Town of Lenox
Planning Board
July 8, 2008
BOS Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Joe Kellogg, JK; Steve Sample, SS; Kate McNulty-Vaughn, KM-V, Gary Schiff, GS
Staff present: Mary Albertson, Town Planner, MA; Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA
Presentation Affordable Housing Committee – Housing Planned Production Plan
David Klausmeyer, Chair of the committee and Olga Weiss, committee member, presented to the board their document for approval. The committee has worked over the last seven months to put together the plan. Among resources used for the data were the Berkshire County Association of Realtors Multiple Listings, the Town of Lenox and a handbook provided by the Commonwealth to those communities who are pursuing an affordable housing plan. Mr. Klausmeyer stated the committee reviewed the plans of other towns and utilized the “peer to peer exchange” to work with the town planner of Easthampton who shared that communities’ experience in compiling their plan.
The committee wants to have a community plan, an ongoing reference that will be updated every five years that can be used as a resource which will act as a protective barrier against non friendly Chapter 40 B projects. The town is required to have 10% of it’s housing stock in affordable housing in order to avoid non-friendly 40B projects. Lenox is at 7.8% which means that there is a need of 55 more units. As new homes are being built, the number of units needed to meet the 10% level increases. Once this plan is approved by DHCD, and provided Lenox is making an effort to meet the quota of 12 units a year, there is protection from a Chapter 40B project as the town works toward meeting the 10% requirement.
Both the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen have to approve the plan before it can be submitted to the Commonwealth for final approval. The Committee will be making their formal presentation to the BOS on July 9, 2008. It is hoped that both boards will move to approve within 30 days. It will then be submitted to the Commonwealth where it is expected to take another 60 to 90 days before final approval.
It is recognized that currently in Lenox the seniors have good housing, as approximately 80% of the affordable housing is focused on them, but the committee wants to provide the opportunity for ownership to families, as well as to create workforce housing. The goal is for permanent housing. The plan achieves what is required to have on file.
In closing, Mr. Klausmeyer and Ms. Weiss commended MA for her invaluable input. MA returned the praise to the committee, recognizing their diligence in research, follow-through and implementation of the plan. She pointed out that the deadline of completing the plan has been met.
Board members agreed to review the document before voting on whether to approve.
Informal Discussion – Draft Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw
JK said that the Board has a goal to have a Special Town Meeting in late Fall to ask for voter approval of amendments to the zoning bylaw. There are four possible amendments being considered:
1) Open space-clustering
2) Affordable housing-inclusionary
3) McMansions
4) Form based zoning
The Board has agreed to set aside time at regular meetings to discuss each of the four topics. Tonight’s meeting topic is inclusionary zoning.
MA provided handouts and began the discussion by explaining that inclusionary zoning is a technique used to require developers to set aside affordable housing units when they build new housing. The idea is not to punish developers, but to work with them to attain the town’s goal of 10 percent affordable housing. There are different thoughts on how to achieve additional affordable units including allowing buy-outs under certain circumstances and allowing units to be placed outside of the proposed development.
JK said that it has not been determined if inclusionary zoning is legal in Massachusetts.
JK recalled an interesting concept brought up during recent discussions with Mark Bobrowski. In a hypothetical scenario, involving an eight unit project, if the Town requires that one be designated as an affordable unit it is taking away a profit from a developer. If the Town instead were to allow a bonus unit to the proposed development of eight units, the ninth would be built at cost and it becomes the affordable unit. JK said there could be some resistance to this approach because it makes a project denser. The members discussed the pros and cons of this concept.
Participants in the discussion included David Klausmeyer, Olga Weiss, Rob Hoogs of Foresight Land Services and Attorney Philip Heller. Mr. Heller cautioned the board that they were creating a two step project that would require both a special permit and subdivision control. This he said would be a disincentive for a developer to build affordable housing. He used as an example the project that Canyon Ranch is currently building. It has 10 units each priced at $2.8 million. He said that if a developer were required to build an affordable unit, they probably would not proceed with the project.
Robb Hoogs stated that developers do not like the uncertainty that comes with the special permit process and having discretionary findings makes project susceptible to delay and exposes it to legal challenges.
Board members said they want a tool that gets affordable housing built. Moving away from the special permit to by right, where a project is not exposed to highly discretionary findings was discussed. It was noted that this could potentially be accomplished with a site plan review that is binding.
Additional points discussed included:
1. An alternative to a developer building a bonus unit would be to buy a single family house and placing a deed restriction on it to assure its affordability.
2. Having a trust fund for the purchase of affordable units.
3. Concerns about clustering affordable units.
In closing this discussion, JK said that there would be more informal discussions between now and the fall.
Joe Toole – Hampton Inn Address Matter. Mr. Toole was unable to attend tonight.
