Town of Lenox
Planning Board
October 23, 2007
Land Use Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Kim Reopell Flynn, KRF; Steve Sample, SS; Joe Kellogg, JK; Kate McNulty Vaughan, KM-V;
Pam Mackie, PM
Staff present: Mary Albertson, MA; Peggy Ammendola, PA
Minutes:
April 12, 2007 JK made a motion to approve the minutes and PM seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 3-0-2. KRF and KM-V abstained.
September 25, 2007 KRF signed the minutes which had been approved October 9, 2007.
October 9, 2007 SS made a motion to approve the minutes with edits and JK seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 4-0-1. PM abstained.
August 14, 2007 KM-V will send her comments via email to the Board members.
Other business:
· Berkshire Regional Planning Commission is hosting a dinner meeting at Zucchini’s in Pittsfield on November 29, 2007. Attending will be KM-V, KRF, JK and MA.
· On November 13, 2007 at 6:00 PM the Board will work on the Zoning By Law project. (Landuse meeting room.)
· Review of Notices and Decisions from abutting towns.
·
KRF recused herself, as she is employed by Attorney Phil Heller, and turned the meeting over to JK.
6:15 pm Essencials Day Spa, 55 Pittsfield Rd., Map 17 Parcel 40, SP under Section 6.6-1-E.10, Professional trades and crafts and site plan review under Section 6.4.1 to allow a spa and salon in an existing building. In the alternative, the petitioner is requesting a variance from Section 6.6-1.E.9, Personal Services business to locate a spa and salon in the C-3A Zoning District.
Presenting the petition were:
Attorney Phil Heller
Kelie Wright, President of Essencials Day Spa
David Case, Principal, Lenox Gateways, LLC
Jim Scalise, SK Design Group
Sarah Schultz, SK Design Group
Mr. Heller reviewed the application for the petition. He stated that Ms. Wright wishes to relocate her existing business in the rear building at Aspinwell. The existing building was 35,000 square feet, but recent demolition has reduced that to about 24,000 square feet. Ms. Wright will lease 8,000 square feet on the south end of that building. There will be a small screened porch that measures 12’ by 58’. The business will be 480’ from the rear line of the property. A new peaked roof will replace the existing flat roof.
Mr. Heller explained that spa and salon use is consistent with Section 6.6-1.E10 because the services provided by the employees of Essencials are professional in nature and the employees are required to have the education and specialized training to do their jobs. This use is allowed in the C-3A Zone. Mr. Heller said that if the Planning Board feels that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Zoning By Law under Section 6.6-1.E10, then he requests that a Variance be granted under Section 6.6-1.E.9. A Variance can be granted, he says, as there is a hardship in not being able to make reasonable use of this unusual, if not unique, substantial existing building as indicated by its long history of vacancy.
Mr. Case said that he purchased the property five years ago, and the key to “making it there” is in the back building, the proposed location of Essencials. In addition to reducing the size of the building, plans are to redesign the building to look like a barn. The existing roof is flat and the new peaked roof will not exceed the height restriction.
Mr. Scalise told the Board that this project is converting 8,000 sf of an existing retail space that has been referred to as Building # 12. Part of the building is being removed and converted to 68 parking spaces. Two units of the residential component and some available retail space from a previously approved plan have been removed resulting in the reduction of water usage by 2,000 gallons. The proposed use is an increase of 300 gallons a day, but with the removal of the residences and retail space, this amounts to 1700 gallons to the good. Mr. Scalise went over the water, sewer, drainage, traffic and parking, each resulting in less impact than was previously approved. There are no added impacts.
Ms. Wright told the Board that she is looking for a permanent home. Presently her business is located at Holmes Road and Routes 7 & 20. She has 24 employees and is looking to expand. This business would not include a hotel, restaurant or day care as it did in a previous application for another location.
KM-V made a motion to recommend approval to the Zoning Board and SS seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 4-0.
KRF rejoined the meeting as Chair and the meeting was moved to the auditorium.
6:45 pm Buccaneer Development, Inc, concerning property located at 12 East Street (Map 4 and 34 Parcel 12) owned by Bernard D. Starr and Jana Starr. Special Permit for designation under Section 14 for designation as an Open Space Residential Development (OSRD). Continued from August 14, 2007, August 28, 2007, September 11, 2007, September 25, 2007, and October 9, 2007.
