Town of Lenox
Planning Board
August 25, 2015
Landuse Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Kameron Spaulding, KS; Mark S. Smith, (MS); Tom Delasco, (TD); Kate McNulty-Vaughan, (KMV)
Staff present: Gwen Miller, Land Use Director/Town Planner, (GM); Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, (PA)
Also present was Selectman Ken Fowler.
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM.
Form A: 221 New Lenox Road, Map 28, Parcel 101-1-Presenting the plan was Al Thorp of Accord Engineering & Surveying. The Episcopal Missions of Western Massachusetts owns a large parcel where St Helena’s Chapel is located. The plan presented depicts a single lot with an existing house identified by the street address of 221 New Lenox Road which was recently conveyed to Neal Mulcahy by the Episcopal Missions. It was discovered that the initial Form A submitted in 2004 had not been a conforming lot: it was short of an actual acre. The plan submitted does conform to the zoning bylaw. The first ANR was recorded at the Registry of Deeds, but it wasn’t referenced in the conveyance by the Missions to Mulcahy. This ANR remedies this issue.
TD made a motion to endorse the Form A as presented. KMV seconded the motion and the Board voted to approve 4-0.
Approval of Minutes-August 11, 2015-MS as amended 2nd TD 4-0
April 28, 2015-Possibly overlooked no record of approval MS as amended TD 4-0
CPC Application for Undermountain Farm Conservation Project
TD said that last week the Community Preservation Committee met with Town Manager Chris Kitchen and they were presented an updated application with the only change being that there will be two trail easements added to increase public access to the 83 acres. TD said that he asked what assurance the town would have that the 10 acre farm located on the north end of the property that contains two houses, a barn, etc. would not at some future date be sold to a developer. He feels that this property would be very desirable for a developer and being in the R1 zone, there is the potential of 10 building lots. GM said that there is a septic system on the 10 acre parcel which could limit the development, as does the need for a private water source. TD explained that the Chapter 61A designation of the property was
discussed. If a developer were to purchase the property and wished to develop the 10 acres not in the CR, they would have to remove the parcel from 61A at which time they would have to pay five years worth of taxes on the parcel and the town would have the right of first refusal. TD also asked if the town or BNRC had any recourse should the property owner neglect the land. Narain Schroeder of BNRC explained to the CPC that with BNRC holding the CR on the 83 acres owned by the Sprague Family Trust, BNRC could exercise their right to maintain the land if someone were to buy the farm and ignored the 83 acres.
TD said that he asked Mr. Schroeder if the abutting property owner was still willing to donate 30 plus/minus acres to BNRC if the proposal passes. Mr. Schroeder answered that this was still the case.
Mr. Fowler spoke in favor of the Undermountain Farm Conservation Project and asked the Board to focus on the 63 acres and connecting trail to the larger CR property. He doesn’t think that the intention of the Sprague family is to sell the property to a developer and if that happened he feels that it would be a breach of trust with the abutting neighbors.
Discussion ensued regarding the advantage of having BNRC holding the CR. The Conservation Commission holds CRs on other properties, but they do not have the budget to maintain whereas BNRC has the ability to do so. The CR for the town-owned land would also be held by BNRC.
The consensus of the Board was that they would be in favor of this project as CPC money has been set aside for several years for the purpose of acquisition of land.
TD said that there will be a public hearing on August 31, 2015, and if this is approved, it will go before a Special Town Meeting September 21, 2015.
Sign Bylaw Update-There was no update.
MS stated that HDC had met with Building Commissioner Don Fitzgerald to discuss signs enforcement in the District in light of a recent opinion from Town Counsel: neon signs, while not prohibited, are strongly discouraged, and the zoning bylaw requires sign approval from the HDC. Thus signs in place without approval from the HDC are in violation. Mr. Fitzgerald will be approaching these businesses in the near future.
GM commented on the importance of the two boards, Planning and HDC, to come up with mutually agreeable sign bylaw language working together to determine what both boards are comfortable with allowing, e.g., maybe neon is acceptable with restrictions.
Planning Board Vacancy-No updates
Correspondence-There was no correspondence.
Old Business-GM advised the Board that she posted some older studies regarding parking and transportation management as well as the village footpath in Drop Box.
KMV made a motion to adjourn. MS seconded the motion and the Board voted by a vote of 4-0 to adjourn at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
