Could you please include the following correction in the next edition of SU. “Jennie Bernard’s name was inadvertently omitted from the list of Stockbridge Cultural Council (SCC) members in the FY 2025 report published in SU April 15, 2025. .Jennie is a Co-Treasurer along with Joan Burkhard.
With thanks,
Anne Ferril, Co-Chair, SCC
Carole,
I’m a bit confused by what took place at Thursday’s Select Board meeting on 4/24. I was on Zoom and I saw that you were there in person. The citizens petitions were not posted online with the other meeting packets and were not included as part of the draft warrant. Neither was the document that Michael Canales read about town meeting approval of expenditures still requiring Select Board approval. Is that a correct understanding of what was said? Did he say where this information can be found? Were printed copies distributed at the meeting so attendees could follow along? Thanks for your help.
Anita Schwerner, Chair Democratic Town Committee
Anita,
You are not alone. Several others wrote Stockbridge Updates, the SB, and Town Administrator Michael Canales asking for clarification. Here is Canales’ response.
From: Canales, Michael
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: Stockbridge Town Meeting, 4/24/25
Here is the information you requested.
As to the first petition [To see if the Town of Stockbridge will appropriate an amount not to exceed $600,000 from Free Cash for the purpose of exercising its Chapter 61 right to acquire the parcel for sale at 0 Interlaken Cross Rd. as described in the Middle District Berkshire County Registry of Deeds in Book 1347 Page 368] the money may be appropriated but it will only be spent if the Select Board votes to exercise the option. Town Meeting cannot force the Select Board of exercise the option.
As to the second petition, it still needs to go through the 40A:5 process. That is, the Select Board has 14 days from today to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board. The Planning Board then must hold a hearing on the proposed amendment within 65 days of the receipt. It must publish notice of the hearing in the newspaper for 2 consecutive weeks. It must also send notice to all necessary parties. Then the PB must either issue a report to Town Meeting with its recommendations or 21 days must have elapsed after the public hearing is closed. If any of these steps are missed, then Town Meeting cannot vote on the amendment. If it does so anyway, the Municipal Law Unit will disapprove the amendment, unless the step missed is limited to notice to abutting communities, BRPC, or EOHLC. There is time to get all this done if both boards act expeditiously.
Anita, I am so sorry it does not answer your questions about posting attachments relevant to the meeting agenda. It does not say where did this information come from. It does not explain why, if the central point of Town Meeting is for voters to authorize expenditures recommended by the SB and CPC, that in this case, the process is upside down and the voters of TM are making a recommendation to the SB. Nor does it explain why if all of a sudden TM can recommend to SB, it cannot recommend to PB, that is, the petition go to TM and then if approved go to PB as a recommendation rather than jumping procedural hoops that are granted 65 days to complete in a bit over 15 days. Perhaps it is hair splitting about authorizing to money but not be allowed to authorize how it is spent? I sincerely hope Canales or Town Counsel follows up and clarifies.
Carole
Honorable Selectboard [Town Counsel and Stockbridge Updates]:
For the last several months the Selectboard has held a hearing regarding the 35-37 Interlaken development proposal by Mr. Patrick Sheehan, a developer who is not a resident of Stockbridge. During this time, Chair Minacci has given Mr. Sheehan’s attorney as much time as he has wanted to present and discuss the proposal, answer questions, and ask questions. The presentation time has totaled several hours. During this same hearing, the Stockbridge residents who have made their homes next to the property have had only two minutes each to speak and little opportunity to ask questions.
The allowed time has totaled a matter of minutes.
We abutters in situations like this have special legal rights. The town must notify us of such a hearing. Abutters have the special legal standing to appeal the Selectboard’s decision in the courts.
As residents, taxpayers, and investors in Stockbridge, we have valuable points of view and contributions to make to the discussion, yet we have not been permitted to do so in an effective way because we, and our attorneys, have not been allowed an appropriate and reasonable time to speak or ask questions.
This procedure has heavily favored the developer by preventing any semblance of a balanced discussion or inquiry into the facts. A hearing is supposed to be just that – an opportunity for the Selectboard to hear the various arguments.
The abutters have legal standing before the Selectboard and if the hearing continues in this manner, the only way we can make our arguments heard is to go to court.
I personally have concerns about the groundwater and possible contamination of my well. No groundwater or aquifer study has been done. The surficial study done already does not define what happens in a karst environment, such as we live in. The safe maximum yield study ordered by the DEP is only half-way completed. Part of that study is designed to determine the influence of groundwater on the reservoir. No study is in place yet to determine the vulnerabilities of the many private wells. Such a major development should not be permitted in a karst environment without proper infrastructure study. The peer review study does not address this issue at all, and stormwater is only part of it.
The abutters and their attorneys should be granted a full and reasonable amount of time to be heard at the next meeting so we can properly express our concerns.
Charles Kenny MD
Dear Carole,
We attended the Select Board meeting on April 17th – the Public Hearing on development plans for 35-37 Interlaken Road (former Desisto School property). We were pleased to see a full room and many attendees on Zoom. We heard a detailed commentary on the Beals Associates Peer Review Report, followed by a presentation by Attorney Jonathan Silverstein representing the property owner, Patrick Sheehan, and his team (SK Design Group). Unfortunately, there was only a brief time for attendees to express their views. We left the meeting worried that if the current plan for this huge hotel/housing development is approved it will have a profoundly negative impact on our town.
