Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
February 18, 2015
Landuse Meeting Room
Members present: Acting Chair Shawn Leary Considine, (SLC); Clifford Snyder, (CS); Al Harper, (AH); Robert Fuster Jr.; (RFjr) Robert Fuster Sr., (RF)
Absent with notification: Chair Ethan Berg, (EB); Ned Douglas, ND
Staff present: Land Use Director/Town Planner Gwen Miller (GM) and Land Use Clerk Peggy Ammendola, (PA)
Front Yard, LLC, Elm Court, 310 Old Stockbridge Road (Map 3, Parcel 4), Special Permit for access to the resort via Old Stockbridge Road in Lenox, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 3.1.C.7, Section 9.4, and 4.1.4.
Representing the applicants were:
Attorney Nick Arienti of Hellman Shearn and Arienti of Great Barrington; Brent White of White Engineering of Pittsfield; Jon Dietrich, Senior Transportation Engineer of Fuss and O’Neill;
Architect Pam Sandler AIA; and Adam Hawthorne, of Travassa Experiential Resorts. Not present was Greg Farmer, the historic preservation consultant for the project.
SLC briefly explained the Public Hearing process saying that this petition would probably be continued to a second date and that it is possible there would also be a site visit. In order for the Petition to be granted, four out of the five members of the Board would have to vote in favor. If granted, conditions to the permit would be voted on separately and to pass would have to have three of the five members voting in favor.
The hearing notice was read into the record.
Attorney Arienti said that the Town of Stockbridge granted a Special Permit to Front Yard for this project September 10, 2014. Elm Court is situated on 90 acres, 87 of which are in Stockbridge and 3 that are in Lenox. The three acres in Lenox fronts Old Stockbridge Road and is where the historic entrance of Elm Court is located. Because the entrance is in Lenox, the applicant has to also petition the Town of Lenox for a Special Permit.
Attorney Arienti provided the history of Elm Court, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It was built in 1885 by William Douglas Sloane and Emily Vanderbilt. The architects were Peabody and Stearns and Frederick Law Olmsted was the landscape architect. There were numerous additions and it has 106 rooms. This is the site of the Elm Court Talks which led to the creation of the League of Nations and The Treaty of Versailles. In 1946, it became a seasonal hotel-inn use, known as the Elm Court Club which provided accommodations for up to 60 people. Due to the overwhelming operating cost, it faltered and was abandoned in 1957. Elm Court fell into disrepair and was eventually condemned as a public nuisance. In 1998 Colonel Wilde passed away and his daughter
inherited the property. The following year, she sold the property to her son Robert Berle, great-great-grandson of the Sloanes. Mr. Berle and his wife Sonya started the process of restoration. In 2003 the Towns of Stockbridge and Lenox granted Special Permits to the Berles to operate a bed and breakfast establishment which would include a café-restaurant and gallery. In 2005, with the main house half way restored, the Berles felt that they could not go any further so they put the property on the market. It remained on the market for seven years.
In 2012, Front Yard acquired the property with the intent to restore and save the historically significant property. Their proposal is to add 96 guest rooms in a new wing to the existing, a spa and a 60 seat restaurant. The restaurant would be on the main floor of the existing main house. There are 16 rooms in the main house, so this would bring the total rooms to 112, being the fourth largest in room counts. Canyon Ranch, Cranwell and the Red Lion Inn are larger. Travassa wants to restore Elm Court to its previous grandeur and provide an opportunity for guests to stay at a New England cottage estate, a Vanderbilt mansion, which is steeped in history.
Attorney Arienti reviewed the site plan and said that the new addition, which will not be visible from Old Stockbridge Road, is less than one percent of the property which allows for open space preservation. Due to the contours and location it will be below the tree line of Old Stockbridge Road and Stockbridge Bowl.
Attorney Arieneti reviewed the special permits criteria (6) of Section 9.4 of the Lenox Zoning Bylaw. Some highlights of the review of each item are noted.
Number 1-Community needs served by the proposal:
It is expected that there will be 100 full and part time jobs at the resort in addition to the construction jobs. The annual compensation will be double that of hospitality jobs in Berkshire County. This will bring tourists to Lenox. Elm Court is a tremendously significant historic property that is important to Stockbridge, Lenox, and Berkshire County. It has been derelict for over 50 years and the applicants’ objective is to restore and preserve this property to the greatest extent possible so that the public will have the opportunity to experience the historical charm. With the granting of a special permit, there will be municipal infrastructure upgrades at a $2,000,000.00 plus at a cost to the applicants. Also, in the event of a positive finding on the application, the applicant
has agreed to provide a sidewalk along Old Stockbridge Rd.
