Town of Lenox
Planning Board
August 14, 2007
Land Use Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Kim Reopell Flynn, KRF; Steve Sample, SS; Pam Mackie, PM; Joe Kellogg, JK; Kate McNulty-Vaughan, KM-V
The meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m.
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).
(The Board had a site visit on August 4, 2007.)
Presenting the application was Emil George, attorney for Buccaneer; Jim Scalise and Sarah Schwartz from SK Design Group, Inc; Jon Dietrich, traffic engineer with Fuss and O’Neill; Don Ferry of Bradley Architects, Inc.
Also in attendance was Jonathan Griffis, the developer and Jason Berger, consultant.
Mr. George started his presentation by saying he understood that in order to make a determination the Planning Board would need to have a report from the Town’s private consultant with respect to sewer and water capacity based on SK Design’s plan. He stated he does not have that but will have during the continued hearings.
The proposal is for 34 units of housing: 16 duplex units, and two units for single family dwellings to be located on a 24.3 acre parcel in the R-1A zone. Open Space would comprise 7.29 acres of the property, 50% of which would not be wetland.
Mr. Scalise presented three illustrations for the project and discussed the requirements of the OSRD regarding open space and setbacks. The proposal is to carve out a parcel with 150 foot of frontage and appromimately 23 +/- acres for this retirement community development. The remaining property, which contains Mr. Starr’s residence, would also have 150 feet of frontage and a little more than an acre.
Fourteen acres of the parcel would be undisturbed. The requirements for open space are a minimum of 30 % of the parcel or 7.29 acres. The wetlands can only constitute 50% of open space or 3.65 acres. The upland portion is 3.72 acres which exceeds the requirement of 3.65 acres.
A density bonus is permitted in the OSRD for affordable housing. Mr. Scalise said that affordable housing is still open for discussion and was not a part of the project presented. One of the plans presented by Mr. Scalise illustrated what a 36 unit development would look like, with the inclusion of some affordable units and a lower setback requirement. The buildings are shown with reduced setbacks of 50% of the underlying zone or 20 feet. JK asked Mr. Scalise: “Are you determining that a setback is the distance required between buildings?” Mr. Scalise said he is not sure of the interpretation. He said his other option is a dimensional variance, but his understanding was that the Planning Board had latitude in lowering the setback requirement.
Mr. Scalise discussed the subdivision requirements for this project and in particular the following:
· Proposed sewage system;
· Wetland issues, storm water management policy and erosion control;
· Conservation Restriction and who might manage it;
· trees as property buffers: tree line varies from 25 to 40 within the property line where it had been previously thought that they were along the property line.
· Fire Department- Mr. Scalise has had conversations with Chief Dan Clifford regarding access in event of an emergency.
Mr. Dietrich presented a traffic analysis. He stated that traffic counts which were done before the end of the school year for a period of a seven continuous days showed an ADT (average daily trips) of 216 trips.
Among issues raised and discussed by the Board and applicant were:
· Definition of the open space boundaries and wetland boundaries
· Conservation Restriction: The maintenance of the CR could be the responsibility of the homeowner’s association and the Lenox Land Trust and Berkshire Natural Resources will be the enforcers.
· Affordable housing.
· Sewer agreement (with town) will be in writing.
· Effort will be made to replace trees that are taken down as a result of the project.
JK asked about reducing the area of the units to provide more open space. Mr. Scalise and Mr. George explained that the earlier designs were more clustered, but a 40 foot setback between buildings required by the Zoning Bylaws makes them less clustered. If the PB has the authority to reduce the setbacks the developer would redesign to be more clustered.
SS raises concerns about how homeowners and OS users could differentiate where the “backyards” end and the OS begins, and suggested that 10’ from the housing was too close.
KM-V questioned the number of duplexes on the plan, and suggested that the OSRD clearly limited a project to no more than 20% of units as duplexes.
