Town of Lenox
Planning Board
January 14, 2014
BOS Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Kate McNulty-Vaughan, KMV; Mark S. Smith, MS; Gary Schiff, GS; Kameron Spaulding, KS
Absent with notification: Steve Sample, SS
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA; Mary Albertson, Town Planner, MA
Approval Not Required Plans-Toole Properties 2001, Inc., West side of Pittsfield Rd. (Routes 7 & 20) across from Holmes Road. Map 33 Parcel 1-(KMV recused herself as she has conflict of interest)
Presenting the ANR for Toole Properties which owns several lots on Pittsfield Road was Attorney Rich Dohoney. Jim Seidl of SK Design who prepared the plan was also present. There are two Conservation Restrictions which have been approved by the state and town bodies and needs one more signature to be able to record at the Registry of Deeds. This plan tracks two parcels that the Conservation Restrictions are on and carves off one parcel at the northern end that belongs to Toole Properties 2006, which is not a part off the CR, and conveying it to Toole Properties Inc., an adjacent property. This piece is not subject to the Conservation Restriction and it is being conveyed to Toole Properties Inc. to be one parcel. It is a lot line adjustment and not creating a new lot. It is merely a change
of ownership; one is subject to the CR and the other is not.
GS made a motion to approve the ANR as presented and KS seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 3-0.
Definitive Subdivision Hearing - Lenox Gateway, LLC/LD Associates Inc. – Lenox Wood South, 55 -
The Public Hearing notice was read into the record.
Making the presentation was Jim Seidl of SK Design Group.
MA explained that because this parcel lacks the frontage for an ANR the applicant has to file for a Definitive Plan. In order to do that, they first have to get permission from the ZBA. On August 17, 2013, the applicants appeared before the ZBA and received approval for the Modification of Special Permits, Waiver and Site Plan Approval.
This submission is to divide the southerly residential lot from the existing Assessor’s Map 17 and Parcel 40 property. Plans are to build four residential buildings with three units for each building. This lot has to be separated from the commercial lot. They have road access, so they will not be building a new street. Creating this separate lot is for legal and financial reasons.
KMV said this plan meets any adequacy issues as it has already been vetted before the ZBA and the waiver for the frontage requirements has been granted.
MS made a motion to close the public hearing. KS seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 4=0.
KS made a motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision, Form “C”, as presented and MS seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 4-0.
Route 7/20 – C1 A and C3 A Sign Discussion
In attendance for this discussion was Jim Nejaime, the owner of Spirited; Building Commissioner Bill Thornton; Ethan Berg, Chair of the Zoning Board; and Dave Ward, the owner of Lenox Commons.
MS said that he personally contacted between 20-30 business owners along Routes 7 & 20 to get their input on temporary signage and a flyer was published and made available. KMV said that there is a provision in the zoning bylaw that allows temporary signs, but that it is contradictory. The BOS can grant temporary signage for the duration of two weeks. The Board is looking for feedback from the business owners to find something which would be more effective. It is felt that sandwich board signs are not appropriate for the highway whereas they are in the Historic District.
Mr. Nejaime said that he puts up a flag sign on each Saturday which he finds is very effective for his business. He suggested that the bylaw should have a provision for this type of signage on a long term basis. He also felt that perhaps there should be a formula or a percentage of the cubic square foot of a business be used to determine size allowed for a sign. The Different Drummer sign is very effective and allowing this type of sign would be an advantage with two or three lines of interchangeable information. Consideration should be given for additional tenants in a building. Allowing by right but within set parameters was also suggested.
Mr. Thornton suggested the Board revisit setbacks for signs. The widening of the highway several years ago has made most signage non-compliant but they are grandfathered. An incentive should be considered for those who would like to improve their signage, but are concerned about losing their grandfathered status. He agrees that the Different Drummer sign is a very good signage for the highway and he feels that businesses should have the option to install this type of signage as well as interior illuminated signs as the externally lit signs get covered with snow or damaged by the snow plows.
Mr. Ward said he would like to have sandwich board signs within the shopping center.
It was agreed that there is a need to clarify the language, a need to enforce and to allow businesses to have what they need to grow and prosper.