Number 2-Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading:
Fuss and O’Neill’s traffic study is included in the application and has been reviewed by Tighe and Bond during the Town of Stockbridge hearing process and also by BETA, a firm hired at the request of the Town of Lenox at the expense of the applicant. The Fuss and O’Neill study showed that, with this project proposal, there would not be any substantial increase in traffic or impairment of pedestrian safety. The reviews by Tighe and Bond and BETA of the traffic study concluded that the study was done properly, the engineering standards were adhered to and the results are reliable. BETA made a list of recommendations and Fuss and O’Neill responded. This information is included in the application. Attorney Arienti noted that the three traffic engineer firms are well respected, two
of whom have done many studies in this area and are regularly relied on. Attorney Arienti said that the data proves that Old Stockbridge Road is not an unsafe road. It is acknowledged that there is an existing speeding issue.
Public safety officials have opined that for pedestrian safety, a sidewalk along Old Stockbridge Rd. is needed. Attorney Arienti said that upon project approval, the applicants will fund installation of sidewalk and suggested traffic calming devices to make the road more safe.
Number 3-Adequacy of utilities and other public services:
The finding is that there is sufficient capacity for sewer collection, pumping and treatment systems, and the domestic water supply to accommodate and support the proposed project. Weston and Sampson issued two letters, one regarding sewer and one regarding water that are a part of the application. They made recommendations that Front Yard has agreed to and will comply providing the application is approved. Deficiencies have been identified which includes, but is not limited to, an existing 123 year old water line which was identified 8-9 years ago as being deficient. Front Yard will fund the cost for the infrastructure improvements of deficiencies estimated to be estimated to be $2,000,000.00 + at no cost to the taxpayer.
Number 4-Neighborhood character and social structures:
Resorts are a permitted use in the Lenox R1A district by a special permit. The entire stretch of Old Stockbridge Road is not simply single family residential. Attorney Arienti pointed out that this is a mixed use neighborhood with Hillcrest Educational Center to the south, Shakespeare and Company property backs up to Old Stockbridge Rd, and Turnure Terrace, state-aided housing for the elderly is to the north. Winden Hill, a condominium development just north of Elm Court was formerly Berkshire Christian College. Elm Court Florist conducted business on the site during the 1980’s. Stone Hill, a residential subdivision was created in the mid-nineties.
Number 5-Impact to natural environment:
The intent of the applicant is to preserve the estate of Elm Court including its vast grounds to the greatest extent possible. The siting and locations of the structures were strategically done in order to meet the very important needs of preserving the natural environment and providing as much open space as possible. The elevation of the property required the applicant to file under the Scenic Mountain Act with the Stockbridge Conservation Commission. The proposal was reviewed favorably and the applicant will remove as few trees and vegetation as possible. The Stockbridge Historic Preservation Commission also reviewed the proposed plans for compliance with the required estate preservation bylaw. Greg Farmer, a historic preservation consultant, Pam
Sandler, a local architect as well as the primary architect have reviewed the plans. Attorney Arienti said that the plans have been thoroughly vetted and the merits of the proposal have been found to be favorable and approval has been granted by Stockbridge.
Number 6-Potential economic and fiscal impact to the Town, including impact on town services, tax base, and employment:
With regards to town services there have been no negative reports from the town officials. Letters from Chief Dan Clifford of the Lenox Fire Department and Chief O’Brien of the Lenox Police Department Front Yard expressed concerns regarding speed and safety issues. Front Yard has been responsive to these concerns. For water and sewer services there will be significant municipal infrastructure improvements at no cost to the Town. The capital cost of $2,000,000.00 plus will be borne by the applicant. The sewer line extension will increase the capacity and the water line replacement will provide increased safety for residents along the road making sure there is pressure and service from the water line. Furthermore, Front Yard has offered to fund
construction of a sidewalk if this special permit is granted. Once the property is developed, its value will increase and therefore the taxes would increase. Another positive is that the resort would be a consumer and pay to Lenox water and sewer fees.
With regards to employment, the hospitality business in this area generates over $131,000,000.00 in total wages in Berkshire County. This makes up to 6 percent of all wages. In addition to that there will be construction jobs.
