Town of Lenox
Planning Board
February 10, 2015
Auditorium
Members present: Chair Kameron Spaulding, (KS); Mark S. Smith, (MS); Tom Delasco, (TD); Kate McNulty-Vaughan, (KMV); Linda Messana (LM)
Staff present: Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA; Gwen Miller, Land Use Director and Town Planner (GM)
Also present: Town Manager Chris Ketchen and Selectman Ken Fowler
Number of members of the public: Including members of the press, there were 19 who signed in, but a count put the number at about 40.
Form A Margaret Houdek, 64 Walker St., aka Walker House- Patrick McColgan presented the Form A to the Board. Ms. Houdek wishes to convey to the abutter, the Frederick, LLC a little over an acre. KMV made a motion to approve the Form A and MS seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 5-0.
Front Yard, LLC, Elm Court, 310 Old Stockbridge Road (Map 3, Parcel 4), Special Permit for access to the resort via Old Stockbridge Road in Lenox, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3.1.C.7, Section 9.4, and 4.1.4.
Presenting the application were the following: Attorney Nicholas Arienti of Hellman Shearn & Arienti, LLC; Jon Dietrich, Senior Transportation Engineer with Fuss and O’Neill, Inc.; Brent White of White Engineering; Pam Sandler, Architect; and Adam Hawthorne President,  Travaasa Experiential Resorts.
Attorney Arienti began the meeting by advising that the proponents would speak to the Board’s comments made at the previous meeting related to traffic, parking and economic.
Mr. Dietrich said that Fuss and O’Neill has reviewed BETA’s comments (peer review) of his traffic study and collected additional data BETA had requested. Mr. Dietrich referred to his memo of January 29, 2015 in which addressed each of the 24 points made by BETA. For the sake of time, he summarized eight of the points (#s 3, 5,6,10,13, 15, 19 and 21) for the Board. He commented that BETA found that Fuss and O’Neill’s analysis/study was very thorough and appropriate.
Discussion ensued regarding the Board’s request that the developer find alternative ways of directing traffic so that the northern portion of Old Stockbridge Road isn’t affected by traffic generated by the proposed Elm Court Resort. Some suggestions made by the Board were to require resort employees and commercial trucks going to and from the property to use a south entrance, either at Frothingham Crossing or at an existing drive further south. From the perspective of a traffic engineer, Mr. Dietrich discussed both locations, addressing his concerns of sight distance. At Frothingham Crossing he said there would be no clear benefit. With regards to the existing drive, the second suggestion, he said the Board’s point was taken but he was concerned about the south sight distance at that
drive and that there is a house across from that driveway. He felt that the Board’s suggestion to have employees and commercial trucks to come in from the south is a good one. He pointed out that their studies assume that 75% of the traffic would come from the south anyway. Also commercial truck traffic already exists with Hillcrest as well as UPS and FedEx deliveries to the residences. This commercial traffic accounts for less than one percent of the existing traffic. It is anticipated that Elm Court deliveries would be only 2 to 3 times a week.
Mr. Dietrich suggested some ways of helping to reduce the speed on Old Stockbridge Rd. That would be to re-evaluate speed limit signs, install “share the road” signs, and to put into place temporary speed trailers. He said that there are smaller devices available which register and display the speed of an oncoming vehicle which are solar operated and on regular poles.
TD asked Mr. Dietrich to provide what the percentage of increase in traffic would be with projected traffic coming in and out of Elm Court as opposed to what it is now. Mr. Dietrich referred to the April traffic report and using the “2018 no build traffic volume”, north of the sight would be 9%, south of site would be 29% and south of the site by Bean Hill Rd would be 5%.
Mr. Hawthorne said that they have gone back to review the possibility of south entrances and there are site line issues. Because of that he is not willing to make changes in the plans that would in any way cause an unsafe environment for their guests, employees or deliveries. He added that moving the entrance would not change the traffic on the road as the majority of the traffic comes from the south. They have looked at every mapping program that they could find and all take the approach to this property’s location from the south side. Mr. Hawthorne said that if they get permission to build and issues arise, they will address them.
KMV asked that someone explain the internal circulation, how to move people around the site and where employees would park and at what parking location. She felt that understanding this would help the Board to determine other possible entrances that would help or not help the developer. Mr. White responded that there will be a shuttle on the site and that some decisions remain to be made by the employer on where the employees would park. He stated that at the previous meeting they were asked to look at the existing southern entrances, current configuration and the driveway potential at Frothingham Crossing. They have done so and identified site line issues and it has been found that entrances other than the northern curb cut have site distance issues and they do not want to create any new site
distance issues.
TD asked where sight lines would come into play if there was a four way stop at Frothingham Crossing. Mr. White responded that site lines don’t become an issue in that case, but this would not affect speed control.