CR~Resorts, LLC, for premises located at Canyon Ranch, 165 Kemble Street, (Map 7, Parcel~43). (1) a Modification of a Special Permit dated December 6, 1999 allow for the construction of a 440~sq. ft. addition onto the spa building, the elimination of existing maintenance buildings and the construction of a new indoor maintenance and storage building; (2) Site plan approval to construct 19 condominium apartments in one building to be connected by an 880 sq. ft. enclosed walkway to the existing resort buildings; and (3) a waiver of the height requirement under Section 4.1.1, Footnote (3) The public hearing before the ZBA is on January 22, 2014
Mr. Hoogs was available to answer questions regarding the site plan and grading plan. Each item was reviewed and questions by the Board were answered to their satisfaction.
There was consensus among the Board that they were favorable to the concepts and the improved site plan.
MA will draft a letter of recommendation to the Zoning Board and forward to the members for their review prior to submitting it to the Zoning Board.
Brushwood Nominee Trust 36 Pittsfield Road (Map 17, Parcel 41), for: (1) Special Permits Section 3.1.F.11, 5.1.7, 5.2.4(3); (4) & Footnote (3) of Section~4.1.1; and (5) Site Plan Approval under Section 9.5 of the Lenox Zoning Bylaw re: construction of a 92 room hotel on 6.68 acres.
There were fifteen members of the public present.
On December 10, 2013, the Planning Board heard the application of Brushwood Nominee Trust for a Courtyard by Marriott project. This was an opportunity for the Board to review and members of the public to ask questions in advance of the public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the permit granting authority.
On December 17, 2013, the Board submitted a letter to the ZBA offering their comments regarding the proposed plan. The Board determined that the use of the site for the hotel was appropriate and stated they had the following two concerns:
Traffic Assessment
Waiver of maximum height of the hotel
With regards to Traffic Assessment, the Board wanted the study expanded for traffic counts to include the busier months of July and August and they wanted additional review of the pedestrian crossing.
With regards to the waiver of maximum height, the concern was focused on the visual impact of a four story hotel given the site topography and proximity to the highway.
Comments from that meeting also included concern related to the mass and design, but were not addressed in the letter.
KMV said that the purpose of this second review by the Board was the result of the ZBA’s public hearing on January 8, 2014 whereby the Planning Board’s letter was read. The proponents responded to the Planning Board’s comments by making changes and also provided to the ZBA a Supplemental Traffic Memorandum. The ZBA requested that the Planning Board look at this additional information and provide further comments with reference to height, building design and site. KMV added that the Board has received letters which the Board is not required to read, as the ZBA is, and suggested anyone who wants to put their comments in a letter, to send to the ZBA.
Mr. Toole stated his objective for tonight’s meeting was to address concerns of the Board and the public and listed the following:
-Architectural concerns
-Provide additional perspectives and new cross section vehicular views
-Explanation of logic and appropriateness of applying outside of the overlay as a low traffic generating use
-Constraints of building placement with respect to topography, wetland buffers and the proximity to the priority habitat
-Illustrate how this project works well for the community’s desired future, how it provides adequate access for safety, consistent with zoning in the Master Plan and adequate utilities and services
Mr. Toole showed three renderings, the original which was presented to the Board on December 10th, the second one that was presented to the ZBA which included changes he felt would address the Planning Board’s concerns and the latest one that was developed based on comments by the ZBA and the public. This third rendering incorporates design elements of the surrounding area and includes a mansard roof and gables. This design is intended to mitigate the appearance in bulk and to look more historic. Eventually the view from the highway will almost be eliminated by the proposed extensive landscaping. Mr. Toole shared parts of an unsolicited letter of strong support he received from Albert Harper in which Mr. Harper made reference to the Elija Root Home of 1792 which is on the southern portion of the
Hashim property. Mr. Harper expressed that the historic interest of the town could be best served by promoting the area so that someday someone may rehabilitate the Root Home so that it doesn’t continue to decay and ultimately meet the fate of the two houses across the street that were demolished this year.
Mr. Akroyd provided visual perspectives from the highway southbound and northbound, and changes in planting plan to mitigate the view from the highway 3-5 year progression.
Attorney John R. Gobel addressed the Board as to the applicability of Gateway Mixed Use Development Overlay District to this project.~ Just because the project lies in the Overlay District, this does not require that the project be subject to the Overlay District regulations. (Section 8.2 of the ByLaw.)~ It is the developer’s option – if the Developer seeks authority to develop a use not otherwise allowable in the zone.~
The C3A zone under the By-Law prohibits certain uses (in Section 3.1): Retail establishments and movie theaters, among others – businesses that generate high levels of traffic.~ The Gateway Mixed Use Development Overlay District was created to allow those uses in a development project that includes a mixture of uses.
