Town of Lenox
Planning Board
December 11, 2007
Land Use Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Kim Reopell Flynn, KRF; Steve Sample, SS; Kate McNulty-Vaughn, KM-V and Joe Kellogg, JK
Members absent with notification: Pam Mackie, PM
Staff present: Mary Albertson, Town Planner, MA; Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA
6:15 PM Buccaneer Development, Inc, concerning property located at 12 East Street (Maps 4 and 34 Parcel 12) owned by Bernard D. Starr and Jana Starr. Special Permit 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, October 9, 2007, October 23, 2007, and November 20, 2007.
Present were the following proponents for the application:
Attorney Felicity Hardee of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP of Springfield, MA
Dan Rothchild of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP
Jim Scalise of SK Design Group, Inc.
Jonathan Griffis of Buccaneer Development, Inc.
KRF opened the continued Public Hearing at 6:27 PM by asking the applicant if they wished to add any further information relevant to the petition. Speaking for the applicant, Ms. Hardee inquired as to whether the sewer report had been received. KRF responded that the Board had received the sewer report as well as the most recent comments from Town Counsel. Ms. Hardee requested that if the application for the OSRD is denied the Board gives a specific basis for the denial.
It was announced to all present that the Public Hearing was being closed, however the Board would allow further comment before closing. No one wished to speak.
JK made a motion to close the public hearing and KM-V seconded the motion. The Board voted to close the hearing 4-0
The Board offered the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the Special Permit application without prejudice. The applicant chose to proceed.
JK made a motion to approve the Special Permit. KM-V seconded the motion.
JK said that in order to approve the Special Permit the Board has to make certain findings, both in accordance with the Special Permit requirements and with those of Section 14 of the Bylaw. He does feel that the petition comes close, but he does not believe that it completely meets the conditions and guidelines of the bylaw.
He stated that the standard dimensional and technical issues are clearly there as:
1. It does not disturb more than 50 percent of the total tract.
2. The road meets subdivision standards.
3. It meets unit density
4. A minimum of 30 percent of the parcel is restricted to open space, with no more than 50% of that constituting wetlands.
However, JK said that he could not find that this proposed development preserves and enhances the community character through greater flexibility and creativity or that it is a more efficient use of land than a traditional development. He said that he had asked twice at previous hearings if this project would use the same land as a traditional development and he was told that it would. For that reason he does not feel that this project has met that burden and that the project looks like a traditional subdivision. JK stated that it does not facilitate the construction, maintenance and provision of housing, streets, utilities and public services in a more economical and efficient manner. He further stated that the project is not essential or desirable to public convenience and that if anything
it would be a detriment to it relative to traffic and the impact to the neighborhood.
KRF said that she agrees with most of what JK stated. She feels the applicant has met the requirements of the OSRD as far as setbacks, building distances and the open space the applicant has reserved, but she has concerns about the amount of space reserved for the storm water management. Her biggest concern for the finding is that she does not feel the proposed use is essential or desirable; it does not give any more open space than traditional subdivision and does not serve any useful purpose. Traffic congestion and the impact on the sewer system were also of concern to her.
SS said the project is overwhelming for Lenox and he has a problem with an over 55 retirement community. It is not beneficial for the neighborhood or Town of Lenox. He said that while it may be financially nice for the developers, it is not the best for the residents who expect a certain standard of living given the wilderness and open spaces that define Lenox as the destination that it is. He concluded that with continued growth with projects such as this, he feels that the Town will lose that characteristic of the town, and he believes that preserving this characteristic is primarily what the Planning Board should do.
KM-V said the project still looks like a “cookie cutter” development. She also said that the wetlands controlled the development and the housing was pushed closer to the existing houses with no consideration to the impact to the existing houses. She does not feel that project is in the spirit of the OSRD the town envisioned when it was legislated.
On the motion to approve, the Board voted 0 in favor and 4 opposed, thereby denying the Special Permit.
The applicant was advised that the decision will be rendered as soon as possible and certainly within 90 days.
Other business:
Minutes:
1. November 27, 2007-JK made a motion to approve the minutes as amended and SS seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 3-0-1 with KM-V abstaining.
2. August 14, 2007-JK made a motion to approve the minutes as amended and KM-V seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 4-0.
Zoning Bylaw Rewrite: MA asked that the Board communicate their specific issues prior to the next Zoning Bylaw rewrite meeting.
JK made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 PM. KM-V seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0 to approve.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