Mr. Hawthorne provided a power point presentation to address questions asked at the last meeting. He stated that the restoration and addition will add up to less than one percent of open space, and certainly not “huge” or “gigantic” as some have described. The restoration of Elm Court is a big and very expensive part of the project. He stated that Travassa has a record of preservation as evidenced by their facilities in Hawaii and Texas and it takes their stewardship very seriously. The resort would provide 100 plus year-round jobs and numerous construction jobs. Guests will be patronizing the businesses of Lenox. The following statistics were provided:
$40,000,000.00 plus in construction investments
$2,000,000.00 + in advertising the first year and $1,000,000.00 in subsequent years. (This will bring more guests into community.)
$2,000,000.00 in infrastructure updates
$300,000.00 + in utility fees.
Mr. Hawthorne commented on ES-202, labor market information that KMV had brought up at the previous meeting. He said that according to the data for accommodations and food service in Berkshire County the average annual compensation is just over $18,000.00. The average compensation with Travassa is $36,000.00 with benefits.
TD said that initially in the talks with abutters about this project the room count was 40. The number of rooms increased to 80 and now the proposal is for 96 rooms. He asked what the financial justification was for this proposed count. Mr. Hawthorne referred to Smith Travel Research, the leading global provider of competitive benchmarking, information services and research to the hotel industry. STR collects data from hotels and this data was used by the applicant to help arrive at the number of room. The room count is what they need to make this project financially sustainable and reducing the number of rooms would not be a viable investment.
KMV questioned what more would be planned for the property and Mr. Hawthorne said that the plan is what is before the Board. KS commented that he has talked to others in the hotel industry who has suggested that there are too few rooms in this proposal, and asked Mr. Hawthorne if he felt the number of rooms requested adequate. Mr. Hawthorne felt that their research supported this proposal. KS then asked if the developer would be willing to accept a conservation restriction on the remaining open space. KMV said that she didn’t feel that the developer should agree to that but inquired of Mr. White about restrictions. Mr. White presented a map for the property and showed the areas that would be protected by both the Scenic Mountain Act and Wetlands Protection Act.
KMV asked if Elm Court would be Leed Certified. Ms. Sandler responded that it would not but said that it would meet the MA State Building Code, Energy Code and the Lenox Stretch Code.
Public Comments:
Gregory Whitehead, President of Bishop Estate Association-Stated that the Association has not been engaged by the developer; safety is a concern; believes that there are alternative options to meet everyone’s needs.
Joe Jackson, Old Stockbridge Rd.-Stated he has not seen business plan of the applicant; applicant not willing to show their financials; having weddings, restaurant and bar presents risks regarding safety.
Dawn Carter-She is in favor of the project; would like to hear more of how to make this work than “we don’t want this”.
Christine Huffman- A resident of Lee, worked for Travassa and has a hospitality consulting business and is insulted by negative comments that hospitality jobs are less than other chosen occupations.
Sharon Hawkes-Shared that the annual median household income for Massachusetts is $66,866.00 and in Berkshire County it is $48,450.00.
Lois Hill-267 Old Stockbridge Rd.-Claims the site lines from the south are not good. She read from a letter which addressed many reasons she is not in favor of the project, i.e., too large, commercial in a residential area, etc.
Ralph Petillo-303 Housatonic St. He said that this is the type of proposal that has kept Lenox alive for 200 years and referred to a paragraph in a 1921 Lenox Chamber of Commerce brochure from which says “Lenox nestled in the beautiful Berkshires has been a tourist town for the last 100 years.” He added that the Lenox economy has been sustained because of properties like Canyon Ranch and Cranwell.
Barney Edmonds 260 Old Stockbridge Rd.-in Stockbridge-Stated that Old Stockbridge Rd. is not designed for modern traffic and the project is too large.
Mark Dove 212 Old Stockbridge Rd. -He stated that he feels that this will benefit Stockbridge, not Lenox; referred to the water and sewer, estimating that at five million gallons, Lenox might make $10,000.00-if there is a 20 percent profit would generate $60,000.00 per year; is it worth the traffic?
Sean VanDuesen-DPW Superintendent responded to Mr. Dove’s comments and provided that the annual estimated water and sewer bill for Elm Court would be $100,000.00 and connection fees would be approximately $300,000.00. Upgrades would be approximately $2. 5 million dollars and without this project would have to be done in the next five years and in that case would be at the expense of the town.
Mark Schapp-Asked how a sidewalk could be put in without taking property. KS responded that sidewalks would be another subject for discussion later provided the project goes forward. Mr. Schapp said that he was concerned that the burden would be put on the Lenox Police and Fire Departments; questioned if there was enough water with this project and potential hotels; and does not believe there is demand for these projects for transients.
Julie Edmonds-260 Old Stockbridge Rd. She said that Kemble St., where Canyon Ranch is located, is very different from Old Stockbridge Rd.; the project will change the character of the neighborhood; it goes against the will of those residents who are the most impacted.
