News

As Covid recedes…

Once again, the world around us is shifting. Covid restrictions are officially lifted yet some private businesses still prefer customers wear masks.

At the Stockbridge Post Office, I asked if masks were preferred and was answered, “Yes but we are not allowed to ask customers to put on their masks.”

In other places, the policy is written: “If you are vaccinated, you do not need a mask.” It invokes an honor system.

During Covid, attendees grew used to government meetings via Zoom. In addition, recorded meetings were then available on television and the Internet. Sensing the value of recorded committee, commission, and board meetings, the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill, and the governor signed it into law, continuing Zoom meetings until April 2022.

In Stockbridge, apparently, using Zoom is being left to the chairs of various boards, committees, and commissions. SU hopes all chairs contact Michael Canales and “opt in”.

Both Zoom and recorded meetings create options for attendance that people value. Create irrefutable records to which anyone may refer. Allow anyone who finds it difficult to attend in person to still follow their government at work. Allow busy folks to watch a meeting at a time convenient rather than the one time it took place.

Whether the meetings are in-person, Zoom, or hybrid, SU will continue to follow it all and report. At the same time, SU encourages meetings via Zoom that are also replayed on CTSB for transparency and for the convenience of all.

Opinion

Introducing Town Square

Welcome to Stockbridge Updates Town Square – a new section!

There are issues before us that would benefit from community dialogue. The gatherings in the Town Square of old were vibrant and informal. The discussions were the stuff of our nation’s history. We can replicate it here in our local — very local — newspaper Stockbridge Updates. Read Town Square and respond — all sides of the debate welcome.

Discussion topic for next Town Square

In this round of Covid Relief allocation (the American Rescue Plan Act), Stockbridge will receive approximately $500,000. How would you like to see that spent? There may be limits on how we can spend it, but that does not have to limit our dreams. Weigh in. (400 words or less, deadline July 12 — thank you).

Our first Town Square discussion

At the last Planning Board meeting, Vice Chair Marie Raftery suggested all PB members share their opinions on NRPZ. The exchange was at the conclusion of the PB meeting. PB members commented that it was interesting and enjoyable. To kick off the new Town Square section, All PB members were invited to submit their comments in writing to SU. Bill Vogt, Marie Raftery, Gary Pitney, and Carl Sprague did; they are posted below in the first SU Town Square. We also invited townsfolk on either side of the issue to write something, Anita Schwerner, Bruce Blair, and Barney Edmonds did. Weigh in and let the Town Square discussion begin.

Bill Vogt’s statement to the members of the Planning Board regarding NRHPZ bylaw draft June 15, 2021

I enthusiastically support the bylaw. It’s an improvement over the existing cluster bylaw for the following reasons:

• The existing bylaw applies to subdivisions only, but the NRHPZ bylaw applies to both subdivisions and, by special permit, non-subdivisions.
• The existing is an option; NRHPZ is required for subdivisions.
• The existing has no set amount of open space required; NRHPZ has substantial open space required.
• The existing has no method of permanent protection of open space; NRHPZ requires a conservation restriction.
• Existing has no requirements for establishing a homeowners’ association; NRHPZ does.
• Existing has no procedure for selecting open space versus developed land; NRHPZ contains a Conservation Analysis and Rural Siting Principles. This is an entirely new process that the PB must approve before development can proceed. This maintains local character, reducing sprawl and isolation.

The bylaw creates a new approval process that encourages the builder to work with the town and the neighborhood in laying out the development, rather than using a computer to maximize the number of lots he gets. This protects fragile habitats and would require less covering of impervious surfaces and fewer maintenance costs for the town. Mixed housing types can be included.

The identification and preservation of open space in Stockbridge should be a high priority for the town. This bylaw would assure the priority is met. Bylaws like this one are environmentally friendly and are promoted by environmental and conservation organizations like Mass Audubon.

Marie Raftery: My thoughts on the NRPZ bylaw draft given at the PB meeting June 15, 2021

I am totally in favor of the NRPZ bylaw for our town. I would like to see as much land conserved as possible and the land that is to be conserved be the best land for conservation of natural resources that can be on any given piece of property. On the other hand, I understand that taking away housing is not fair to landowners or the town that needs housing stock and tax dollars. Therefore, equal housing density, same density as our present bylaws allow, seems fair to all. I am still not sure how I feel about counting bedrooms or living units.

I would like to see the areas where housing is allowed to be zoned for different styles of housing — not to create more density but because I feel there is a need or a market for condo or apartment style living for people wanting to downsize or are just starting up. I would like to see more housing options than just single or two-family houses.

I like the rules governing the CR, conservation restrictions, with required homeowner associations. This ensures that the preserved, common land will be always taken care of.