Section 8.2.1 states that the purpose of the Overlay regulations is to “foster a greater opportunity” for creative developments for a mix of uses – a “Mixed Use Development.”~
Accordingly, the Gateway Mixed Use Development Overlay District:
- Allows uses otherwise prohibited in C3A – such as retail and movie theaters (Section 8.2.5.)
- Simplifies the permitting process – one application for all uses (Section 8.2.4.)
But, the Gateway Mixed Use Development Overlay District:
- Requires 10% residential use (Section 8.2.8.1.)
- Requires 25% dedicated open space (Section 8.2.9.)
While a Hotel is an eligible use in the Gateway Mixed Use Development Overlay District under Section 8.2.5 (since it is already permitted in the underlying C3A zoning district), and while a Hotel is not one of the prohibited uses under Section 8.2.6, a Hotel use is not mentioned in Section 8.2.1.1 – the uses otherwise disallowed in the C3A zone that can be permitted using the Gateway Mixed Use Development Overlay District procedure. ~Moreover, Section 8.2.3 provides that “Except as modified or superseded, the regulations of the underlying district apply.”~ The point is that Section 8.2 does not modify regulations respecting hotels.~ Accordingly, the usual requirements – Section 6.1 and the Special Permit ZBA process – apply.
As the Planning Board found in its December 17, 2013 letter: “the use of the site for a hotel is appropriate.”~ If Mr. Toole wanted to include retail, he’d have to use the Section 8.2 Overlay regulations.~ Since his proposed use is permitted by Special Permit under Sections 3.1 and 6.1, he does not have to.
The zoning bylaw gives a developer the option of:
Using the Overlay District if it wants the bonus of a use not allowed in the C-3A zone and is willing to accept the requirement of including residential dwellings, or not usethe Overlay District and develop a use that is allowed in the C-3A zone by special permit.
GS, referring to The Lenox Gateway Development Plan, stated he felt the building design, mass, height and placement was contrary to the spirit and intent of concepts outlined in the Gateway Plan and recognition of the concepts should be given whether filed under a Special Permit or the Overlay District.
Attorney Gobel responded that outside of the pure context of Section 8.2 of the zoning bylaw, the renderings that have been changed to be more like a New England style and appear historic as a result of comments. He said he feels the screening and view control is very attractive for the gateway region. He said the pure applicability of this section of the bylaw is very clear that the hotel is not subject to the Lenox Gateway.
GS argued that Gateway Plan is the concept the Town put forward and projects should meet the standards of Lenox. He also commented that the proponents are proposing to spend ten million dollars for a building that they think will look like some of the surroundings and then screen it, which, he feels, defeats the purpose. GS said the mass of the three different proposed structures hasn’t changed, only the façade, and the applicant is still asking for a height above and beyond what the Gateway District calls for.
Attorney Gobel pointed out that Section 4.1 of the bylaw specifically says that in the commercial zone height can go as high as 50 feet and there is no presumption that it shouldn’t. He added that 35 feet is the overall height for all buildings of all kind, but can go as high as 50 feet in the commercial zone.
GF’s response to this was: “But it has the gateway overlay concept floating on top of it.”
To which Attorney Gobel responded “If it applies.”
MS stated the Board does not dispute the issue of use, but he doesn’t think the third rendering presented tonight looks like a building in New England, but looks more like a “French Empire” building which he feels doesn’t address the concerns about the design
Mr. Hoogs said that his firm has done most of the site work and he feels that the project fits in with the spirit and intent of the Gateway Plan. In developing the plan they looked at the zoning bylaw and environmental sensitive design principles and designed the project to fit the site and minimize the impacts which is consistent with the Gateway Master Plan. The building site was selected to protect the wetlands; there will be no work in the buffer with the exception for a sewer line and rare plant species are protected. Only 1/3 of the site has impervious surfaces. This project utilizes an existing shared driveway and traffic light which is very similar to what is in the Gateway plan. The project keeps the site work and building as compact as possible which preserves green space. An alternative to
the four story plan would be a three story which would have a peaked roof and the building height would be reduced by only four feet lower but 52 feet longer and would unnecessarily use more open space. The architectural design submitted as a result of comments has a mansard roof, the height and massing are different, and incurs vernacular architecture. Mr. Hoogs said that, following the Zoning Board’s hearing, the architect worked from images of buildings in Lenox in developing this design which is referred to as French Empire. He noted that this design exists in New England and in Lenox, one of which is located on Walker Street. Mr. Hoogs said that from the beginning, the team has tried to incorporate many design elements of the area and work within the spirit and intent of the Gateway District. He explained that a three story smaller building set back 75 feet from the highway would visually appear far more massive. Mr. Hoogs said that
the creation of the Gateway District was a conscious effort to reduce traffic by taking away large traffic generating uses and allow mixed use with a residential component. A hotel is allowed under a Special Permit and a residential component doesn’t fit.
