permit. Mr. Herrick questioned the 15 feet setbacks, the storm-water management features in the open space area and the access to the open space. JK asked Jim
Scalise to answer the storm-water management and open space access questions. Mr. Scalise stated that storm-water management features are appropriate in open space areas and that the wetland area is part of the open space. He also noted that one can walk in the open space area and it abuts the Berkshire Natural Resources property – access is at Crystal Street. Mr. Herrick submitted a letter for the record.
Richard Mendel – 36 Brown Street. He noted that the residents of Lenox established what is allowed in the R1-A district. The R1-A is to protect single family neighborhoods. The developer should not be allowed to circumvent zoning by building elderly housing. If a retirement community is allowed it will open Pandora’s box for future projects in the R1-A. The project should be approved for 9 single family lots. He submitted a letter for the record.
Tim Face – 25 East Street. He is concerned about potential drainage issues. He is concerned for the residents who live on Brown Avenue. He said his daughter lives in Lenox. Recently, three new homes were constructed in her neighborhood and this has caused her backyard to be washed out. He wants to make sure this does not happen in this neighborhood. He stated he is concerned about traffic. The neighborhood intersections are already dangerous and the proposed project will only make it worse. He is concerned that the Lenox High School athletic teams use East Street for running practice. He suggested that the traffic study be expanded to include specific detail regarding speed, time of day, direction and vehicle type.
Ed Dana – 49 East Street – He is concerned about traffic and dangerous intersections. He said that he read in the traffic report that there are no pedestrians on East Street. This is not correct. There are a number of pedestrians on East Street. He noted the narrow shoulders on East Street. He suggested that a separate traffic report be prepared to review pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Bob Grosz – 4 East Street – He was unable to attend the last meeting but he did send a letter. He is concerned that this project will monopolize the view. He will see a wall of buildings if this project is allowed. He is concerned about traffic. He is concerned that this project will create a city environment in a rural neighborhood. The project is too dense. He is concerned about the retention pond and believes this will create a dangerous environment for his grandchildren. Currently, his property is for sale. His house is his retirement. He has lost two buyers because they are concerned about this project. He is concerned about his property value.
Janet Chague, 65 East Street – She is opposed to the project. She noted she is not a direct abutter but is opposed to the project for six reasons. 1. It does not preserve or enhance the town’s character. 2. The sprawl from this project will create a negative visual impact. 3. The negative impact on wildlife and endangered species. 4. The added traffic on East Street. 5. The negative impact on the town’s water supply. 6. The project is for second home people and will not help existing residents. She asked the Board to please deny the project and save the environment.
KRF thanked the audience for their participation and said the Board would like to continue the hearing. She asked that comments be limited to new information. The Board will allow additional public input at the continued hearing.
Mary Jo Piretti - Main Street - She stated she had two letters she would like to enter for the record. She read a letter from Ann Fitzpatrick Brown , owner of Blantyre, who is opposed to the project because she feels the project will have a negative impact on the neighborhood and she is concerned about increased traffic. Mary Jo Piretti stated her opposition to the project . She stated that an ORSD permit should not be granted because the developer has not proved clustering the development will preserve and enhance the character of the community and reduce the overall visual impact. She noted that the project disrupts the rural character of the land and is not in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood. She stated concerns regarding traffic. She asked
the planners to consider the fact that there are 67 condominiums on the market and 27 are over $500,000 and 11 are age restricted to “over 55”. She urged the Planning Board to deny the special permit.
Again, KRF thanked the audience for their input and suggested that the Board continue the hearing. She asked it there were any new comments.
Connor Piretti – Main Street. He stated that he is a young person who grew-up in Lenox. He lived in Boston when he attended Boston College. He moved back because he wants to live in a small town. He appreciates the small town charm. He asked the members to consider the younger generation and preserve the character of the town.
Valerie Herrick – 411 Walker Street – She asked the members to please listen to the people. She noted they had a right to be heard. She asked the members to read the letters.
KRF stated that the members will review all the letters. Members discussed continuing the hearing to September 11, 2007 @ 6:00 PM. JK noted he might have a work situation that will prevent him from attending a continued hearing on September 11. He will make every effort to attend. KRF stated she believes the town adopted a provision that allows members to miss one meeting but remain eligible to vote by reviewing the record of the public hearing. KRF asked Mary Albertson to confirm this fact. Emil George stated he would be willing to grant an extension if it is necessary. Discussion ensued and it was determined that an extension was not necessary at this time. At 8:10 PM a motion was made by JK and seconded by PM to continue the public hearing to September 11, 2007 @ 6:00 PM. All members in favor. Motion made by SS to adjourn and seconded by PM. All members in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary Albertson, Town Planner
| 