I like the conservation analysis at the beginning of the process, with thoughtful analysis by a landscape architect or someone similar and qualified, and presented to the PB and other various groups in town. This should alleviate a lot of problems for the town later in the process.

I would like to see that the area or areas set aside for housing have rules and parameters so everyone knows what is allowed or not. The Rural Siting Principles are a commonsense view of land development. The Design Requirements use a 4-step process done with the use of a landscape architect with approval by the PB at each step of the way. With the correct regulations and understanding at the beginning of the process, this bylaw should last a long time and be able to change as society and the town demands it.

Please do not be afraid of change, if it is a change for a better way. That is what this bylaw is, a better bylaw for our land.

Gary Pitney: My thoughts on NRPZ shared at PB Meeting June 15, 2021

The Planning Board was asked to address The Cottage Era Estate Bylaw. We did and the recommendation was to eliminate the bylaw.

Since then, we have transformed that request and subsequent suggested remedy into the NRPZ process.

I do not support it for the following reasons:

The NRPZ is unnecessary.

Site Review vs Special Permit

Selectboard is eliminated as part of the decision-making process

The NRPZ is Developer-Friendly

The NRPZ is a gateway perhaps through further bylaw revisions, to transform Stockbridge

into a Town we will no longer recognize as the Destination and Home we who live here and those who visit have grown to appreciate and love.

Carl Sprague: Thoughts on NRPZ

First of all I don’t understand yet how this bylaw proposal would be implemented. Is it intended to replace the Cottage Era Estate bylaw and our present cluster zoning provisions, or is it another layer on top of the existing zoning map? Making the existing zoning bylaw more complicated than it already is doesn’t seem like a good idea.

What I came away from Mr. Arendt’s presentation was that the goals are laudable. I believe we’re all in favor of open space preservation and fighting residential sprawl. But looking at the plans he presented as examples, I felt the proposal opens the door to greater density in neighborhoods where we are not used to seeing that.

We have had a clear vision for the Town in terms of where development should be focused since the zoning map was adopted in the 1960s. I think we have controlled growth more successfully than surrounding communities. I’m not quite sure what needs to be fixed here.

We have been butting heads over the Cottage Era Estate bylaw for some time. I think that regulation was a high-minded response to the concerns of a different era. Perhaps we don’t need it anymore. With regard to the existing cluster bylaw, I’m not sure it’s ever been used.

The planning process that’s described in the proposed NRHPZ is thoughtful, but it’s a process that will require energy and expertise to navigate.

How much development pressure are we really facing? Stockbridge has always taken a “go-slow” approach with the result that we have been able to grow spacious, historic neighborhoods and keep our tax rates and infrastructure needs relatively modest.

About twenty years ago, working on the Historic Preservation bylaw, I took the Boston representative from Mass Historic through all our neighborhoods and back roads. It struck me what a treasure we have in this community, and I don’t see that we should hurry to change it. The balance between affordable housing and wealthy weekenders is a primary concern which none of the current proposals really addresses.

Our current zoning is a map, and before we change it, we need to look at the map, consider conservation lands, preservation priorities and development possibilities. It’s worth looking at it closely.

Anita Schwerner: Response while watching the discussion on NRPZ

The stated purposes of Stockbridge’s zoning by-laws include “to minimize the adverse effects of development on the town’s unique environmental and historic features and for the protection and enhancement of the town’s existing small-town character, open spaces, low density of population and, in the interests of the town’s orderly growth at deliberate pace.” (Section 1.3.d) For over a year, the planning board has had a total of 3 different planners working on a bylaw that would impact all these areas and more depending upon the details of the bylaw and its implementation. There is disagreement surrounding the need for the bylaw as well as its details.

If you are confused about the necessity for and details of the 6th draft of the NRPZ bylaw, you are not alone. At the June 15 meeting of the Planning Board, the 5 members who participated in person responded to the agenda item “Comments from Board regarding NRPZ bylaw” which Vice-Chair Marie Raftery requested at the previous meeting. Each member expressed their thoughts and concerns about the NRPZ bylaw.

Raftery wanted the comments because board members hadn’t had the opportunity to give directions to planner Jeff Lacy about what they wanted. They only responded to and questioned the drafts that were presented to them. Previously, an ad hoc committee of Chairman Vogt, former vice-chair Christine Rasmussen and Member Nancy Socha were the only members permitted to give directions to Lacy. After concerns about the appearance of an open meeting violation, only Rasmussen interacted with Lacy. No member of the former ad hoc committee was at the June 15 meeting. Vogt sent a statement comparing NRPZ with the existing Cluster Housing bylaw. Why not address any valid concerns by amending the existing bylaw?

