Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
January 8, 2014
Auditorium
Members present: Chair Ethan Berg, (EB); Robert Fuster Sr. (RF); Robert Fuster Jr., (RFjr); Ned Douglas, (ND)
Absent with notification: Cliff Snyder, (CS); Shawn Leary Considine, (SLC)
Staff present: Land Use Clerk Peggy Ammendola, (PA); Mary Albertson, (MA)
Before each of the hearings, it was explained that due to illness, only four of a five member board were present and in order for a petition to be granted, all four board members must vote in favor. The applicants were given the option to wait until all five members were available before opening the hearing or to invoke the Mullin Rule whereby the hearing would be opened with four members hearing the application and a fifth member would have the opportunity to review all evidence received at the missed session and listen to an audio or video recording of the missed session or a transcript thereof and then be would be qualified to participate in the decision phase.
The Talbots, Inc., 36 Walker Street (Map 43, Parcel 4), Special Permit or in the alternative a Variance from Sections 5.2.1 General Standards and 5.2.6 – Signs in Commercial and Industrial Districts.
Making the presentation was Jeanne Consolati, the store manager and Malcolm Hargrave of The Talbots, Inc.
Mr. Hargrave said that they were cited by the Building Commissioner for signage which did not conform to the zoning by-law; therefore they were petitioning the ZBA. He explained that The Talbots Corporation has national advertising campaigns for their stores and he showed the Board their most recent example. The signage, a banner, would be no more than 13.5 square feet and would be only in one window and it would be up only occasionally.
There was no one present to make public comment, nor were any letters received.
Mr. Hargrave said that they would like to proceed to the decision phase with only four members of the Board participating.
ND made a motion to grant the Petitioner’s request for both a Special Permit and a Variance under Sections 5.2.1 of the Zoning Bylaw. RF seconded the motion and the Board voted to approve 4-0.
Brushwood Nominee Trust 36 Pittsfield Road (Map 17, Parcel 41), for: (1) Special Permits Section 3.1.F.11, 5.1.7, 5.2.4(3); (4) & Footnote (3) of Section~4.1.1; and (5) Site Plan Approval under Section 9.5 of the Lenox Zoning Bylaw re: construction of a 92 room hotel on 6.68 acres. Continued from December 18, 2013 because there were only four members of the five member board present. The applicant requested continuation to January 8, 2014.
The fifth member, Cliff Snyder, was not present at tonight’s meeting and it was agreed to invoke the Mullin Rule.
EB reviewed the procedure for hearings before the ZBA.
Before the presentation by Attorney Heller, RF said that the Board had received a an email from a resident who complained that he had sent a previous email to the Board regarding this project but it had gone unanswered. RF explained that communicating outside of the public hearing, would be “ex parte” communication and inappropriate for the staff, a board member or the Board to respond.
RF also explained that this application is made under the provisions allowed in the district where this property is located, which is in the C3A zone. There is also the Gateway Overlay District that is applicable in this area, and the applicant has the choice to use either the provisions under the C3A zoning or the provisions of the Gateway Overlay District. RF stated the applicant has filed under the provisions of the C3A zone. The Board can consider the provisions in the Gateway Overlay District in making their decision, but neither the applicant nor the Board is bound by them.
Present at tonight’s hearing were the following: Attorney Philip Heller; Joe Toole, principal of Toole Companies; Steve Mack and Marc LeVasseur of Foresight Land Services; Juliet Locke, traffic engineer of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.; Rob Akroyd, of Greylock Design Associates, and Project architect Anthony Mussachio.
There were approximately 50 members of the public present.
Attorney Heller presented the renderings and reviewed the details of the application. He said hotels are allowed in the C3A District by Special Permit. The majority of the building height is 43 feet 4 inches. There is an unoccupied parapet which is 48 feet 6 inches high. The foot print of the hotel is only 5.3 percent whereas 20 percent is allowed under the zoning bylaw. The frontage of the lot is 578 feet and is setback 314 feet from the highway. Proposed are 107 parking spaces, one more than is required for this proposed project. Eighty percent of the parking is required to be in the back and sides of the building, which would limit the parking spaces in front to be 20, but the applicant is requesting 24 be allowed which will allow for better circulation and handicap parking. An attribute
to this site is there is a traffic light at the common driveway to the adjoining property known as Brushwood Farm. Around the proposed hotel will be an area of 43 feet which will be planted with grass, bushes, flowers and trees. A pump house 480 sf and 12 feet tall is proposed for the fire suppression and water supply. The applicant is asking for two small, low profile signs which measure 4 square feet each. A 21-seat bistro for hotel guests and an indoor pool are proposed.