Attorney Arienti said that this proposal fulfills the Great Estate Inn bylaw, Section 6.10.13 and read the following passage:
The purpose of this section is to encourage the preservation and restoration of the Great Estate buildings and land inherited from the estate system of the early 1900s by the allowance of limited uses by right. In furtherance of the public purposes set forth in Section 1.1 and Section 6.10.1 of the Lenox Zoning Bylaw, the preservation and restoration of the Great Estates buildings and land will encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the Town, increase the amenities of the Town by encouraging the preservation and restoration of historic properties, and increase the economic viability of these Great Estates, which will benefit the general welfare of the Town by increasing amenities available to the inhabitants and visitors, as well as increasing employment
and tax revenue.
Mr. White said that the infrastructure in Old Stockbridge Road is old. The existing sewer line between Hawthorne and Bishop Estate has major deficiencies that have been detailed in the Weston and Sampson report. As part of the Elm Court project, in providing for their utilities, a number of existing homes from Elm Court north to Bishop Estate will be able to connect. The financial contribution made by Elm Court will remedy a very serious problem with the town waste water treatment system. A significant improvement will be made also to the Brunell pump station. Elm Court will be a paying customer for their initial connection and ongoing utility rates.
Mr. Dietrich told the Board that his firm started in 2012 with traffic studies and has gone thru four other studies. He summarized some of what the studies encompass, e.g., three different projection years (2, 5 and 10), search of accident history, entry at Elm Court and at intersections north and south of the site. The result of the studies is that this project will not create a huge amount of undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety; no significant delays and does not significantly affect level of service at the intersections.
Ms. Sandler stated that Elm Court is on the National Register of Historic Places and as one of the most important shingle style buildings in this country its preservation is crucial to keeping this American style architecture alive. The project calls for a complete historic renovation of the main house, maintaining the present property as originally built. The key design in the new addition will be consistent with existing structure and in keeping with the original character and style of the main house. The construction as well as the restoration will adhere to historic preservation standards. Ms. Sandler showed the elevations.
Mr. Hawthorne described the “brand” of Travassa as having unique places and chose Elm Court for its culture and said it fits into the brand. There are three entities; Amstar is the parent company with Front Yard, LLC owning the property and Travassa was developed to manage their properties. The properties purchased have been maintained by them since their purchase.
AH inquired how it was determined that 96 additional rooms were necessary. Mr. Hawthorne responded that they utilized Smith Travel Research who collects hospitality data from all parts of the world, e.g., average daily rate, daily occupancy, etc. With that data they look at a region, similar properties, seasonality (rates and occupancy throughout the year) and then develop revenue projections. Then they look at their other projects they have done, draw on the collective experience of the many hoteliers in their company and determine that these are the correct expense ratios for a property such as this. With this information they can determine the room count required to be able to get any type of feasible return on a project. Scaling back the number of rooms would not work for this project.
The total estimated cost for this project would be approximately $50,000,000.00. It is anticipated that there would be weddings and retreats. It is believed that some weddings would be held outdoors in the vicinity of the fountain. At this point SLC read the limitations on outdoor activities imposed by Stockbridge in granting a special permit. Other activities planned include snowshoeing, cross country skiing, sledding, hiking, kayaking and yoga. Their focus is on adventure, culture, culinary and fitness.
In response to questions raised by the Board, Mr. Hawthorne responded:
- Elm Court will be open to the public.
- From approval to opening would be approximately two years
- The room rates are expected to run from $300.00 to $800.00, depending on the season.
- Elm Court resort would attract a younger demographic
Mr. Hawthorne said the he understands that Springlawn would operate differently, like a private club with membership fees, unlike Elm Court.
SLC asked about Mr. Dietrich’s reference to “traffic calming measures”. He explained that would be ways to slow traffic, such as speed limit signs, speed bumps, signs which flash actual speed, etc.
The hearing was opened for public comment. Following are those who spoke and a short summary of their stated opinion:
Susan Grausman of Stone Hill Road-There are vacancies in the Historic District. She questioned the belief that Elm Court would be good for the local businesses when other resorts in the area haven’t sustained the existing businesses. She thinks that the developer should present their business plan.
Rita Willey of 291 Old Stockbridge Road-Has toured the estate and is amazed with the restoration effort and encourages all to see. This project will save Elm Court and benefit the community. Safety issues are minimal.
Robert Murray of 332 Old Stockbridge Road-Feels this project will build on the strength Lenox already has, and cited Tanglewood and tourism. He said that Berkshire Visitors Bureau will spend $2,000,000.00 over a three year period to market all of Berkshire County and over the same period of time Travassa plans on spending $4,000,000.00. While it will be marketing the project, it will also benefit the area. Regarding traffic on Old Stockbridge Road, Mr. Murray would like the speed limit to be reduced to 25 MPH, have more enforcement and would like to have a sidewalk.