Member Slosek questioned how the board was derailed from looking at its priority — the Cottage Era Estate Bylaw — and instead became focused on NRPZ. Member Pitney explained his rationale for abolishing the CEEB and I strongly agree with him.

I highly recommend watching the meeting on CTSB. The comments and discussions were calm and thoughtful. They addressed areas of agreement as well as disagreement and some in need of clarification. As Slosek pointed out, they had never gotten to the cons of the NRPZ bylaw. Pitney expressed his concern that this bylaw could transform Stockbridge into something we would no longer recognize. Stay tuned.

Barney Edmonds: Some thoughts on proposed NRPZ bylaw

While thinking about ways to improve this new proposed bylaw I found myself exploring the concept of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM).

“Evidence-based medicine refers to the application of the best available research [data] to clinical care, which requires the integration of evidence with clinical [consultant] expertise and patient [citizen] values.”

The goal of EBM is “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” How would this approach help us consider NRPZ?

I think there are four critical questions we need to be asking:

1. Is there any evidence this proposed bylaw would benefit towns like Stockbridge?
2. What have been the best practices and outcomes of other towns in changing their bylaws?
3. Has a conscientious effort been made to integrate citizen’s values in creating this bylaw?
4. Is this bylaw judicious — prudent, sensible and do the least harm — or is it a rush to judgement?

The only hard evidence I can find about the success of NRPZ in Massachusetts is here…

https://www.mass.gov/service-details/case-studies-open-space-design-osdnatural-resource-protection-zoning-nrpz.

This is a MassGov “Case Study” (actually more of a public relations effort) which promotes NRPZ in five towns: Newbury, Hopkinton, Rowley, Bellingham, and Ipswich. These towns are nothing like Stockbridge. They are all within 25 miles of either Boston, Worcester, Providence, RI, or Portsmouth, NH. They all have easy access to MBTA commuter lines. The smallest has a population three times larger than ours; the largest town is eight times more populated than Stockbridge. Two of them border the Atlantic!

We are far from a metro area. We are without any meaningful public transportation. We are truly a small and rural town. I think we need to act judiciously, keeping in mind our small-town values, and maintain our current (and proven) cluster housing bylaw. Look at Lenox — which of us has more conserved open land and protected natural resources? Let’s keep it that way and preserve Stockbridge’s health.

Bruce Blair: Comments on the NRPZ and a look ahead

I would like to thank Marie Raftery for introducing more discussion and viewpoints regarding the new development bylaw draft at the last Planning Board meeting. As Wayne Slosek pointed out, we have heard a lot of “pros” for the past year about this, but not much in the way of critical discussion at Planning Board meetings.

If there is a way forward on this bylaw, I believe it will need more credible support based on data and research on taxes, infrastructure, legal sufficiency, checks and balances, the environment, etc. I think this does not require outside planning consultants so much as it requires a broader and inclusive effort that represents more of your own members, other boards, and constituents. As last year’s sub-committee showed, transparency of your intent is critical.

But I also believe Stockbridge already has in place the bylaw tools needed to continue appropriate incremental development. I do not believe the Lacy bylaw addresses the scale and scope of how much new building impact the town can absorb without undoing the legacy that makes us who we are. Our quality of life and our economy depend on the preservation of the town’s unique characteristics.

Spending money on outside consultants to help sell this bylaw did not work. Telling us about it is not a discussion. The Planning Board needs to talk — among yourselves and with your constituents. If you establish trust and a common purpose among yourselves and residents, I think you will find people more than willing to look at the future and find answers with you.

Editorial

Just Asking

“Article 26: Transfer and appropriate $35,000 to be added to the amounts appropriated [2013 through 2020] …for costs associated with negotiations for the rest of the river project (along with Pittsfield, Lenox, Lee, Great Barrington, and Sheffield) regarding removal of PCBs in the Housatonic River.”

Overwhelmingly, Stockbridge Town Meeting approved the 2021 Warrant Articles. There were 55 of them. The 5 1/2 hour meeting was possibly the longest Town Meeting ever. If not, it should have been. My father warned, “The mind can absorb no more than the seat can endure.”

Town Meeting is not, or at least should not be, a rubber stamp for our representatives’ proposals. They propose, the voters decide, therefore, voters need to be informed. Town Meeting is the time to listen to our neighbors, voice our own opinions, and ask questions.

I rise with a question.

If, according to Article 26, five towns and the City of Pittsfield each voted $35,000 annually, then that would be $210,000/year for the last eight years or almost two million dollars. My question: what did we get for it? The agreement with GE? If so, that was signed in January 2020. Why were we asked to appropriate more money in July 2020 and June 2021?

To what lawyer or lawyers did that money go or was it held in escrow against a future need?

