Town of Lenox
Planning Board
November 12, 2013
Land Use Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Kate McNulty-Vaughan, KMV; Steve Sample, SS; Mark S. Smith, MS; Kameron Spaulding, KS; Gary Schiff, GS
Selectman present: Channing Gibson, CG
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA; Mary Albertson, Town Planner, MA
Approval Not Required Plans-There were none.
Planning Board Recommendations to Town Boards and Commissions- 67 Church Street, LLC, concerning property located at 67 Church Street, (Map 43, Parcel 181). The property is in the Commercial “C” zone.~The Petitioner requests a Special Permit under Sections 3.1.12 and 3.3.2 of the Zoning Bylaw to convert the second floor of 67 Church Street to a residential dwelling unit.
Reviewed Correspondence from Abutting Communities
Discuss Economic Development-The Board feels that a more formal approach should be taken by working with a consulting firm and having a thorough study done regarding fiscal analysis. MA has spoken with Judi Barrett, Director of Municipal Services, of RKG Associates who has estimated this cost to be $25-30,000. Once there is a firm plan, the Board will make a presentation to the Board of Selectmen.
CG asked the question regarding a comparison of Lenox’s sewage hook-up fees with surrounding communities. It is believed that the fees are considerable higher in Lenox and he wondered if it could be a barrier to business. Discussion ensued with regards to hook-up fees. MA will follow up with Jeff Vincent, Co-Town Manager, former DPW Superintendent.
Continued Discussion - Sign Regulations- MS, MA and KMV met today and have decided that since the sandwich signs in the Historic District were dealt with last year, temporary signage along Routes 7 & 20 needs to be addressed next and it is felt it is an achievable goal to bring a proposal to the Annual Town Meeting in May. It was decided to have this on the agenda January 28, 2014. The Board will speak to the property/business owners along the corridor in advance of the meeting to ask them to attend and participate. CG asked that MA ask Mary Ellen Deming to put this on the BOS agenda.
Update on the Open Space and Recreation Plan- The state is still reviewing the plan. The Board of Selectmen has approved the formation of the Land Management Committee and KS has said that he is interested in being on that committee.
Minutes-October 22, 2013-This was tabled until the next meeting.
Open Session (for Topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance) Financial Disclosure statement- GS signed, as it was thought only ones who ran this year for a seat on the Planning Board were to sign, but later it was learned that all members of the Board must sign. Follow up for the next meeting.
Spring Lawn Presentation – Turnberry Consulting
A Special Permit application has been filed by Lenox, Spring Lawn GP, LLC for the property located at 10 Kemble St, Map 7 Parcel 22-5. The Public Hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for December 4, 2013, 7:00 pm, at the Lenox Town Hall.
Presenting the application was co-owner of Spring Lawn, James Jurney Jr., Project Manager Josh Martin, AICP, CNU-A of Turnberry Consulting US, Inc., Washington, DC ~and Rob Coakley, principal of Lenox, Spring Lawn GP, LLC. Also present was Gwen Jurney.
In addition there was Clarence Fanto of the Berkshire Eagle and approximately six members of the public. Extra copies of the Spring Lawn Special Permit Application Appendices and Special Permit Application were made available to the audience to review.
KM-V advised those in attendance that the Zoning Board of Appeals was the permit granting authority and the Planning Board could only make a recommendation to the ZBA. The purpose of this meeting, she said, is for the Board to review and to allow the public the opportunity to interface with the applicants.
Mr. Jurney said that his father, James Jurney Sr., purchased the property eight years ago with the intention of developing the property as a luxury resort. The permit process was more difficult and took longer than they expected. In 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the Jurneys a variance which allows resort activity. The decision was appealed to the Housing Court and subsequently remanded to the ZBA. In April of 2009, the original decision was upheld by the Zoning Board with the addition of eight conditions which were agreed to by both the petitioner and the appellant.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts maintains a Historic Preservation/Conservation Restriction on the property which contains the mansion and carriage house, which means that any proposed renovations or rehabilitation will have to satisfy the purpose of the restriction. During the delays, the family has been committed to preventing the two structures from further degradation and made improvements to the infrastructure, i.e., bringing in new drainage, sewer, water and three- phase electrical. Hook ups will be completed when the project gets underway.