Paul Graubard 16 Old Center St.-Project will bring needed jobs that will keep people in the area.
Gregory Whitehead- President of Bishop Estate-Feels passionate about the road and neighborhood-Feels that it would not be a tragedy to eliminate the derelict wings to reduce the footprint so that Elm Court would not have to have so many rooms.
Colin Mathews, 48 Old Stockbridge Rd.-Personally experiences heavy traffic volume following Tanglewood concerts, but feels that a vibrant Tanglewood and vibrant Lenox is more than a fair trade-off. There are empty storefronts and estates like Elm Court and he supports the project as it is for the common good.
At this point, the Planning Board’s letter regarding this project was read aloud.
Thomas Sebestyen, 261 Old Stockbridge Rd.-Not against the project, but the scale is his concern, and asked what the alternatives are to address the concerns.
Wayne Lemanski, 15 Frothingham Crossing-Lived at this address for 40 years, fully supports the project; regarding critics wanting financial information from Travassa-it is a private corporation; regarding concerns Travassa will “flip” the property-Travassa is investing $50,000,000.00, not concerned they would flip; within a mile of his address, there is Hope Church, Canyon Ranch, Shakespeare and Company, Hillcrest Educational Center, Fox Hollow, Edith Wharton and Seven Hills-not seen a dramatic change in traffic.
Laurie Norton Moffatt- 2 Dugway Rd., Stockbridge-An estate property manager, can attest to the millions of dollars to sustain; grateful Travassa is willing to make an investment in historic property and grateful to Stockbridge and Lenox for having Great Estates Bylaws that encourage development and the saving of properties with the unique distinguishing heritage of the Gilded Age; has stayed at a Travassa resort-not been to one as beautiful, has faith Travassa will protect the heritage of the historical property; will compliment other cultural offerings of the community.
Barney Edmonds-316 Old Stockbridge Rd., Doesn’t like the project; work in our home, people have a right to their property, having a resort 300 feet from his property isn’t quiet or calm; Old Stockbridge Rd. will be changed with the traffic.
Julie Edmonds-316 Old Stockbridge Rd., Read traffic study, one excursion a day, 20% increase in traffic and two a day, 40% increase, additional document handed to the Board; the annex, spa and corridor is bigger than original mansion, in the beginning there were 16 rooms, increased numbers to 40, 76, 80 then 96; is suspicious and doesn’t believe that the applicants will stay true to their commitment to retain open space.
SLC responded to Ms. Edmonds comments, saying that any significant changes to what has been permitted in Stockbridge or what is being presented in this application would have to go through the permitting process again. This would include public hearings.
Robert Tepper-Innkeeper in the Berkshires strongly supports; stayed a week last year at Travassa in Austin, was a magnificent experience; will be a great asset to the community and a responsible neighbor.
Paula Almgren, resident and has a law firm at Old Stockbridge Rd. and West St.-important to our town and fully supports.
Ralph Petillo, Housatonic St. and Director of the Lenox Chamber of Commerce-There is a market for upscale resort; future of Lenox is its past, need to preserve, need jobs.
Alex Kloman-Not in favor, too big; ask developer to compromise, smaller might be better; what does Lenox gain with this project and what is their business plan?
Carl Pratt, Old Stockbridge Rd., General Manager of Cranwell Resorts, and previously 17 years at Canyon Ranch-Can attest from personal experience at two resorts, cannot sustain with fewer rooms, property will continue to disintegrate if this is not permitted: questioned what would Bellefontaine look like if Canyon Ranch had not been developed or what would Cranwell look like if they had not be permitted to build houses; resorts are a proven entity and these estates are historic elements which drives the town; Eastover is operating in a higher density residential neighborhood than Elm Court; if Elm Court is not given approval, homes could be built; pointed out that Cranwell has a spa and restaurant that is not exclusive and is supported by local
residents.
Alexandra Glover, an attorney who represents Carol Grossman, provided a written submission; said that the traffic studies did not take into account the traffic generated by the public using the spa and restaurant. Due to the late hour, Attorney Glover’s comments were limited, and she will continue at the next hearing.
RFjr made a motion to adjourn at 9:53 PM. CS seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree
5-0.
It was agreed that there will be a site visit on Monday, March 16th at 4:00 PM and the hearing will be continued to March 18, 2015 at 7:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