Is there one lawyer for all participants? Is that possible or are our needs too diverse?

The Stockbridge representative for eight years of negotiation, Steve Shatz, said he could not discuss it due to ongoing litigation. The person with the most information could not answer questions? His job as representative was to attend negotiations and report back; he could not report back? In that case, where do the voters get the answers?

Another question.

What ongoing litigation? Stockbridge is not suing or being sued. The Housatonic River Initiative (HRI), the only participant in the negotiations who did not sign the agreement, is seeking permission to commence litigation but none has commenced. In Lee there is a tangential suit filed in which no other participant in the agreement appears to have standing. So, in what ongoing litigation is Stockbridge involved? Even if there were ongoing litigation, why would that silence the Stockbridge representative to negotiations now concluded?

One last question.

If someday there is ongoing litigation, how was the lawyer (potentially paid from 2013 to date) instructed? For example, if HRI proceeds, will our lawyer enter the suit on the side of HRI or GE? Who decides that? When? Doesn’t the electorate have a role in that decision — doesn’t the electorate need to be informed to decide?

Just asking.

by Carole Owens, Managing Editor

News

Minutes from Stockbridge Bowl Stewardship Committee June 4 via Zoom

submitted by Charles Kenny

Present:

• Jamie Minacci, Chair
• Roxanne McCaffrey
• John Loiodice
• Gary Kleinerman
• Michael Nathan

Jim Wilusz, Charles Kenny. Members of the public. Absent: Michael Buffoni, Gary Johnston. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Minacci at 8:00am.

Minutes: Kenny volunteered to take the minutes for the meeting. He would distribute them to the other committee members as well as file them with the Town once they were approved. The minutes of the previous meeting of May 21 were discussed. Nathan clarified that the Select Board needed to help with the dredging. The minutes of the previous meeting of May 21 were accepted.

Reports:

Harbor Master: Kleinerman reported that the zebra mussel prevention program was in place 100%. The employees received their raises. They were intending to repaint the white line and were wondering what other improvements the Select Board was going to recommend regarding the parking area. Kleinerman intended to work on the docks in Bullard Woods and later on the Island. The 6 mile per hour markers would be installed the following week.

Board of Health: Kenny advocated adding a secretary if Town Meeting approved changing the status of the SBSC to a commission. Wilusz emphasized the fact that the mosquito control program had many deficiencies and that this was going to be reconsidered at the Town Meeting. He also thought that there should be continued discussion of the possible sewer expansion because he thought major costs were involved for people, particularly in the Lake Drive area, if they had to upgrade their septic systems. He wondered about the status of the committee members if the committee was upgraded to a commission, and Roxanne McCaffrey indicated that the same stakeholders would continue.

Select Board: McCaffrey noted that the NOI (Notice of Intent) for harvesting would be on the Conservation Commission agenda on June 8. She noted the Town was having trouble hiring people for various functions, including harvesting, and that increased salary offerings were being considered. This was also true with the lifeguard. She noted there was a Stockbridge Bowl Association Meeting on Sunday, June 13, and she would attend. She particularly wondered if the buoys would be put out to mark the herbicide test areas and protect them from the harvesting as had been directed by the state. She noted that the in-person meetings would resume, and that Town administration was currently studying how to accomplish combination meetings. Kenny, Nathan and Wilusz spoke in support of the hybrid meeting and the benefits of using the technology to allow people to participate from the general public as well as to allow recording of the meetings, to improve the convenience of people who are on committees, and potentially increase the pool of people who would eventually participate in Town government.

Sewer and Water: Loiodice noted that the hydrants had been cleaned and flushed, the bridge was in place at Curtisville, and that Larrywaug should be completed by October.

There followed discussion about the possible hook-up of sewer and water to the Lake Drive area, and Loiodice noted that there were currently no pending applications for sewer extension before his committee.

Wilusz noted multiple septic systems failed. If there was a time frame for sewer extension or some other alternative, different kinds of techniques of temporizing could be employed. He noted that one option might be a shared septic site. There was a discussion of the need for engineering input regarding the methods and cost. McCaffrey emphasized being proactive. It was thought that getting some of the key stakeholders together for a discussion would be important, and that was planned.

Conservation Commission: Minacci noted that the property with the rocks situation was improving. She again emphasized the potential importance of having a conservation agent available to watch out as properties were developed and alert the Con Com so that they did not have to play catch up. She confirmed that the NOI for harvesting was on the agenda for the Con Com on June 8.