Mr. Coakley spoke of his involvement with DPS Development Co., LLC where the firm worked with large destination developments. When the financial crisis of 2008 occurred, the focus turned to smaller scale projects. He said the goal is to use innovative marketing to attract visitors to this legacy property who may have been unaware of the Berkshires and he sees this as a great benefit to the town.
Mr. Martin’s presentation included a power point presentation and highlights of the application regarding zoning. He reviewed the existing conditions and the proposed project for the two parcels of approximately 30 acres. On the 13 acre parcel there are two cottages that are beyond repair and the proposal is to demolish both.
There is a trail access agreement which goes from Kemble Street to Old Stockbridge Road. The trail was never completed, nor formally marked, but will be with this project and a couple of minor revisions will be shown on the plan to be submitted to the state. The plan will depict how the trail connects to Old Stockbridge Road. KM-V said that the language in the application needs to be clarified regarding the maintenance of the trail.
The proposal is for a restaurant, most likely a bar, and 20 units within the main house and two new settlement areas of no more than 75 units within 13 buildings. Also it is planned that the carriage house will have a new addition that is to house a fitness studio, but there will be no lodging units in that structure. The project will be done in phases, each of which will be brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals for detailed site plan review. Phase one will be full renovation of the main house and carriage house. The rehabilitation, preservation and maintenance of this property will follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and the project must have approval from DCR before it can move forward.
Following the presentation, Board members and members of the audience were given the opportunity to ask questions.
GS expressed support, stating that he was happy that this project is being pursued as it is the type of project the Planning Board has been wanting, but he suggested consideration be given to the aesthetics of the new construction. His personal opinion is that the plan for the new buildings is too urban and uninteresting and suggests that the proposed architectural detail be reviewed.
Dave Klausmeyer stated he is in favor of bringing to life the Spring Lawn estate but asked about issues related to lighting, employee parking, and noise and asked at what point details such as this would be addressed. Mr. Martin said that at each stage of construction the applicants will return with detailed site elements for the public review process. Mr. Klausmeyer supported GS in his suggestion that the architectural details should be more in line with what exists with this property.
Marie Cloutier asked about how this project would impact on the electrical grid. She has had issues with losing power frequently and is concerned this project will make her problem worse. Ms. Jurney explained that in 2006, the Jurney family brought three phase electric power from Walker St. in anticipation of the need for this project and others have been able to use it. Ms. Cloutier said she has another issue with the noise from mowing the lawns of the Jurney’s property. The Jurneys said that the mowing has always been going on, but with more plantings this may help to screen and lessen the noise level for her.
George Wislocki of Pittsfield identified himself as having spent his lifetime working with conservation restrictions and said that Historic Preservation/Conservation Restrictions are especially difficult and in order to fully understand he suggested the applicants and Board invite experts on the matter on both the state and federal level to explain it. Mr. Jurney said that his family has been in direct communication with the DCR and that their representatives have been to Spring Lawn a number of times. He added that in the beginning he and his family were very naïve relative to the restrictions, but understands and appreciates the work this agency does. Mr. Wislocki was pleased to hear this.
Ms. Cloutier asked if there would be parking for the trails. KM-V said the Board would look into parking.
Bill Chapman, 31 Kemble St., said that an issue separate from this project is the lack of signage in the area of Spring Lawn when concerts are held at Trinity Episcopal Church. KM-V said the Board would follow up with the Police Department.
Mr. Klausmeyer also asked if the Jurneys would be a part of a network for a future trail that would connect Ventfort Hall, Trinity Episcopal, and Shakespeare and Company. Mr. Jurney said that there had been an effort in the past, but the effort stumbled on the number of easements that would be required on residential properties. He said that Ventfort, Trinity, Shakespeare and his family had been in favor of a trail network.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