Attorney Heller summarized the applicants request as:
Special Permit for the hotel
Special Permit for 24 parking spaces in the front of the hotel
Special Permit for two profile signs
Height waiver
Site Plan Approval
Mr. Toole started his presentation stating he felt that at the Planning Board’s December 10, 2013 the proponents did not give a good visual perspective of the proposed hotel. He wanted to address their concerns and provide a visual perspective of the hotel after completion.
Mr. Toole pointed out that the existing signal light and driveway provide a safe and appropriate entrance to a hotel. He has received affirmative letters from Fire Chief Dan Clifford and Superintendent of the Department of Public Works, Sean VanDeusen. Mr. Toole said that he has agreed to grant in perpetuity to the Town a right of way around this property for future water needs and a larger water line versus an 8 inch pipe, will be installed in case of greater demand in the future.
An improved façade which incorporates design elements of the neighborhood was provided by Mr. Toole based on the Planning Board’s input which he feels fits well into the characteristics of the neighborhood, citing the businesses that are in close proximity. The impact on the natural environment is minimized; they have utilized a low impact environmentally sensitive design which has been accomplished by minimizing the foot print, and have also reduced the scale of the structure by excavating into the earth as much as 15 feet. This project, he said, maximizes the green space and will have solar panels on the roof.
Mr. Toole said that the Town of Lenox has invested considerably in trying to attract younger visitors and he feels the Courtyard by Marriott will do that as the profile of a visitor to the Marriott Courtyard has been determined to be an “optimistic achiever, typically mid-forties, tech savvy and college educated”. This brand of hotel will assist in making Lenox a four season community. The market study shows that the Marriott will expand the market as has been the case with the Hampton Inn and Suites.
In discussing the economic impact, Mr. Toole said he has been told that the Town will receive in excess of $400,000.00 for him to tie into water and sewer. He calculates that the project will generate annually for the town $300,000.00 for room occupancy tax, and approximately $80,000.00 in property tax and $40,000 in water and sewer charges. It is expected the annual payroll will be about $1,000,000.00.
Project architect Anthony Mussachio, whose firm designed the Hampton Inn, embellished what had previously been stated. He first detailed the profile of the Marriott guest as a business traveler and then reviewed the current design of the hotel which was developed as a result of the comments of the Planning Board. They have taken steps to minimize the scale of the building. He feels that this design is more in compliance with the nature of the region, a “New England style”. An outdoor courtyard is an important aspect to the building. He concluded that the hotel will not have any negative impact on those who drive by on Rt. 7 & 20.
Mr. Akroyd described the proposed landscaping which he said is above and beyond the requirements of the zoning bylaw and will mitigate the view of the structure from Routes 7 & 20. The pump house will be completely screened. He provided images to illustrate the view of the building from the highway during the summer and winter and from both north and south bound travelers. He concluded the hotel is significantly screened from the highway.
Mr. Mack said that his firm is employed as the civil site work engineers for this project. He reviewed the site plan, infrastructure and the utilities portion of the project. He stated that the project is compact and a sensitive site design with green and Leed design elements to maximize efficiency. This design minimizes the foot print, which minimizes impervious surfaces and in turn minimizes the draining and lighting requirements. There will be almost no tree cutting for this project. The stormwater will be collected by a series of open channel flow and closed pipe system catch basins and then delivered to underground infiltration chambers. From there, the stormwater will go to a very large stormwater basin and then dispersed back into natural drainage so there no pipe connection to MassDOT. Peak flow
drainage is reduced for this project. Water and sewer will be provided by municipal services and both the DPW and the town’s consultant have approved the project. Fire Chief Dan Clifford has approved for both the height of the structure and the site plan for adequate fire protection. Mr. Mack said there is one small wetland in a drainage ditch along road, but no work is being proposed in the buffer zone. Mr. Mack provided a site lighting plan and stated that it conforms to the bylaw. Natural Heritage has conceptually approved and MEPA has sent a letter stating the developer doesn’t need to file
Ms. Locke addressed the concerns expressed by the Planning Board at their December 10th meeting. She said that a supplemental traffic study has been prepared to address those concerns and is entitled Supplemental Traffic Memorandum. She explained the approach for generating the study which requires working with MassDOT. The initial study was conducted in October and the information sought were the delays and the level of service for the intersection. The existing conditions and projected conditions, whether or not the hotel is built, were analyzed. Hotels are known to not generate much traffic. It was determined that this project would not trigger degradation of service. Ms. Locke stated that this is an ideal location due to the existing signal and pedestrian accommodations which
is a push button. When engaged, the traffic signal turns red directing vehicular traffic to stop and signals the exclusive pedestrian phase. She pointed out that this is a median divided highway which discourages “U” turns. She said the original traffic study indicated no impact, but the Planning Board felt that there would be an increase in traffic in the months of July and August and asked that that period be analyzed. Ms. Locke stated traffic studies are done for an average month, which is October in this case, but did obtain data provided by the MassDOT and it was determined that the traffic at this intersection increased by 8.7 percent during the summer. This figure was then used to determine if there was a change from the first study and it was found that with this increase, the level of service did not change. The delays are slightly more, but there was no degradation of service. The second area of concern raised by
the Planning Board was the pedestrian accommodations with the development of a hotel at the proposed site. There is very little pedestrian activity under the existing conditions, but with an increase Ms. Locke stated there would be no negative impact. In conclusion Ms. Locke said this is an ideal site for the hotel and she has coordinated with MassDOT who has jurisdiction and it has been agreed there would be no negative impact and the intersection can more than adequately handle the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed hotel.