Stockbridge Bowl Association: Nathan noted that the new harvester was a gem and volunteered his own services if there was trouble hiring people to run it. He noted that the Stockbridge Bowl Association donated $18,000 to the Town for the improvement of the beach. McCaffrey indicated that the Town planned to improve the parking lot with those funds in the fall. She noted that repairs of the pavilion roof were also being discussed. Nathan added that he thought that this was a laudable program because it was a family-oriented situation that allowed families to participate and enjoy the Bowl. He thought the improvement of the cove eventually, if it was successfully dredged, would be a similar family-oriented benefit. Chair Minacci noted that the next meeting would be on June 18 and that it would most likely be at the Town Hall because of the state of emergency in the State regarding coronavirus was about to end.

There being no other business, Chair Minacci adjourned the meeting at 8:56 a.m. Chair Minacci reminded everyone that the next meeting would be at 8 a.m. on June 18, possibly in person at the Town Hall.

Editor’s note: “the rock situation” refers To rocks placed in The Bowl that were possibly not permitted.

by Charles Kenny

News

Notes from SB meeting June 17 via Zoom

submitted by Meryl Phair

Present:

• Roxanne McCaffrey, Chair
• Patrick White
• Chuck Cardillo

Also present: Michael Canales

1. McCaffrey continued decision on Annual Entertainment license by Handcrafted Catering for use at 2 Depot Street until June 24th at 6:30pm.
2. National Grid Pole Public Hearing. Steven Hayward from National Grid requested four new poles be installed on the Prospect Hill side of Rattlesnake Mountain Road to provide service for a new residence being built on the road. The line will be extended from the existing line on Prospect Hill. Property owner voiced concern about the poles. SB approved pole construction.
3. Meeting minutes from June 1st and June 3rd were approved.
4. Kate Fletcher will give an update on the Cat and Dog Fountain project June 24th at 6:30pm.
5. Michael Buffoni, Water Superintendent, updated Curtisville bridge project.
   1. The bridge is currently closed to the public and all forms of traffic for safety reasons. However, there have been reports from neighbors about people utilizing the bridge. “Keep Off” signs have been ordered and will be placed on both ends of the bridge. The remaining requirement is to find ways to further secure the bridge from pedestrians.
   2. The cement pillars to inhibit vehicles will be replaced with fieldstone blocks to make them more visually appealing after receiving input from neighbors.
   3. There is currently a chain link fence to keep people off the bridge. White pointed out that Stockbridge has a no chain link fence bylaw but the SB agreed there is currently no other way to better secure the area, as it is a safety issue.
6. Tony Campetti, Sewer Superintendent, reported on pump station.
   1. Funding is now available.
   2. Campetti confirmed if the engineer got started this month, the plans would be done in October, early November at the latest, and a contractor would be on board for spring construction.
7. There was an update from the Highway Department by Hugh Page.
   1. A new yield sign and stop sign have gone up on Pine Street.
   2. The pothole on the corner of Rt. 183 and Larrywaug Cross Road has been filled as well as the pothole in front of the Post Office.
   3. Funding for the security camera for the Sewer Department will be available July 1st; camera will be ordered soon after. Highway Department might also potentially be able to use the security camera as well for upcoming projects.
   4. Four new speed monitors strategically placed around Town.
   5. New signs going up to direct traffic on North Church Street and Larrywaug Cross Road.
   6. Page brought in an example of the new bear proof trash and recycling cans which were approved by the Board.
8. Canales gave an update on the current bridge projects.
   1. The Curtisville bridge project is almost fully complete with a few remaining punch list items mainly regarding security as noted by Buffoni.
   2. The Larrywaug bridge construction is moving forward with no hiccups. The North and South footings were installed over the last week.
   3. The Averic Road bridge repair is scheduled to start in August with a completion date of October.
   4. Canales also reported: he will be connecting with MassDOT and Page about identifying road projects for the upcoming year. The Highway Dept garage roof is anticipated to be done this week.
9. Michael Buffoni noted Don Schneyer, not Clint Schneyer, is Chair of the Water and Sewer Commission.

Meeting adjourned.

Editor’s Note: Please see Reader to Reader, letter from Mike Buffoni, correctly locating the security gate.

by Meryl Phair

News

Notes from Select Board meeting June 10 via Zoom

submitted by Meryl Phair

Present:

• Roxanne McCaffrey, Chair
• Patrick White
• Chuck Cardillo

Also present: Michael Canales, Justin Carafotes, Karen Marshall, John Tonettti, Richard Seltzer