Phil Heller – Informal Discussion – Potential relocation of the Montessori School
Present were the following:
Attorney Philip Heller of Heller and Associates
Todd Covert of Montessori School in Lenox
Rob Akroyd of Greylock Design
Brandee Nelson, Project Manager/VP of Crawford & Associates Engineering, PC
Mr. Covert and his wife Meaghan Ledendecker own the Montessori School that is presently located at the Aspinwell Shops. Their class enrollment is growing and there is need for more space to accommodate the additional students.
A parcel on Patterson Rd. in Lenox Dale is being considered for the new location. The parcel, according to Mr. Heller, meets all density requirements in the R1A zone and consists of 28 acres with 150 feet of frontage on Patterson Rd., and 306 feet on Golden Hill Rd. An additional parcel of 12 acres will be combined with this. The proposed buildings will be 200 feet from all property lines and the activity is expected to take place within a 4 acre envelope. According to Mr. Heller, the project is by right and does not require a special permit.
Mr. Covert gave a brief history of the Montessori Method of teaching and the establishment of his school at Aspinwell in 2006. When the local school opened the enrollment was expected to be 15 students. The enrollment currently is over 30 students and it is anticipated that within 5 years the enrollment will be 100 students. At the proposed site they wish to create an authentic Montessori environment where the students will have closer contact with the outside environment. The structures, modular one story with green roofs, would have four separate class rooms with direct access to the court yard.
Mr. Hoogs described the project as low density. There are some wetlands, but the project will not alter any of them. Parking would be grass and gravel and is served by municipal water and sewer. The goal is to stay out of the buffer zone. A delineation of the wetlands will be done and presented to the Conservation Commission. Jeff Vincent has looked at this project and, according to Mr. Hoogs, feels that this usage is low impact.
SS asked if the entry could be relocated to Golden Hill, as with a previous project, there was neighborhood opposition to access on Patterson Rd. The proponents responded that they would like to do that, but wetlands prevent that access.
Rob Akroyd of Greylock Design described the topography and said that this project would be one-half of one percent coverage. The roadway, which will be 1000 feet long, will be 18 feet wide. This project is designed to not disturb ledge for site work. It may be necessary to have to do some rock excavation for utilities. Blasting cannot be ruled out, but if necessary would be low impact.
Ms. Nelson discussed the traffic issues. She discussed the drop off and pick up hours and number of vehicles for the existing Montessori schools and compared those with projected numbers at the new site. She has looked at the distribution of where families live and the traffic patterns for access to the new site. Students will be transported by passenger vehicles only and not buses. The school will propose that parents utilize a specific north bound and south bound route. From Lenox or Pittsfield, the route would be: Route 7 to Walker to Church to Golden Hill to Patterson and then into the school drive. From the south the route would be Route 20 to Golden Hill to the second Golden Hill to Patterson and then into the drive. The proponents want to work with the Town on putting in
additional traffic control signage. In response to a survey of the parents whose children attend the existing Montessori School, there is an interest in car-pooling.
Ann McIntosh, an abutter, expressed concern of traffic on Catherine, Golden Hill and Patterson Roads, and suggested that the children be left at another location other than the school and then transported together to the school to reduce the traffic. Ms. Nelson responded that this has not been discussed specifically, but the carpooling would reduce the traffic.
Mr. Heller will talk with Bill Thornton, the Building Commissioner, to confirm Mr. Heller’s opinion that this project is allowed by right. He said that though it is not required, the proponents want to meet with the neighbors on August 6, 2008 and asked the Board to sponsor the meeting. KM-V expressed concern about the Board being involved in hosting such a meeting. SS said that this has been done before and that by being present, the Board could answer any questions of the public. Mr. Heller referred to the state statute and said that the Planning Board is the official body concerning development in the town and feels that this is a duty of the Planning Board. He stated that if the Planning Board did not sponsor, the proponents would move forward to have the informational meeting. MA
said that because the Planning Board is not the primary permit granting authority this should not be a concern. Other members of the Board felt comfortable with sponsoring the meeting as long as it was made clear that we are not endorsing the project and have no authority over it.
Mr. Heller will check on the availability of meeting space.
Minutes June 10, 2008: GS made a motion to approve the minutes with changes and KM-V seconded the motion. The board voted to approve 3-0-1. SS abstained as he was not at the meeting.
Old Business
- Update on the Open Space and Recreation Plan-To be continued
- Update on Planning Board Vacancy- Mary Farley has withdrawn her application. The Selectmen are expected to make an appointment on July 30, 2008 at 7:00 pm. JK asked that if anyone else is interested in the position they should apply by then.
New Business- Public hearing notices from abutting towns were shared with the members.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
