Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
February 16, 2011
Landuse Meeting Room
Members present: Chair Ethan Berg, (EB); Cliff Snyder, (CS); Robert Fuster, (RF); Shawn Leary Considine, (SLC); Ned Douglas, (ND); and Pam Kueber (PK)
Note:
- The following members participated in the Town of Lenox hearing: EB, CS, RF, ND and SLC.
- The following participated in The Frederick hearing: EB, CS, RF, ND and PK.
- The following participated in the discussion relating to the sign issue at Lenox Center: EB, SLC, RF, ND, CS and PK.
Staff present: Town Planner Mary Albertson (MA) and Land Use Clerk Peggy Ammendola, (PA)
Allen & Major Associates, Inc., 489 Pittsfield Rd, Map 33 Parcel 4, informal discussion with Building Commissioner regarding the June 2010 Decision. He is seeking clarification regarding signage.
In attendance was Building Commissioner Bill Thornton.
Marshall’s, an existing business at Lenox Center, has applied to the Building Commissioner for a new sign. Mr. Thornton, in reviewing Marshall’s request and the ZBA decision, determined that the decision lacked clarity as to the size permitted and whether the decision applied to existing businesses within the project. He asked the Board to define how the façade area is calculated. SLC suggested that the Board re-open the Public Hearing for the limited purpose for re-considering sizes of signs at Lenox Center.
Discussion ensued and it was decided that there was a lack of clarity in the decision and a question of whether the Board understood the broad applicability.
SLC made a motion to reopen the Special Permit hearing to March 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm for the limited purpose for considering sizes of signs within the development and definition of façade. RF seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0 to agree.
Town of Lenox, at Aspinwall Road (Map 17, Parcel 24) Special Permit~Sections 3.1.B.5 and 3.1.B.6 to replace an existing 36 feet high metal water tower with a 49 feet high concrete water tower.
Making the presentation was Superintendent of Public Works, Jeff Vincent. Also present was Rick Fuore, an employee of the DPW.
Mr. Vincent stated that the existing steel tank was installed in 1978. The proposed new tank will be approximately 90 feet in diameter and 50 feet tall whereas the existing tank is 106 feet in diameter and 37 feet tall. Since the proposed tank will be within the same footprint there will be no need to cut trees. There are two abutters, the Lenders and Welches, both of whom will be given weekly schedules of work activity.
Mr. Vincent had a specific question regarding the Zoning Bylaw Section 4.1 and Footnote 3 of 4.1.1 and a height restriction of 35 feet. He understands that this specifically exempts a water tower and Footnote 3 appears to allow in excess of 50 feet. Currently the town is designing for a 50 high tank, but the Town could save potentially save $150,000 with a 60 feet high tank. At this point in time, Mr. Vincent feels that if the 50 foot high tank water quantity and elevation meets the needs, he leans toward that option, but understands that if a taller tank is chosen a new petition would be needed. The Petition before the Board is for 49 feet, but he is now requesting 50 feet.
A letter received on February 3, 2011 from Kathleen Welch submitted on behalf of herself and a neighbor Helaine Lender was read into the record. Ms. Welch stated in her letter that the file for the public review was inadequate and requested that additional information be filed and that the hearing of February 2, 2011 be delayed to permit time for the public to review. Upon receipt of this letter PA contacted Jeff Vincent who provided additional information on the following day. On the same day PA forwarded this information to Ms. Welch and the Town Clerk. Ms. Welch was also advised that the February 2 meeting was canceled due to inclement weather and rescheduled for February 16, 2011. On February 10, 2011 Mr. Vincent forwarded a summary of the project prepared by Weston and Sampson Engineers
to PA who subsequently filed with the Town Clerk and forwarded to Ms. Welch. The Landuse office did not receive responses from Ms. Welch to the emails sent.
There were no abutters present nor was any other correspondence received.
SLC made a motion to grant the Special Permit and CS seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 5-0.
SLC will write the decision.
The Frederick, LLC, 2 Kemble Street (Map 7, Parcel 22-3). Variance from Sections 7.2 and 3.1.H.12; amend the variances granted May 28. 1993; and Special Permit under Section 6.10.13. Requesting permission to allow use of the Kemble Inn as a Great Estate Inn with indoor and outdoor events; to add parking, revise lighting, remove permitted apartments, remove retail use, add restrooms, add laundry, relocate service bar and kitchen, and revise use of 30-seat restaurant and breakfast room; to turn existing sign from perpendicular to parallel to the Inn; and to construct a Carriage House as an accessory dwelling unit for Innkeeper use.
Making the presentation was Rob Akroyd of Greylock Design Associates; Attorney Jeff Lynch and Architect Jim Harwood who represent Scott Shortt, the owner of The Frederick; and Mr. Shortt
Mr. Shortt told the Board that he would like to transform the former Kemble Inn into a boutique hotel with modern amenities while being respectful of the history of the property.
Mr. Akroyd presented a site plan and gave a brief overview of the project which includes dedicated parking and transient parking for a total of 25 spaces; a 20’ X 40’ pool with associated terracing; an innkeeper’s residence on the northern portion of property; and a 30 inch high free standing stone wall with signage attached. The wall would provide a visual barrier to the transient parking in the front of the building. The applicant is also seeking approval to have tented events.
Mr. Harwood is working with Mr. Shortt to design the innkeeper’s residence. He said that the design will be respectful of the architectural elements of the Frederick. The building, a modest two story 2 bedroom structure with a double garage, will measure 30’ X 40’. This property is in the R1A zone which does not allow two residences on one parcel; therefore a variance is being requested as there is insufficient frontage for a second parcel
Attorney Lynch stated that he learned today that Town Counsel has given her opinion that the Kemble Inn does not qualify for a Great Estate. He argues that in 2009 an amendment, Section 6.10.13, was passed out of recognition that the smaller estate properties were not as economically viable as the larger Category #1 estates and that the smaller category #1 buildings would benefit economically if they were allowed by right uses. He states that this project is focused on inn use in a Category #1 building.
Public Comment:
1) Attorney Lori Robbins states that her client, Amy Zuckerman, who is a direct abutter, is in favor of the project. Her only requests are:
a. If there are outdoor events, she would request that they be limited to be no more than 12 events a year and not to exceed two a month and will be held in a designated area.
b. If amplified music is permitted, she requests that it be within a designated area.
2) Frank Newton, 81 Walker St., supports the project, but objects to amplified music.
3) Ralph Petillo, speaking as a citizen and as the Director of the Lenox Chamber of Commerce, feels that the project is a major improvement and a viable commodity to Lenox.
Correspondence Received: The following letters of support were read into the record:
1) Betsy Winsor of Cranwell Resort, Spa & Golf Club dated January 26, 2011
2) Raymond T. Kushi, Jr., Kushi & Myers, PC dated January 28, 2011
3) Stan Rosen, Hampton Terrace Bed and Breakfast dated January 24, 2011
The Board felt that there is a need for clarification of Great Estate versus Great Estate Inn. MA will facilitate further discussion with Town Counsel. She advised that the Planning Board is looking for further comment from Town Counsel and will discuss the petition at their March 8, 2011 meeting.
Mr. Lynch provided his letter dated February 16, 2011 which read in part: “By agreement of the applicant and the ZBA, the time within which the ZBA must hold a public hearing and render its decision is extended for an additional period until Monday March 14, 2011.”
The hearing was continued to March 14, 2011 at 7 pm.
RF will write the decision.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