1. McCaffrey opened a Public Hearing on an application for an Annual Entertainment license by Handcrafted Catering for events at 2 Depot Street owned by the Berkshire Scenic Railway Museum Inc.
2. Carafotes presented information re: parking. BSRM owns 36 spaces and Laurel Hill Association permitted Handcrafted to use an additional 14 for 50 spaces total.
3. McCaffrey requested Carafotes provide visuals of event space with parking and tent location indicated.
4. Public Hearing was closed. SB has 30 days to make decision; McCaffrey said there would be a decision at June 17 SB meeting
5. Minutes of the May 13th, May 20th, and May 27th meetings approved.
6. A one-day alcohol license for a wedding at Chesterwood Museum on June 12th — approved unanimously.
7. Joseph Tonetti nominated to the Stockbridge Cultural Council for a three-year term. Approved unanimously.
8. Richard Seltzer gave an update on weed harvesting in the Stockbridge Bowl.
   1. Waiting for [unintelligible] determination which is due back on June 22nd.
   2. Seltzer met with SOLitude Lake Management and has arranged for them to come for a site visit of the lake where they will inspect the circumference to see what nuisance vegetation is growing and where it’s growing in the control and testing areas.
   3. It was confirmed that the weed harvester would avoid both the test and control areas.
   4. Seltzer will speak with SOLitude Lake management about putting up buoys to demarcate where the harvester can and can’t go.
   5. White was not prepared to assume that vegetation is Milfoil and if there is no Milfoil for the second year — can harvesting area be expanded?
9. McCaffrey proposed putting in a pedestrian crossing sign at the Red Lion Inn intersection similar to one that it is currently in Lenox. After discussion, the SB agreed to look into it.
10. Canales gave a COVID-19 regulation update as a number of items are currently up for legislation through the state government such as extending remote participation in town government until September and outdoor dining extended to October among others. Canales will give a further update at the next SB meeting on June 17th on which legislative items have passed or not.
11. The meeting then moved to discussion of the Talbot Center. The SB agreed to speak to the Conservation Commission (ConCom) about getting use of a structure located within donated land that was designated as a bird sanctuary by the donor (Map 219, lot 16 on West Stockbridge Road) as the ConCom are stewards of that section of land. The slab of the structure would be used to construct a shed for a swap shop where unused items could be dropped off and picked up by Stockbridge residents. The board also discussed the possibility of doing more for the bird sanctuary, whether that’s building walking paths or placing a bird directory on the shed wall or constructing an informational kiosk on birds in the area.
12. Beth Lester-Nathan, a Stockbridge resident present for the Town Meeting, pointed out she has noticed drivers who yield at the corner of the Red Lion Inn coming from Route 7 before turning right, don’t usually come to a full stop. Putting in a flashing stop light could potentially alleviate the dangers of that intersection. SB agreed this was a good idea and would look into the logistics.
13. Meeting moved into executive session.
14. Meeting moved back to open session.
15. The Highway employee contract was approved unanimously.

Meeting adjourned.

by Meryl Phair

News

Notes from Select Board meeting June 24 via Zoom

submitted by Meryl Phair

Present:

• Roxanne McCaffrey, Chair
• Patrick White
• Chuck Cardillo

Also present: Michael Canales

1. SB discussed hybrid meetings — that is, in person and Zoom. A host would be designated to monitor the chat while in Zoom format. Texting and chatting through Zoom by board and committee members would be prohibited. The policy was approved as read by McCaffrey by the select board.
2. A question was raised by Anita Schwerner, a Stockbridge resident: would questions addressed to the boards be monitored through the Chat and via the Hand-raising functions on Zoom? Answer: yes. In the new hybrid format, speakers who are in person will be on screen and speakers in Zoom will clearly identify themselves as well.
3. The Annual Entertainment license requested by Handcrafted Catering for events at 2 Depot Street owned by the Berkshire Railroad Scenic Museum Inc. The application was denied for the following reasons:
   1. The application failed to include a parking plan in accordance with the operational requirements.
   2. The application failed to include documentation of a floor plan depicting the use of outdoor space.
   3. Applicant failed to produce said documentation after multiple requests from the board.
   4. While the application was denied, the applicant can reapply if adequate changes are made to the application.
4. A one-day alcohol license for Chesterwood Museum for an exhibit opening on July 9th 5pm -7pm was approved by the select board.
5. One day alcohol licenses for Berkshire Botanical Garden for the following events: fundraiser on July 3rd 5pm – 8pm, rehearsal dinner July 16th 4pm -11pm, wedding July 17th 12-5pm, rehearsal dinner 23rd 5pm -10pm, wedding 25th 4pm – 11pm, wedding on July 30th 5pm -11pm. All dates were unanimously approved.
6. The second homeowner’s discussion session will be held on Thursday July 15th at 8am. Meeting will include department heads.
7. The meeting moved to the Ice Glen discussion with Matt Boudreau, chair of the Stockbridge Agriculture and Forestry Commission (AFC) present in person and consultant Ken Gooch present via Zoom.
   1. The report from Gooch was reviewed by the board and confirmed an estimated $7,000 expense for the stem injection treatment of 38 ash trees in Ice Glen.
   2. Low chance of animals absorbing the preside treatment as it would be applied to the tree base. Gooch confirmed that as an internal injection, the only way it will act on the outside environment is if spilled.
   3. Boudreau stated the ash tree treatment would buy time for the AFC to develop a long-term stewardship plan of the Ice Glen Forest. Specifically, as within the next forty years, the climate will be more similar to that of the mid-Atlantic and changing climate will significantly affect forest management.
   4. The board approved treatment of ash trees as soon as possible after the July 1st date by a licensed forester.
   5. The item of establishing Ice Glen Forest as an Old Growth Forest through the Old Growth Forest Network was addressed. Lisa Bozzuto, AFC member present via Zoom, confirmed establishment is connected to an annual average increase of 10 hikers. Previous denial by SB establishing Ice Glen as an Old Growth Forest rescinded. Former SB was concerned about increase in tourists and hikers. This SB will address these concerns in a long-term stewardship plan by the AFC (Agriculture and Forestry Commission). SB approved establishing the Ice Glen Forest as an Old Growth Forest.
   6. Fundraising and grant initiatives will be moving forward for the Hemlock treatment.
   7. Recommendation from Gooch on 100 hemlock trees in the steep area of Ice Glen Forest in need of immediate treatment because they present a hazard for hikers, are heavily infested, and have smaller root systems leaving them more precarious. A second tier of culturally significant trees is located further back and not as much of a threat, but still requires treatment.
   8. Gooch will identify the first-priority trees and second-tier trees through a triage plan. Priority trees will then be treated with current funding. As needed more funding will be applied for the section tier of culturally significant trees and remaining trees.
   9. AFC will make a recommendation by July 12th for a forester knowledgeable on old growth forests to assist with the development of the long-term stewardship plan. The recommendation will be reviewed by SB at the July 15th meeting.

Meeting adjourned.

by Meryl Phair

News

Notes from the Planning Board Meeting June 15 via Zoom

Present:

• Marie Raftery, Vice Chair
• Carl Sprague
• Katherine Fletcher
• Wayne Slosek
• Gary Pitney
• Jennifer Carmichael, secretary

1. Minutes approved.
2. Form A-90 East Street (Cardillo Family Realty Trust) Apparently would divide a tract owned by the Trust into individual lots owned by different family members. No road frontage would be involved — near Route 7 and Mass Pike. Approved unanimously.
3. Teresa O’Brient requested a sign for new location (record store moving from Main Street to Mews). It will be the same size as existing sign and placed above door. Approved.
4. Casablanca is moving into former location of Vlada’s — sign approved.
5. Consultant Phil Arnold presented third draft of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Bylaw. A discussion ensued. Is an ADU only a domicile or could it be a business? Pitney suggested it could be a business if no impact on neighborhood. Is acceptable maximum size 800 square feet? Can there be an ADU on an upper story? Unclear what decisions were made.
6. What followed was a discussion of the opinions of the PB members re: NRPZ as suggested by Raftery. Please see Town Square for four of the PB members’ comments; hope that other three will forward their comments soon.

Meeting adjourned.

Editor’s Note:

Form A is the division of a tract of land into two or more lots as specified in Massachusetts General Laws.

Is the relationship between the consultants and PB backwards? The discussion sharing the opinions of NRPZ by PB members a year after the consultants started working seems very late. The discussion, prelude to a PB decision on direction and goals, should come before the consultants’ work. Our elected officials, PB members, are the deciders and consultants facilitate implementation — not the other way around.

News

Openings, Closings, and Events Around Town

1. Laurel Hill Association (LHA) Laurel Hill Day will be on Saturday, August 28th at 2 p.m. at Laurel Hill Park. (Rain date: Sunday, August 29th, 2 p.m.)
2. Tanglewood Season 2021 — July 9 – August 16
3. Berkshire Botanical Garden Caterpillar Lab July 2nd at 8:30 p.m. The Caterpillar Lab sets up sheets with special, ultra-moth-attracting lights and helps identify hundreds of species. www.berkshirebotanical.org
4. BBG Fête des Fleurs, Saturday, July 3rd, 5-7 p.m. Garden party. Details at www.berkshirebotanical.org
5. BBG Music After Hours beginning July 12
6. Naumkeag Garden Party, July 24th, 4 – 7 p.m. Details at www.thetrustees.org

The Last Word

Reader to Reader: We Got Mail

Good morning Carole,

What started as an idea for Yale Hill has snowballed into trying to get lower speed limits for the whole town. How many people would like to see a 25 mph speed limit and how do we go about getting it done? Those are my questions for Stockbridge Updates. Could SU get the discussion going?

