Town of Lenox
Planning Board
January 13, 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: Chris Ketchen, Town Manager
KS, describing the Board’s role in the process of petitions submitted to the Zoning Board, explained that the Planning Board first reviews the petition, usually only in large projects, applying the criteria of the Zoning Bylaw to the applicant’s specific request. After reviewing, the Planning Board may or may not make a recommendation to the Zoning Board, but their role in this process is simply advisory. The Zoning Board is the permit granting authority and their role is to render a decision on the petition. The Zoning Board is scheduled to hear this petition on February 18, 2015.
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 presentation by stating that Elm Court Estate is located on approximately 90 acres, about 87 acres are in Stockbridge and about 3 acres are in Lenox. On September 10, 2014, the Town of Stockbridge approved Elm Court’s petition for this project, but because access to the property is within Lenox, the applicant also needs permits from the Lenox Zoning Board of Appeals. The acreage within Lenox consists of a 50 foot strip along Old Stockbridge Road. Attorney Arienti reviewed the petition and the finding criteria and stated how the applicant meets the requirements of the Lenox Zoning Bylaw. He said that the proponents are committed to working with the Town of Lenox improving or extending, at applicant’s expense, the sewer line as well as the water line
along Old Stockbridge Road. Elm Court would be a customer of Lenox for water and sewer. Additionally a sidewalk would also be installed from the site. It is expected that Elm Court will have 100 jobs, full and part time. Due to the proximity to downtown, Attorney Arienti said that the businesses of Lenox will benefit from the resort, and in general, Lenox public safety officials support the project.
Mr. White presented detail regarding access, parking and loading. He said that Stockbridge Conservation Commission and Historic Preservation Commission have approved and that the project meets the requirements of the Scenic Mountain Act.
Ms. Sandler gave an overview of the architecture. Elm Court is on the National Register of Historic Places, and she said that this is an opportunity to preserve a significant residence. There would be a complete historic renovation of the mansion and the applicant will maintain the integrity of the property as originally built reflecting the character and style of the main house with the new addition. The new structure would be four stories and connected to the mansion by a bridge. She described the spa area and reviewed the site plan.
Mr. Dietrich detailed the traffic study which included twelve intersections south of the monument at Walker St. and West St. and explained how Fuss and O’Neill arrived at their conclusions. In Fuss & O’Neill’s submission there are four traffic studies dated April 2014; June 18, 2014; July 29, 2014 and September 8, 2014. In order to determine the traffic impact of the proposed development, weekday afternoon (3:30-5:30) and Saturday midday peak period (11:00-1:00), manual traffic counts were conducted at the intersections in the study area. Existing background
traffic volume and the expected traffic generated for peak traffic hour periods and high occupancy use on a weekday and Saturday period during the summer season were analyzed for a resort with 112 guest rooms. It has been determined the project would not create undue traffic congestion nor unduly impair pedestrian safety.
Mr. Dietrich said that traffic projections of two, five and ten years from the completion of the proposed project, assumed to be in 2016, were required by Stockbridge and those results are available. He noted that Tanglewood events are controlled by traffic officers, and the analysis is not based on those situations. In conclusion, Mr. Dietrich stated there was no significant impact on the traffic flow.
Mr. Dietrich said that their study revealed that there was a relatively low volume of pedestrian and bicyclists during peak hours. Looking at the last four years, there was no significant history of accidents at the intersections. Two other consultants reviewed the work of Fuss and O’Neill on this project. Tighe and Bond prepared a report during the Stockbridge review and that firm stated that Fuss and O’Neill had followed the accepted practices of standards. The Town of Lenox obtained a peer review by BETA, and Mr. Dietrich said that at this time his company is in process of going through BETA’s comments received last week and collecting additional data they have requested.
KS asked the Board for their comments and questions based on the special permits criteria (6) of Section 9.4 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Number 1-Community needs served by the proposal:
KMV referred to the claim that the benefit to the community would be the jobs. She also referred to Employment and Wage (ES-202), which provides data derived from reports filed by all employers. She questioned the number of employees, how many would be full/part time, housing for those employees, from where the employees would come, and stated that the jobs of this nature were low paying. Additionally she questioned parking for the employees.
Mr. Hawthorne responded that it is expected that there would be approximately 100 employees. They haven’t yet approached the issue with regards to the resource for employees. Based on the applicant’s other two properties, Travassa Hana in Hawaii and Travassa Austin in Texas, approximately ¼ of the employees here would be part time. Mr. Hawthorne said that each shift would have approximately 1/3 or less of the total number of employees. Some housing will be provided. In response to KMV’s statement regarding wages, Mr. Hawthorne said that their history at both sites has been that the benefits for employees far exceed state or federal requirements and they expect to do the same here.
Mr. White said that the parking was addressed in the application approved by Stockbridge and that it exceeds the minimum required.