If there are more issues besides clustering, Mr. George requested the Board’s input. The Planning Board indicated that it would refer questions to the Town Counsel for clarification. In particular, to be addressed would be questions regarding: Property set backs, distance between buildings, number and percent of duplexes allowed, the relationship of the OSRD to the underlying zoning, among other concerns raised in discussion.
Mr. Ferry reviewed the elevations and floor plans of the buildings proposed.
Public comments: (Approximately 30 residents were in attendance.)
1. Jim Herrick: Mr. Herrick believes that this project does not make sense in an R1A zone. He said that he understands from the Zoning Bylaw, that only 20% of the buildings can be duplexes.
2. Tim Face: Questioned the extent of the traffic study with regard to speed and said that pedestrian traffic was not considered. He pointed out that this is a congested area with driveways and intersections. Mr. Dietrich responded to the questions and gave further detail of his study. In making his calculations he used a number between seasonal and full time residences.
3. Tom Romeo: He does not see how this project enhances open space. He believes that if the parkway is extended to the other road and then space requested by the Fire Department is added for the wider road, he does not feel that this project meets the requirements of the OSRD. Mr. Scalise says there is misuse of the property at this time, and this project with the Conservation Restriction would be the enhancement. The road design was to reduce traffic.
4. Letter by Robert Grosz read by Jim Herrick.: Mr. Grosz opposes the size of the project.
5. Jim Herrick: He says that the present owner has done nothing to preserve this property.
6. (KRF told the audience that there are four other letters received that can be read by anyone interested.)
7. Pam Kueber, Town of Lenox Zoning Board Chair spoke as a citizen. She asked about Section 14. and felt it should be clarified. KRF said that this will be added to the questions to be presented to Town Counsel. JK said that if the Zoning Board does not grant the Special Permit for the retirement community, then the Planning Board could not grant the OSRD.
8. Letter of July 18, 2007 from Buccaneer to abutters was read by Richard Mendel
9. Amy Lafave: Ms. Lafave wanted to know who determines what is better, an unkempt meadow or development. Mr. George said that the Zoning Board contemplates development and the proponents of this project want to present the best plan possible. They want to preserve the open land so that there are no motorized vehicles. JK told Ms. Lafave that state law says that the Board has to make certain findings and document that they meet the standards of review. He added that the Board has to be realistic in making those findings.
10. Al Joyner: Mr. Joyner asked question regarding height of buildings and roof lines.
11. Richard Mendel: “If I am standing on open space, walking my dogs, what is a homeowner going to say?” Mr. Scalise and Mr. George responded that passive recreation is allowed and that they were unable to predict the reaction of a homeowner. In the area Mr. Mendel pointed out he said the distance would be five feet from one of the proposed units.
JK discussed the purpose and intent of the OSRD. He asked the proponent to compare this proposed project with an as of right development at this site with regard to disturbance of the land. Mr. George feels that the same amount of land would be disturbed.
Mr. George asked that the Board assist in helping to mold and shape the project. KRF said that there are many issues and that the Board needs legal interpretation before they can provide input. KM-V expressed her frustration with the interpretation of the Zoning Bylaw. JK said that it is fair for the proponents to ask the Board about their thoughts. He told Mr. George that he could not say that this project is not detrimental.
The PB wants an interpretation of the Zoning Bylaw by Town Counsel regarding setbacks between buildings and lot coverage. Both the proponents and the Planning Board felt that there needs to be clarification of the Zoning Bylaw before the hearing process could continue.
KM-V made a motion to continue the hearing to August 28, 2007 at 6:30 pm and JK seconded the motion. The Board agreed 5-0.
Minutes submitted for approval:
April 12, 2007: Public Hearing meeting: Hold for later discussion.
June 12, 2007: SS made a motion to approve the minutes as edited and JK seconded the motion. The Board voted approval 4-0 with PM abstaining due to absence.
July 24, 2007: JK made a motion to approve the minutes as edited and SS seconded. The Board voted approval 4-0 with PM abstaining due to absence.
JK made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. and SS seconded the motion. The Board agreed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