Presenting the application were:
Attorney Felicity Hardee
Jim Scalise, SK Design Group
Sarah Schultz, SK Design Group
Ms. Hardee stated that the new plans being presented are a result of the comments made by the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Town Counsel. She reviewed the history of the Petitions by Buccaneer for the Special Permit for a Retirement Community and Open Space Residential District. During the process of hearings before the Planning and Zoning Boards, the Boards sought the advice of Town Counsel with regard to what authority the Planning Board has. His view is that the Planning Board is authorized to reduce set backs, but not the distance between buildings. Because Buccaneer is doing this project as a condominium the project is one lot. A variance would be needed for two-family construction that exceeds more than 20% of the total number of building lots/units. Ms.
Hardee said that when she started working with this project, she told the developer that he needed to eliminate the duplexes and maintain 40 feet distance between structures, increase the setbacks and reduce the density. This would meet the requirements of the OSRD and feels the Planning Board should approve the project.
Mr. Scalise presented the new site plan. He said that they have gone from a 34 unit project of 18 buildings to a twenty three unit project in 23 buildings. The roadway meets subdivision standards, the cul-de-sac has been reduced and the sewer, water and traffic have been proportionately reduced. The storm water management remains unchanged. The buildings are ? the size of the original duplexes and are single family, three bedroom homes. Setbacks have been increased from the abutting properties.
Mr. Scalise reviewed the design requirements for an OSRD and made the following points:
This is a one lot project.
They are not proposing affordable housing units.
The set back requirements have been met under this new plan.
There is to be a report on the sewer and water, but under a new process, the Town has to set up an account and the applicant will fund it.
There have been discussions with the Fire Chief and a letter with his comments is forthcoming.
Five lights are being proposed for the intersection and common drives.
KRF asked about the size of the footprint. Mr. Scalise said that it is 2035 square feet; the duplexes would have been double that. The total living area is 2910 square feet. The deck and garage would be 595 square feet.
KRF asked about the open space and conservation restriction. Mr. Scalise said that neither the open space nor conservation restriction have changed with the new plan. The applicant will have to either file for another Notice of Intent to reflect the changes, or file an amended NOI.
KRF expressed her concern about the glut of condominiums. In response Ms. Hardee said that developer is experienced and that he would not be spending the time, energy and money if he did not think it would be successful.
JK wanted clarification of the open space demarcations. Mr. Scalise said that there will be permanent markers delineating where open space begins either with boulders or 18 inch markers. JK brought up a statement made by Emil George, previous attorney for the project, that a traditional subdivision, built as of right, would disturb the same amount of property as the previously proposed project and asked if this would change with the new plan. Mr. Scalise said that it would not change. Mr. Scalise added that currently there is no protection of this land and that as the wetland matures, it will become more and more marginal as a wetland and in 20 years one may be able to develop all of the property with a traditional subdivision.
KM-V asked about the proposed homes. Mr. Scalise said that they will be two-story, similar design, and with walk out basements.
KM-V inquired about hiring a consultant to provide a report related to water and sewer. Ms. Hardee said that she has been in contact with MA and is working toward getting this set up with the Department of Public Works. It is understood that this report has to be reviewed before the Board can render a decision.
KM-V also sought clarification of the project being one lot. Ms. Hardee said that if this were a traditional subdivision, there would be 13 lots, but as a retirement condominium community, it is one lot.
SS said that when the OSRD was being discussed as an addition to the Bylaw, he expected a cluster, not a row of houses. He is concerned that it looks like row houses. He concedes that the applicant has improved a lot, but suggested eliminating a few units or rearranging in different locations.
Mr. Scalise said that they are handcuffed by the Zoning bylaw and have done everything and he feels this project meets the letter of the Bylaw
Ms. Hardee expressed the difficulty of trying to accomplish everything that is in the Bylaw; comply with Town Counsel as well as the abutters’s requests. She said that in some respects this project is a less creative use of the space, but to accommodate all of the requirements, this is the best effort of what they can do. She expressed disappointment that duplexes were not permitted, because she feels that duplexes would allow more clustering, more density and in some places, allow for open space, but TC said that the applicant can’t have duplexes with out a variance. Ms. Hardee said that from the applicant’s point of view, this isn’t exactly what he wanted, but it is their best effort to reconcile all of the requirements.
KM-V says the projects looks “so urban”.