Attorney Heller concluded the presentation. He noted that the petition is in compliance with all sections of the zoning bylaw and summarized the testimony given. He felt it was significant that Mr. Toole and the architect listened to the Planning Board and changed the design to be more in keeping with a New England design. He said that the proposed hotel would generate a continuing stream of income for the town with the room and meals tax versus an office building. Attorney Heller reviewed the benefits of having the taller building instead of a two story building and said that the Board’s authority to waive the building height has been in existence for 44 years and listed among projects to be granted a waiver were: Cranwell, with the rebuild of the carriage house; Devonshire Estates; Hampton Inn
and the condominiums on Housatonic near the corner of Church Street. Attorney Heller said that all criteria for Site Plan Review have been met. Another point Attorney Heller made was that the town’s Master Plan of 1999 talked about the need for commercial development to maintain the tax base. He said that only 4.2 percent of the land in Lenox is zoned commercial, and in the C3A zone there is only 2.9 percent of the land. This results in very little opportunity for commercial development.
Attorney Heller stated that Attorney William Martin, who represents rival developer Vijay Singh Mahida, compared Mr. Mahida’s proposed Marriott to this project. (Mr. Mahida petitioned the Zoning Board in 2006 seeking approval to build his hotel on land across from Caligari Hardware on Housatonic St., but was subsequently denied.) Attorney Heller said there is no comparison to Mr. Mahida’s project as the location and zoning for that project was very different. The parcel on Housatonic Street, an access road to the high school, is located in the C1A zone in a densely settled residential neighborhood. Attorney Heller also said that Attorney Martin has suggested Mr. Toole’s petition should in some way be looked at as a Gateway overlay project, but Attorney Heller restated what RF said at the onset of
this hearing and that is the choice is at the discretion of the petitioner.
The Board read into the record the Planning Board’s letter of December 17, 2013 in which they said they had concerns related to the hotel aesthetics and size as well as pedestrian safety at the light on Routes
7 & 20. RF asked that the Planning Board evaluate the new information and then submit a subsequent advisory to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Mussachio responded to EB who asked about the difference in a three story versus a proposed four story hotel by saying that a three story structure would make for a 50 foot longer building which would have more of a detrimental impact to the natural environment. He confirmed that the first and this second rendition are about the same height
Mr. Toole added there would not be that much difference in visual height in comparing the two renditions but an enormous difference in scale.
A five minute break for the Board and audience was taken.
Public Comment:
-Olga Weiss, stating she represented the Lenox Historical Commission, read from her letter previously submitted to the Board. Their concerns related to the design and height.
-Buddy Adler, who said he has a background in the hospitality business, supports a Marriott Hotel and feels it is a positive for economic development in Lenox and urged the Planning and Zoning Boards to cooperate to make this project viable.
-Maria Smith, the general manager for the Hampton Inn & Suites, supports the project and the Toole family as hosts.
-Judy Moss expressed her concern about height, area and the ability to fill the rooms.
-Robert Coakley said that he and his family strongly support Mr. Toole and his project.
-Frederick Keator said that Lenox has historically promoted tourism and he supports this project as it will provide lodging for tourists who otherwise would go to other communities.
-Jim Harwood said he feels the scale, massing and materials are inappropriate. He was concerned that there was no pedestrian street furniture, historic lighting or connection to downtown and that the applicant should respect the town’s priorities for a gateway.
-Patti Spector commented that she does not object to the hotel use on the property, but doesn’t like the architecture as she feels it isn’t in keeping with the neighborhood.
-Dave Ward, owner of Lenox Commons, is in complete support of the project.
RFjr said that he does not like the design of the building, although it will not affect his vote.
Mr. Toole responded to the comments, saying he is trying to make this project viable financially and make it fit into the environment. He feels that everyone will be pleased with the building and the landscaping.
RF made a motion to continue the hearing to 8:00 pm on January 22, 2014. RFjr seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 4-0.
Approve minutes-RF made a motion to approve the minutes of December 18, 2013 and RFjr seconded the motion. The Board voted to approve 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
