Town of Lenox
Planning Board
March 24, 2015
Landuse Meeting Room
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
*LM was not present for the Public Hearing
Members of the public present: Susan May of the Lenox Environmental Committee; David Naseman and Anthony Patterson were present for the Elm Court portion.
Public Hearing-Large-Scale Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations Bylaw
Note: There was a discrepancy between the Public Hearing Notice meeting time and the Agenda. The Notice, published in The Berkshire Eagle and posted on the official bulletin board, said that the hearing would be at 6:00 pm, but an agenda had been posted showing the time to be at 7:00 pm. The Public Hearing Notice is the official notice, thereby the hearing was opened at 6:00 pm; however, if members of the public came at the later hour the Board would accommodate them.
One member of the public was present, and that was Susan May of the Lenox Environmental Committee.
KS read into the record the Public Hearing Notice and gave an overview of the regulations and rules for this type of installation.
Ms. May inquired about the location of zones where these installations were allowed and the size. Discussion ensued regarding different scenarios and community provider types of installations. KS said that if an array was less than 250 kilowatts, it was allowed as long as the Building Inspector permitted. It is an individual’s choice of how they choose to power their home/business, but this bylaw is for arrays of an acre or more and 250 kilowatts or more.
Ms. May was advised that if there was a consideration for a solar installation which was in conflict with this bylaw, there would be time to amend the bylaw. This article is on the Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting in May. No new articles can be added by the Planning Board for the ATM as the Warrant is closed; however, the wording can be changed right up to the night of the ATM.
There were minor edits to this article.
TD made a motion to approve the Large-Scale Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations Bylaw as amended. MS seconded the motion and the Board voted to approve 4-0.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Downtown Parking Bylaw- GM provided to the Board for their review copies of the draft, which incorporated the recent changes. Several additional changes were made. TD asked GM if she would do some kind of analysis of the square footage of the lot size comparing to the square footage of the building size to help clarify the wording relating to the increase of the size of a footprint of a building. TD suggested and the Board agreed that diagrams would be helpful. TD will provide. It was noted that this will not replace the parking and loading section of the bylaw, but it is a priority for the future. The Board will be meeting one more time before the Public Hearing on April 21, 2015 to finalize this proposed bylaw.
Revise Elm Court Recommendations/Letter- The Planning Board held hearings on January 13, and February 10, 2015 to review the application of the Front Yard, LLC (Elm Court) special permit application for the purposes of providing advisory comments to the ZBA. On February 13, 2015 the Planning Board submitted a letter to the ZBA with their comments and recommendations for conditions should the ZBA grant the special permit. At the February 18, 2015 ZBA hearing on this matter the Planning Board’s letter was read into the record. The ZBA continued their hearing to March 18th. Since that hearing MS suggested that the Planning Board put this on their agenda for discussion.
MS inquired of the other Planning Board members if they wanted to revise, change, or add to their recommendations of February 13th. KS responded that that letter couldn’t be edited, but a separate letter with additional suggested conditions could be sent to the ZBA.
The Board discussed the need to review their role as an advisory board to the ZBA and develop a process for reviewing petitions and submitting their recommendations that would be most helpful to the ZBA. It was agreed that after the Elm Court matter has been decided by the ZBA and after the Annual Town Meeting, both of the boards should meet together to discuss and define their roles. GM feels that this project will fit in nicely with working with the consultant in updating the Zoning Bylaw and the Development Review Guidebook.
KS asked the Board if they wanted to write any other recommendations or suggested conditions on the Elm Court project. KMV responded that the Board should not as the matter is now in the hands of the Zoning Board. MS wanted to reconsider the feasibility of a south entrance for the employees and delivery vehicles. He thinks that the proponents should have to do a feasibility study on that entrance and he suggests that be an additional condition. GM said that a ZBA member asked the proponents to provide further information on that at the next ZBA meeting.
TD wanted to know if MS was talking about the Frothingham Crossing intersection. KS responded that any uses of a resort cannot happen within 200 feet of the resort; therefore this is not a practical solution for creating a second entrance at that location. This would require a variance which would be a tough legal requirement for them to obtain before a special permit could be considered. The existing southern entrance is the one the proponents are being asked to provide further information on.
KM-V said the David Naseman had reminded her that there had been an ANR done for that section of the property in 2007. She questioned whether that has an effect on the proponents’ reluctance to get involved with that entrance because they may actually subdivide that section off. KM-V asked Mr. Naseman if what she had said was accurate representation. Mr. Naseman responded that that was the question he had. He went on to say that they took seven acres which included the buildings in the south section and basically unilaterally said that they didn’t need anyone’s approval and then both Stockbridge and Lenox signed off. He said: “When you hear all of the rationale for why they couldn’t change anything one might suspect that they didn’t want that road to go thru there because in the
future they might want to transfer.” Mr. Naseman said he asked someone that question, a lawyer, but he will not represent whether he is accurate or not but he, Mr. Naseman, had been told that if you apply and cover the application to you all with 90 acres then you take that 7 acres out of it you would have to go through another procedure. He would not discount the possibility that they want to maintain that 7 acres in a pristine fashion for the future, but right now they would have to go through another proceeding to do so.