Number 2-Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading:
TD asked if the applicant looked a re-locating the entrance directly across from Frothingham Crossing and mandate that traffic come off of Route 7, stating it may alleviate traffic on Old Stockbridge Rd. Attorney Arienti said that he was not aware of any analysis of using a southern entrance and that the northern gate is the most direct access to main house.
Mr. Dietrich stated that he based their analysis on what was given so they didn't look at that. He said it could be made into a 4 way intersection but it wouldn’t change traffic generation in terms of volume, but may change distribution.
LM questioned the benefit to Lenox. She said that Stockbridge would be the recipient of real estate, room and meals taxes, while Lenox would only have disruption. She feels that employees would be speeding on Old Stockbridge Road because they were running late to work. She asked if the entrance could be made to come through Stockbridge.
Attorney Arienti responded that there is no demonstrated access provided through Stockbridge that the applicant could take advantage of and there hasn’t been any analysis as they do not own the property. Further, he said, because of the historic nature of this property, protected lands including wetlands, it would not be feasible.
KS said that he understands why access is from Old Stockbridge Road and why the applicant has not looked at using another entrance. He understands that neither is feasible but questioned why a four way intersection at Frothingham Crossing has not been studied and if this option could be studied now. TD clarified that the southern entrance is not line with Frothingham Crossing.
Mr. White described the efforts at maintaining the historic character and the entrance is a part of that history.
MS commented that he doesn’t feel that an entrance created at Frothingham Crossing would help with traffic flow and traffic flow is what is most troublesome. He is concerned about speed and visibility as others who are opposed to the project have stated. He asked about the BETA report and how soon Mr. Dietrich could have his responses to questions in that report. Mr. Dietrich expects to have that within two weeks.
KMV stated that she is concerned about the spa, described in the application as having 20 treatment rooms, as a traffic generator. Since neither Stockbridge nor Lenox has a definition of “spa” she asked if there was anything similar that will give the Board a comparison. She asked if you have 30 percent occupancy for the hotel, how they would market the spa. Mr. Hawthorne responded that they have to adjust the usage of the spa to hotel occupancy and at no point would they exceed what Mr. Dietrich has studied.
LM asked what if the project is more successful than projected. She pointed out how Kemble Street has changed with Canyon Ranch and Shakespeare and Co. adding that it has been widened and there is rip rap holding embankment. Attorney Arienti responded that he didn’t feel that this was a fair comparison to Old Stockbridge Road and there are a lot of contributing factors in excess of this project. He reiterated that all of the projections are based on 100 percent occupancy, and that they cannot exceed.
Number 3-Adequacy of utilities and other public services:
KMV questioned if the Town wanted to export their services and did the Town have the resources given that this is not an emergency situation. She expressed concern that perhaps not enough thought has been given to our future needs.
Attorney Arienti said the proponents have worked with town administration and public safety officials regarding resources. The proponents’ engineers have worked with the town’s engineers and it has been determined by reliable resources that there are adequate facilities to accommodate water, sewer and safety.
Mr. White said that the sewer line is in need of repair regardless of this project. As part of the project not only will the applicant be remedying the problem but also improving the capacity. Another benefit is that the residents on septic on Old Stockbridge Road will have the opportunity to tie into the sewer at a cost less than replacing their septic systems. He said that there is more benefit to the Town than just being a customer for water and sewer.
TD asked if those on septic who would tie into the system were included as part of study on capacity or was it just Elm Court discharging into the system. Mr. White responded that the study identified the flows for Elm Court. He said that there is a great deal of infiltration into the system presently and cited the rain event of last summer which resulted in 5.5 inches in a short amount of time. The Town is not concerned with capacity but with peak flows. Improvements on Old Stockbridge Road that this project will bring will eliminate a lot of that infiltration as well as Elm Court’s use of a low pressure system. With the improvements there will be more than adequate capacity in piping system and at the point.
Number 4-Neighborhood character and social structures:
KS and MS asked if 112 rooms were necessary. KS asked Mr. Hawthorne for an overview, without getting into financial details, of how it was determined to create a resort with this many guest rooms.
Mr. Hawthorne said that each of the other two Travassa resorts have 70 guest rooms. Those numbers and his past experience as a regional revenue manager for a hotel brand of 48 hotels contributed to the analysis to determine the number of rooms needed. To be financially feasible 112 rooms are needed to sustain the resort during some of the slower seasons. Mr. Hawthorne said that the mansion at Elm Court is 55,000 square feet and that the previous owners, the Berles did an incredible job of restoring a large piece of the building but an entire wing is in disrepair and the whole infrastructure of the mansion still needs to be built out. He said that it is impossible to restore the mansion without the addition proposed which takes up less than one percent of the open space of this property.