JK stated that the applicant has come closer to the intent of the Bylaw, but has not met the minimum requirements. He feels the applicant has not minimized the amount of land of disturbance.
In response to the comments of the Board, Mr. Scalise said that as far as the layout with respect to open space, that under a conventional design, there would be zero open space, and with this project there is 30% open space. He cited Section 14 of the Zoning Bylaw and said that this project meets the third item: To facilitate the construction, maintenance and provision of housing, streets, utilities and public services in a more economical and efficient manner.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Jim Herrick: He thought that the OSRD was to provide a cluster development with 3-4 houses and should mirror the R1A Zone; one acre required for a building. Condos are not allowed in R1A zoning. There is room for 7-8 building lots. KRF responded that the OSRD provides for a lot reduction in consideration of open space. He thought the OSRD was intended to benefit the town, but feels that it is a danger and would like to have it eliminated. He does not feel that there is open space, that 70 percent of it is used for storm water management.
Mr. Scalise responded to the main points presented by Mr. Herrick:
1) There could have been more open space on this plan, but instead the proponents decided to provide more setbacks from buildings in proximity to the neighbors as abutters requested.
2) The swales were put in place to address the concerns of the Brown Street residents
Richard Mendel: Mr. Mendel said that the property is zoned R1A and that the neighbors have rights too. He does not feet that this plan is a reduction as the number of buildings has increased to 23. He thinks that the project should look like the surrounding neighborhood.
Bob Grosz: Mr. Grosz asked what the difference was between a subdivision and a retirement community. KRF described the requirement of both and said that this is a condominium development on one lot in which an owner owns a percentage of interest. He commented that three of the houses will block his view of October Mountain therefore affecting the value of his property. He is still concerned about the traffic generated by the project.
Edmund Dana: He stated that it appears that the changed project still fails to conform to the Zoning By Law Section 6.1.1.C and D.
Tim Face: Mr. Face wanted to know if previous comments from other hearings are being taken into consideration with the new plan. KRF assured him that all comments are being considered. Even with the reduction, he is still very concerned about the traffic generated by the project and the increased value of his property as a result of this project.
Valerie Herrick: Expressed concern about value of all homes. Would abutter Courant be able to stay in his home.
Jan Chague: Even with the reduction in the size of the project, she feels that 23 buildings on this parcel are too many because this parcel is in the R1A zone. Ms. Chague believes there should be no more than 6-10 buildings and that with the changes in the project, another conservation review should be required.
Al Joyner asked for clarification on the easement.
Brian Shepardson: He asked how the “55 and older” project could be enforced. KRF explained that one individual residing in the dwelling would have to be 55 years old or older and that if it is reported that residents are not in compliance, action could be taken.
Susan Dana: In spite of effort to redesign and reduce the size of the project, Ms. Dana said there are still too many units.
Richard Mendel: He asked for clarification on this parcel being one lot. KRF responded that this is one lot, but that if someone wanted to create a subdivision, then there could be several one acre lots. As a retirement community, this parcel is one lot.
Sarah Grosz: She emphasized that this development will destroy the view.
Jim Herrick: Mr. Herrick made a point that setbacks and distance between buildings should not be considered open space.
Bob Grosz: Mr. Grosz said that since the plan has changed so much, the applicant should start a new process. KRF said that the Planning Board is not prepared to render a decision at this meeting, and that time is being allowed to look at the changes. The Board told the audience that the proposal is being modified in response to comments by the boards and the public, and did not warrant a new application.
With regard to conservation issues, Mr. Scalise said that the changes in the project would require that the applicant go to the Conservation Commission with either a new Notice of Intent or for an amended Order of Conditions.
DPW Superintendent Jeff Vincent told the Board that he expected the sewer and water report to take 2-3 weeks.
Ms. Hardee stated that she and her client had hoped that they could have met on Nov 13. Recognizing that the impact study would not be complete by that time, the Board decided to continue the hearing. Discussion ensued with Ms. Hardee regarding a date for the continued hearing. The 13th was not available. The two dates discussed were November 20 and November 27. The 27th is a regular meeting night and the 20th would be a special meeting. Ms. Hardee noted she would rather the hearing be held on November 20th. JK made a motion to continue the hearing to Nov. 20, 2007 at 6:30 PM. KM-V seconded the motion and the Board voted to approve 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
