• Berkshire Bank at 33 Main Street is now Beacon Bank. The new bank has submitted an application for a permit for a new sign. They requested one less sign than was there during the Berkshire Bank occupancy, therefore, Chair Kate Fletcher suggested a condition be placed on the approval: a future occupant may have the same number of signs Berkshire Bank had and was not limited to the number Beacon Bank was requesting. With that condition, approval was granted unanimously.
• The Chair reopened discussion on Elm Court. Discussion was focused on a single question: was the application submitted to the Permitting Authority (the Select Board) a modification to the existing permit or should it be a new plan? 3.
• The Chair explained the decision should be based on whether it is a simple change or a complex change.
• Several times during the discussion it was stressed that the PB has no official role in the process, but the Chair felt they still should “weigh in” and “exercise due diligence.”
• On the one question: should this be labeled a modification or a new plan, the criterium for the decision was whether it was a substantial change or a simple change, PB board members weighed in and some attendees also spoke.
• It was a short meeting – about 40 minutes – when the Chair said it appeared there was wide agreement, even consensus – she said it appeared that 6 out of 7 PB members were in agreement – that the application was a substantial and not a simple change.
• The Chair moved, “the PB recommends that the application submitted in October 2025 be considered as a new plan and not an amendment.” It passed 6 – 1.
• The consequences of the recommendation were then discussed. When asked what would happen if the Permit Granting Authority adopted the PB suggestion, the Chair said she hoped the developers would make a new plan and the Permit Granting Authority would take it on its own merits, “assuming they continue but who knows.” She added that she had raised the issue of what would happen next “with Michael.”
• Only two of those present expressed a different opinion: PB member, Wayne Slosek, and Jonathan Silverstein, attorney for Elm Court.
• Slosek wanted to make clear that he was not voting in favor of the motion because first he wanted to hear the peer reviewers’ determination. With respect to the change from amendment to new application, it was his understanding that there was no difference, that is, whether it was a new application “or the peer reviewers allowed it to go forward as an amendment, there were the same regulatory requirements, and everything scrutinized under the same scope.”
• Silverstein agreed there were substantial changes but explained that, by law, a modification (or amendment) includes substantial changes. He gave the example of a cannabis business that had a permit as a cultivator and changed to a purveyor. That was a substantial change treated as an amendment/modification to the approved permit. In fact, Silverstein continued, a modification emphasizes the substantial changes. In a modification, elements of the original approved plan that remain unchanged need not be considered and only the changes are considered.

Editor’s note: 1. A peer review is requested by the Permitting Authority but paid for by the applicant. The peer reviewer advises the Permitting Authority (the SB) about the elements of the application. The peers are experts in the field who, for the benefit of the SB, answer certain questions such as whether the application meets local bylaws and what its potential impacts may be. One of the questions posed was whether or not this application is properly labeled a modification. Slosek was indicating that he preferred to wait for the expert opinion on whether the application was correctly labeled a modification. 2. Elm Court is now named Berkshire Vanderbilt Estate (BVE). SU refers to it as Elm Court to facilitate locals knowing which Berkshire Cottage is under discussion.