KS said that everything they have done before today is going away by being replaced by what they are doing now so they would have to do that again. Mr. Naseman said that the most recently filed plans for this project show a change whereby some parking spaces located down by the barn were taken out. He wonders if that was just a mistake or whether they have already gotten approval, but, Mr. Naseman said that apparently that goes away as well.
MS, referring to the Planning Board’s letter, said that as he looks at it now, he feels that it is worded fine; there is nothing that he wants to revise, change or take out. He read from the PB’s letter:
Recommended Conditions
2) Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading, item c) The Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals require the Town of Lenox to conduct a post-occupancy traffic analysis at the cost of the applicant. This shall be conducted within three years of project completion and no later than five years after project completion.
MS commented that Attorney Alex Glover referred to this at the last meeting and he feels that the Planning Board should comment on this. GM responded that BETA has provided a new memorandum regarding this in which BETA has recommended that the applicant, if the special permit is granted, will set up an escrow account in the amount of $68,000.00. The applicant will have to finish their speed collection data to have a base line. After the resort is operational, another analysis will be done and if it is found that the new data exceeds 10% of the 85th percentile speed or 10 percent of volume, then the applicants will be responsible for implementing corrective measures.
MS asked for clarity regarding the subject of a sidewalk. GM told him that a condition in the Stockbridge decision in granting the special permit is that if Lenox wants the sidewalk, the applicant will pay for it. KM-V said that the installation of a sidewalk will be a forthcoming debate of Elm Court’s neighbors.
KMV took the definition of resort from the Lenox Zoning Bylaw, dissected it, and identified the parts of speech to demonstrate the structure of the language.
Resort: Building or group of buildings, a portion thereof designed for serving food in a public dining room and containing 15 or more sleeping rooms for transient guests together with both indoor and outdoor recreational facilities with a variety of activities provided which could be judged self-sufficient for the entertainment of the guests therein.
She believes that the original language in the bylaw restricts its clause “which is judged self-sufficient for the entertainment for the guests therein”. She stated that the clause is considered essential to the meaning of this sentence because it is not set off in a subordinate way by a comma.
KS returned to the original agenda item, Revise Elm Court Recommendations/Letter and asked the Board if they felt a need to submit anything to the ZBA. MS said that he wanted to discuss further Attorney Alexandra Glover’s reference to “public” in her February 18, 2015 letter and read aloud Footnote 1 which states: The fact that the definition of Resort contains the phrase “a portion thereof designed for serving food in a public dining room” does not does not signify a restaurant open to the general public. MS said that he feels Attorney Glover is footnoting that to serve her argument and noted that the footnote continues “…the phrase means a common dining room. If the Bylaw permitted a restaurant open to the general public, it would be explicitly so stated.“ KS commented that a specific law case was not referenced in this letter. MS asked the Board if they wanted to write a recommendation that the spa and restaurant be open to the public, or did the Board agree
that those facilities could not be used by the public. He would like to see public access to those facilities even though it would be a generator of traffic.
KS called for the Board to make a decision as to whether or not to communicate further with the ZBA and suggested no further discussion. MS responded that there was nothing else that he would want to add or revise about the conditions that were set forth in the PB’s letter to the ZBA. KS confirmed that the consensus was that there would be no further recommendations.
KMV stated that in the future the Planning Board must keep in mind what their role is and how to proceed. TD feels that for projects like Elm Court there should be a Site Plan Review.
CPC Update-TD said that the Committee met March 23, 2015 and approved applications that will be presented at the Annual Town Meeting in May for final approval. There had been 13 applications originally, and TD gave a short review on each.
Those that were withdrawn were as follows:
The Mount
Boston University Tanglewood Institute
Academy Building
Lenox Town Beach Improvements
Walker House
Those that were approved were as follows:
Cupola for the Old Courthouse
Ventfort Hall master plan
Library step
Shakespeare & Company-St Martin Hall
Kennedy Park improvement
Church on the Hill cemetery
Those that were not approved were as follows:
Affordable Housing Trust
Undermountain Farm
Approve Minutes:
Mar 19, 2015-TD made a motion to approve the minutes and KMV seconded. The Board voted to approve 3-0-2. LM and MS abstained as they were not present at that meeting.
Feb. 24, 2015-MS made a motion to approve the minutes as amended and LM seconded the motion. The Board vote to approve 5-0.
LM made a motion to adjourn and MS seconded the motion. The Board voted to agree 5-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 8:54 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