MS wanted to make it clear that he doesn’t have a big objection to the volume or the addition or how it is sited, but his main concern is the traffic. Mr. Hawthorne asked MS to ask Mr. Dietrich questions to allay his concerns.
KS, in trying to understand the potential financial benefit for Lenox, asked if Elm Court would be all inclusive. Mr. Hawthorne said that there are two options and referred to the two Travassa resorts. At Travassa Austin about 60 percent is ala carte and 40 percent inclusive. At Travassa Hana, about 75 percent is ala carte and 25 percent inclusive. KMV hopes that there will be further information on the financial effect of all inclusive versus ala carte. All inclusive would mean less traffic volume, but then the benefit to downtown goes away. KMV said that she spoke to Laurie Klefos of Berkshire Visitors Bureau in trying to understand. There is a relationship and through various taxes Lenox would get more than their share, but it is complicated.
KMV said that one of the goals of the Open Space Plan for Lenox is to increase the walkability of downtown and Old Stockbridge Road would be a part of the loop, but it has existing speed and sight line problems with or without this project. She said the Board does not want to lose the Old Stockbridge Road feel. She feels that Lenox needs to look at other “traffic calming” solutions other than a sidewalk.
Number 5-Impacts on the natural environment:
KMV asked about the possibility of a build out of this site. She said that there is nothing that prevents one from going back to amend the permits that were granted by Stockbridge. She also asked about outdoor activities which would include but not limited to shooting, races (horses-people-sports cars), helicopter landings, hot air balloons, drones, bands, bands, etc.
TD suggested that the Board could recommend to the ZBA special conditions which would restrict such activities.
Mr. Hawthorne said that none of these activities would take place. Attorney Arienti followed up by saying that among the conditions imposed by Stockbridge in granting approval is that there would be no outside broadcasting of amplified music. He read aloud that portion of the special conditions.
TD suggested that a recommendation to the ZBA could be made regarding any future build out and that perhaps a conservation restriction be placed on the rest of the property. He said that people want some assurance that in the future what is on the plan here will remain.
Attorney Arienti said that they have the permission from Stockbridge to follow through with the existing proposal that is now before Lenox ZBA. In the event the ZBA approves of the project, any modification from that plan would have to go through the hearing processes of both towns again. Future development of property is highly restricted by the Wetland Protection Act due to its close proximity to Lily Pond and by Stockbridge’s Scenic Mountain Act. Aside from the mansion the most important part of the property is the open space. The south and west lawns are integral and most valuable to this property and to build further runs contrary to the intent of the applicant. He added that a reason for limiting the activities is to preserve the historical character and nature of the property and to
allow guests and the public to take advantage of those qualities.
Number 6-Potential economic and fiscal impact to the Town, including impact on town services, tax base, and employment.
KS asked that the proponents return to provide some kind of description on exclusive versus ala carte that was discussed in Number 4, regarding financial benefit to Lenox.
Public comment:
Gregory Whitehead, President of Bishop Estate Association, Inc. spoke on behalf of the 19 families who own properties at Bishop Estate and they are opposed to this proposal. He said that early on the predecessor of Mr. Hawthorne met with the association and described a smaller project of 40 rooms, a fitness facility, not a spa, and no restaurant. Mr. Whitehead said that Bishop Estate is in favor of a viable, sustainable project that would preserve Elm Court, but not one of this size. Among concerns stated was the size of the new addition in the event the project failed. Also he felt that the wrong tool was used for assessing impact to the neighborhood, stating that the Association was more about speed, visibility and categories of traffic. Mr. Whitehead said that the
Applicant has made no effort to hear concerns. With regard to the neighborhood character issue, Mr. Whitehead referred to a document entitled An Assessment of the Impact of the Elm Court Project on the character of the Old Stockbridge Road Neighborhood: Critical Questions to be answered by John R. Mullen of Mullen Associates Inc. He said that no effort had been made to engage in conversation with Dr. Mullen. Also, Mr. Whitehead said that he favored a conservation restriction as suggested by TD. Finally, Mr. Whitehead stated that tax assessments may be significantly greater with significant changes in neighborhood character.
Carl Pratt, General Manager of Cranwell Resorts, a resident of Old Stockbridge Rd. and President of the Lenox Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the project, stating that it will preserve one of the greatest estates and the 112 rooms were needed to do so. Cranwell has 114 and 124 plus at Canyon Ranch. A greater detriment to the community would be to lose this historic asset. He feels the sidewalk is a significant gift to the Town and would help reduce traffic as guests could walk rather than drive to town. The sidewalk would connect to other sidewalks in the Town. He suggests that Stockbridge share the revenue.
Tjasa Sprague, spoke in support. She has houses on Kemble St. and Under Mountain Road. On the latter there is no sidewalk and even with the number of walkers people have managed. She feels that the traffic created as the result of this proposal would be insignificant. She does not believe the project will change the character of the neighborhood, but the other option of one acre lots definitely would do so.