Rick Fuore, DPW Water Department Foreman –Mr. Fuore said that consumption has been down through the years due to conservation and higher rates. The total wastewater flow estimate for the overall project is expected to be 16,000 gallons per day. TD asked if this included water purchased from Pittsfield. Mr. Fuore said that in the last several years he would say that Lenox has not purchased 4-5000 gallons of water from Pittsfield and in fact Lenox has sold water to Pittsfield. LM asked about other projects and if Lenox could handle this project and the two other potential hotel projects on Pittsfield Rd. Mr. Fuore said that there is ample water. For the potential hotels on Pittsfield Road, that is pumped to Pittsfield and it would have no impact on our wastewater
treatment facilities.
After the public comment, the Board members were asked if they had any further questions or comments.
TD asked Mr. Whitehead what options he would suggest to the developers. Mr. Whitehead responded that one would be that the developers draw from the existing models on Old Stockbridge Rd., Winden Hill, Bishop Estate, etc. He suggested a mixed use of a core luxury hotel and condominiums. He feels there is a better idea without destroying those who live on Old Stockbridge Rd.
KMV said that when working on the open space and recreation plan 1½ years ago she came across some economic data which indicated 13.9 percent of Lenox residents work from home. She said that this is three times more than the number within Berkshire County and Massachusetts. She feels this is a significant feature of Lenox and those who work from home are looking for peace and quiet.
KS mentioned that Canyon Ranch and Cranwell have shuttles providing transportation for their guests and asked Mr. Hawthorne if Elm Court would as well. Mr. Hawthorne said that at this time they haven’t considered that. KS then asked if the employees would be required to come in from the south, and Mr. Hawthorne responded in the affirmative.
MS said that the perception of the neighbors of Elm Court was that the developers were not willing to sit down with them and forge a project that was more acceptable to the neighbors and asked Mr. Hawthorne to discuss his lack of response to their concerns. Mr. Hawthorne responded that during the hearings in Stockbridge he contacted Mr. Whitehead who bluntly declined to engage in conversation and since then Mr. Hawthorne hasn’t reached out to Mr. Whitehead nor has Mr. Whitehead reached out to Mr. Hawthorne. Mr. Hawthorne added that he has spoken with Mr. Edmonds and had good conversations with him. Mr. Hawthorne reiterated that through research and data, they have determined the room count and that the project meets the provisions of the bylaw. He feels that they shouldn’t have to reduce
the number of rooms as it would not be a viable project.
Gregory Whitehead, responding to Mr. Hawthorne’s statement that Mr. Whitehead had declined to speak with him, said that Mr. Hawthorne’s call was during the public hearing process and he felt that it was inappropriate for him to meet with Mr. Hawthorne when Bishop Estate was trying to find a neighborhood solution. Mr. Whitehead said that he was open to dialogue and would give many hours pro bono.
KS told the Board that the Board has options with regards to sending a letter to the ZBA. Among them would be to make a recommendation one way or the other, recommending conditions etc., but reminded everyone that the Planning Board is not the permitting authority.
KMV said that the Board should convey to the ZBA the strong feeling of the importance of maintaining Old Stockbridge Road and referred to the sledding accident on Courthouse Hill Road that was immortalized in Edith Wharton’s book, Ethan Frome. She said the description of the road at the time of the accident is similar to the way that Old Stockbridge Road is today. “This is what makes us Lenox and makes us the Berkshires. This is what we revere here. This is a genuine, authentic place that exists and has connection with a Pulitzer Prize winning author.”
MS said that he has mixed feelings about the bulk and size of the project. He feels that it is too big and believes that it will create traffic problems. He wants to see conditions.
LM said that at first she thought the proposal was a good idea and then she thought it was a terrible idea. She disclosed that her son and mother in law both reside at different locations on Old Stockbridge Rd. She wants the Board to make it clear to the ZBA that it should be posted that no heavy vehicle traffic is allowed on Old Stockbridge Rd. and that speed limit signs should be posted. She doesn’t feel the proponents are willing to compromise as “our solutions (traffic) are shot down”. She added that she has deep concerns, but believes that the project is “doable”.
TD said that he agrees with what MS and LM have said and that it comes down to the traffic issue and character of the road.
KS added that he has a lot of questions, but wants to see the project work. “There are a lot of things I don’t like. I want to see something sustainable.”
KMV opined that she felt the Board “was not getting a sense of what this is”. “I am not sold on what this will do for Lenox.” “We need to know what is special about this place.”
After a break the Board re-convened and decided that each member should convey to Gwen Miller what they wanted to include in a letter to the ZBA. They announced that the Board would meet in the Land Use Meeting Room on February 17, 2015 at 6:30 to review the draft of that letter and vote on the final document. There will be no further public input at that time.
Approve minutes: January 13, 2015-Tabled
Review Correspondence: Decisions and notices of public hearings and notices from abutting communities were reviewed.
LM made a motion to adjourn and MS seconded the motion. The Board voted to agree and the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