Here is some information from MA DOT: “Speed limits in thickly settled or business districts have the option to opt-in to MGL c. 90 § 17C, reducing the statutory speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. MGL c. 90 § 17C defines a thickly settled or business district as “the territory contiguous to any way which is built up with structures devoted to business, or the territory contiguous to any way where dwelling houses are situated at such distances as will average less than two hundred feet between them for a distance of a quarter of a mile or over.”

MassDOT recommends that if a municipality opts-in to MGL c. 90 § 17C, that it does so on a city- or town-wide basis to avoid potential confusion for drivers. However, cities and towns do have the option to opt-in on a street-by-street basis. Once a municipality has opted-in to MGL c. 90 § 17C, it is required to notify MassDOT.

Thanks

Tom Farley

Dear Tom,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and I hope it generates discussion in the Town Square.

Carole

* * ^ * *

Dear Carole,

At the last Stockbridge annual town meeting, we had a substitute moderator. The town may need another one in the future. What qualities should we look for in an ideal moderator?

Knowledge of proper procedure is a must. Town Meeting Time has been the standard. Fairness and impartiality are equally important. In overseeing the meeting, a moderator must not only be fair and impartial, but the audience must clearly sense that one person’s views are just as important as the next’s. Shy would-be speakers are easily discouraged if the moderator exhibits a discouraging look or tone of voice. A moderator must accommodate and not disparage those who say they could not hear something, through no fault of their own.

Of course, the moderator will have opinions, but these should be hidden. The moderator must not appear more encouraging to those who share those opinions, nor dismissive of those who wish to express the contrary. The moderator must be and appear to be neutral.

A long town meeting makes these duties more difficult, but the town meeting, even a long and tedious town meeting, belongs to the town, to all the men and women who live in the town. The town meeting does not belong to the moderator. The moderator must not forget that.

Teresa O’Brient
Anne Rabinowitz
Nina F. Ryan
Anita Schwerner
Julie Edmonds
Susie Hirshfield
Barbara Kenny

Dear All,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and I hope it generates discussion in the Town Square. The tenor of Town Meeting is as important as the content.

Carole Owens

* * ^ * *

Hi Carole,

No problem. The gate will be installed on the new driveway at the water and wastewater treatment plants on Rt. 102.

Correction: Donnie Schneyer is the chair of water/sewer; you have Clint Schneyer in the article.

Thanks so much,

Michael P. Buffoni
Town of Stockbridge Water & Sewer Works

Dear Michael,

The Averic Road reference was a question (Averic?). Unfortunately, the query was left in the text rather than the correct information being acquired and inserted. Thank you for supplying it and pleased it was “no problem.”

Carole Owens

by Carole Owens

Contributors

Stockbridge Pollen Season Linked to More Than Sneezes!

by Meryl Phair

Throughout the spring months Stockbridge residents experienced a significant dusting of pollen which collected on cars, triggered seasonal allergies, and left two feet of yellow coloring at the water’s edge of Stockbridge Bowl. Pollen is essential for plant reproduction and vital to the healthy functioning of ecosystems. One in every three bites of food we eat relies on the work of pollinators! While spring pollen is an annual and necessary occurrence, this year pollen was particularly heavy as a result of climate change.

New research from the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences studied pollen data from 60 monitoring stations across North America from 1990 to 2018. The data showed an average increase in pollen concentrations by 21 percent and a lengthening of pollen seasons by 20 days. The study concluded climate change had significantly contributed to worsening pollen seasons over the past three decades in being responsible for 50% of the lengthening season trend and 8% of the concentration trend. Additional experimental greenhouse studies showed warmer temperatures and heightened carbon dioxide concentrations caused increased pollen production. An article from the New York Times stated that the effects of the exacerbated pollen season were most observable in Texas, the Midwest and the Southeast while New England and the Great Lakes states experienced less of an observable difference from past seasons.

The increasing levels of pollen present serious implications to public health. Many people experience seasonal allergies but more serious respiratory conditions such as asthma will continue to get worse as pollen concentrations increase. Studies have revealed pollen affects cognitive performance, meaning students do less well in school, and creates a greater probability for contracting other respiratory viruses. As the world continues to contend with the COVID-19 pandemic, respiratory viruses are a relevant concern.

Climate change affects ecosystems and upsets the normal functions of the natural world. These changes aren’t always apparent to the human eye, especially in towns like Stockbridge where melting glaciers and desert droughts are far off realities. Despite this, the swirling clouds of pollen residents have coughed their way through this year are a reminder that as human activities continue to warm our home, threats to respiratory health will continue to increase.

by Meryl Phair