MA asked Mr. Hoogs to elaborate on how constraints affected the planning for this project. GS asked Mr. Hoogs to also answer why a 92 room hotel could not be accommodated in a lower rise. Mr. Hoogs responded that there would be greater physical impacts to the site and the plan that has been presented could not be altered, so the project would have to start all over from the beginning. A change would affect wetlands, the existing driveway could not be changed, more earth work would be necessary, there would be less meadow and more work in the buffer zone. The meadow in front would be eliminated, which he said he understood this to be an important component in the Gateway Plan. Mr. Hoogs concluded that Dobson and Associates the Gateway Plan is for guidance and establishes some criteria that may or may not be
applicable. The proponents have tried to incorporate as many of the elements as they could for a free standing development which provides a catalyst for future development on the rest of the Brushwood Farm property.
Mr. Hoogs presented the photometric plan and said they comply with the zoning bylaw regarding lighting.
KMV briefly summarized 3 letters from George Jordan in which she said are not in support of the project. It was then determined that public comment should be taken rather than to read the letters submitted to the Board. KMV told the members of the audience who wanted to comment to remember to keep their comments limited to the issues of design, style, site plan and height.
Patty Spector asked about a rare plant on the side of the driveway. KMV responded that Natural Heritage has approved the plan. She suggested the hotel be redesigned.
John Toole said he was confused regarding the Board’s measuring of the project to the Gateway Overlay versus the Special Permit. KMV explained the role and responsibilities of the Planning Board.
Jim Harwood questioned the materials that are being used and the design. He feels the structure could be moved back rather than placing forward. He expressed concerned about the view shed and asked about floating balloons to indicate the placement of the hotel for everyone to see. Mr. Harwood said that the ZBA has 6-7 criteria to determine a special permit and analyzed the petition to compare to the criteria. He questioned most aspects of the project and opined that the applicants are not interested in following the Town’s wants that are described in the Gateway Plan.
Phil Halpern, owner of Brook Farm Inn, a bed and breakfast, spoke in favor of the Marriott for its reputation and feels it would be a catalyst for future development on the site, describing the existing structure as decrepit. He feels the structure is attractive, and we are fortunate to have a developer who is willing to invest in Lenox. He feels Mr. Toole has been responsive to the comments and the project will create jobs and a provide revenue for the town. Height, he said, is not an issue.
Robert Healy, who said that he and his wife own the Chambery Inn, stated he is a life-long resident, and has worked with Mr. Toole. He feels the hotel is perfect for the property. Height is not an issue and observed that others have sought height waivers and they have been granted. He believes the Marriott will bring a desirable clientele to the town.
KMV was unsure as to whether the other letters should be reviewed, read as a committee, or to the public. KS said he read the letters prior to the meeting and stated that there are no new points to mention. KMV will read the letters on her own and asked the others to do so as well. The Board will make their recommendation to the ZBA at the next meeting. The letters will be available for the public to read at the office or if they prefer copies can be emailed upon request.
Mr. Toole felt the Board needed to know that he can’t move the structure back because of the potential of endangered species, but if moved forward it would be visually more massive. He understands the Board wants him to work within the gateway philosophy, and he says he has read the design standards within that document, and he feels that he meets all of them.
MS said he appreciates the work Mr. Toole and his team have put into the project and throughout the meetings. He likes the current design better than the other two, but he wants to like it more and he feels Mr. Toole is getting there.
GS stated that the Board is thrilled that Mr. Toole is here and feels his project is a “net plus”. He has an issue with the mass and size and compared it to a Marriott in Middlebury, VT which is 2.5 stories high with a hip roof and clapboard siding. GS feels that building fits at that location and is on the road, and not screened. He said the Board wants Mr. Toole to build a project that they want to see.
Mr. Toole said that he cannot change the footprint, size of land, move the siting toward the back and moving it forward will eliminate the desirable meadow. He doesn’t agree with the argument regarding mass, but said that if mass is an issue, the proposed screening would block the view.
The Board continued this matter to January 28, 2014 to discuss additional comments to the ZBA.
Approve Minutes: December 10, 2013-KS made a motion to approve with minutes with changes and GS seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 4-0 with changes.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