Joseph Jackson, resident of Old Stockbridge Road, is opposed. He feels that the traffic study is biased, invalid and that the numbers used were egregiously high. He presented a rendering to show the relationship of his property to the intersection of Hawthorne. He feels this is one of the worst intersections in Lenox and cited poor visibility and no shoulder at this location. He feels that this project will significantly increase traffic and that volume, quality of drivers, condition of the road and speed will lead to trouble. Mr. Jackson said that alternatives to this project do exist.
Barney Edmonds, Old Stockbridge Road, opposed to the project. He referred to and read a quote from an article in the January 13, 2015 issue of the Berkshire Edge written by Carole Owens whom he referred to as an expert on Berkshire history. “Is the impact negative or positive? The arguments made in the affirmative were that the project would create jobs and save an architectural gem. However, jobs in the Berkshire hospitality industry are most often lower-paid and seasonal. And it is hard to argue that the plan for Elm Court is preservation. The proposed addition is a change in size and style so significant that is cannot be identified as a model of preservation or even a
restoration.”
Mark Dove, Old Stockbridge Rd, posed several questions related to the initial cash outlay to the Town, how much in revenue would the applicant receive, annual profits and how much money would the Town make on 1,000 gallons of water and sewage. He believes Stockbridge could earn over $500,000.00 a year and would bear no cost.
Julie Edmonds said that there is no proof nor guarantee that there will not be future build out. She said that when the application was first proposed to Stockbridge the request was for 80 rooms, but later was increased to 96. She is concerned that in the future Elm Court could possibly add condos.
Ralph Petillo, Director of Lenox Chamber of Commerce, 303 Housatonic St. urged the Board to think in terms of all of Lenox. He agrees that the residents of Old Stockbridge have valid points that need to be addressed but all of Lenox needs to be heard. He cited that the youth are leaving, the school population is dwindling and there are 8-9 vacancies in downtown. He urged compromise.
Morgan Whitehead of 195 Old Stockbridge Road asked the Board what responsibility it has to protect this historical sprawl and questioned the benefit of restoration given its state of disrepair.
Nancy Armstrong feels that the infrastructure in Lenox is a common topic at Selectmen’s meetings and asked if the Town’s sewer plant could handle 112 rooms.
Mr. Dietrich responded to comments by Mr. Whitehead in which Mr. Whitehead said he felt that the transportation engineer used the wrong tool for assessing impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Dietrich stated that the level of service is the accepted tool/term is the method that is used in professional traffic engineering and it is the requirement of the zoning bylaws. It is not a qualitative thing. He said that his job is to show people quantitatively why things work or why they don’t work. Mr. Dietrich said that his job is to be a technician, to try to give an indicator in the profession on a score of A to F on how things work.
Mr. Dietrich also responded to Mr. Whitehead’s reference to John Mullen’s report on the impact on the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Dietrich said that he has worked a lot with Dr. Mullen and has the utmost respect for him, but Dr. Mullen’s report is more qualitative. He pointed out that Dr. Mullen is not a transportation engineer.
Responding to Mr. Jackson’s comments, Mr. Dietrich said that he is not a statistician, but a transportation engineer. He stated that his study is not biased or invalid and he hasn’t inflated anything. Mr. Dietrich said that what he has done is to report on a worse case situation in terms of maximum occupancy and a peak traffic period in July which is when there is the most impact on the road.
He also said that he never said that there were no accidents and that was looked at in the analysis in their report.
Mr. White read from a September 4, 2014 memorandum from Weston and Sampson (in the packet), with respect to sewer system-Page 3 of 4:
The Crystal Street Wastewater Treatment Facility is designed for a capacity of 910,000 gallons per day. Based on a review of the daily flow records provided by the Town of Lenox from 2010 to 2014 (present) the WWTF average daily flow during this period is 660,000 gallons per day.
Mr. White stated that the Elm Court proposal will only add 16,100 gallons per day to that flow and a significant part of the project is eliminating the infiltration problem along the portion of existing sewer from the intersection of Bishop Estates to the intersection to the intersection at Hawthorne Street. The applicant will be paying significant upfront connection fees for their added water use as well as for their new sewer connection. Elm Court will also be a large rate payer in both systems moving forward and their addition to the system will help add to the base of rate payers for future capital projects for the town.
This meeting was continued to February 10th at 6 PM.
Approve minutes: December 9, 2015-KMV made a motion to approve the minutes as written. TD seconded the motion. LM pointed out that she was not at that meeting even though she was listed as present. The correction was made and KMV amended her motion to approve as amended. TD seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0-1 to approve. LM abstained.
MS moved to adjourn. KMV seconded the motion and by a vote of 5-0 the Board voted to adjourn at 9:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