We strongly feel that additional meetings are needed so that all Stockbridge residents are made aware of the plans and have an opportunity to express their opinions on the size, scope and appearance of the project. When the Select Board votes, they will then do so truly knowing our community’s views.
When this development project was first proposed, about 9 years ago, we attended one of the small group meetings held on the property to explain the owner’s plans. At that time, we asked if market research had been undertaken to determine whether their concept for a large resort hotel and clustered housing was viable in that location and the answer was “no”. It seems that the thinking is – “if we build it the people will come”. We have many hotels and event spaces in Stockbridge and environs, so the question is – do we need another one and if so, how big should it be? In addition to size, there are other serious concerns to be taken into consideration including increased traffic and congestion on Rt.183 and throughout the town, the impact of years of construction at the site, the potential disruption of aquifers that feed our town reservoir, and the extra burden it places on our police, fire, emergency, water, sewer and transfer station services and resulting financial costs.
The qualities that make Stockbridge so appealing – its quiet neighborhoods, diverse range of housing sizes and styles, its historical significance and the beauty of its landscape – are exactly what make Stockbridge so attractive to residents and visitors. The plans for 35-37 Interlaken Road – essentially a big Cranwell/Miraval-style development – are ill-suited to the neighborhood and our town. A boutique hotel, a restaurant, and some houses would be a perfect fit.
Lenore and Paul Sundberg
To the Editor:
Subject: Urgent Safety Concerns on Hawthorne Street
This message addresses a critical safety issue on Hawthorne Street, as reported by numerous road users.
Two main concerns are endangering cyclists and pedestrians:
- Narrow, Curvy Roadway Without Clear Markings:
After crossing the Lenox line into Stockbridge, the road becomes narrow and winding, with virtually no visible shoulder or lane markings. It is a daily occurrence to witness vehicles crossing the center or driving dangerously close to joggers and cyclists—especially when two cars meet in opposite directions.- Broken Asphalt Along the Edge:
The deteriorating road surface prevents cyclists from staying close to the edge, forcing them into the path of oncoming traffic. This poses a serious risk, particularly on high-traffic days.
- Broken Asphalt Along the Edge:
A local woman, who regularly uses this road while training for the Josh Billings Run expressed concern after experiencing multiple close calls. Her complaint adds urgency to this matter.
With the arrival of tourist season, traffic increases significantly. Older drivers, in particular, benefit from clear road markings—and it’s worth noting that many new-model vehicles are equipped with lane-detection systems, which rely on visible lines to function properly.
We urge immediate attention to these issues to protect all road users—residents, visitors, and athletes alike.
Thank you for your attention . Kindly let me know of any questions.
Truly, Lionel Delevingne
Letters about the Miles Moffatt Trust Property
To Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust, and the Community Preservation Committee.
As a homeowner and member of the Interlaken/Beachwood Community, I am asking for your help. Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of a 35 acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. It is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there. Right now it is under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status it has to be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale. It is a lovely piece of land worth saving.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025. It is not only an important site for the preservation of wildlife habitats but important to keep the historical character of the neighborhood intact.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely, Sharon Silow
Greetings,
As a homeowner whose family has been part of the Interlaken Community since 1962, I am asking for your help. Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of a 35 acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. It is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there. Right now it is under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status it has to be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale.
It is not only worth saving because of its beauty: it is an ecosystem that is rich in biodiversity. Its loss would be a threat to all of us.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025. It is not only an important site for the preservation of wildlife habitats but important to keep the historical character of the neighborhood intact.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely, Diana J. Fox
To the Members of the Stockbridge Select Board,
We, members of the Interlaken neighborhood of Stockbridge, ask that you allow the statute written for Chapter 61, the right of first refusal, to be followed to the letter of the law for the full 120 days. Please do not expedite the decision on the Interlaken Crossroad property owned by the Moffatt Family Trust. There is interest in keeping it as open space and we would like the full time allowed for this process. Should you follow the guidelines provided by law, they would have until June 8 to do their due diligence.
Thank you so much for your attention to our request, Miriam Nunberg
To All Parties Concerned,
As a homeowner and member of the Beachwood Community, I am asking for your help. Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of a 35 acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. It is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there. Right now it is under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status it has to be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale. It is a lovely piece of land worth saving.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025. It is not only an important site for the preservation of wildlife habitats but important to keep the historical character of the neighborhood intact.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely, Alison Rosow
To the Members of the Stockbridge Select Board,
As a homeowner and member of the Interlaken Community, I am asking for your help regarding potential development of a 35-acre Interlaken Crossroad property owned by the Moffatt Family Trust in Stockbridge, MA.
As the property is under Chapter 61 status it must be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale. It is a lovely piece of and worth saving as open space.
We ask that you allow the statute written for Chapter 61, the right of first refusal, to be followed for the full 120-day review period. Please do not expedite the decision on the Interlaken Crossroad property owned by the Moffatt Family Trust.
Because there is interest in keeping this property as open space we would like the full time allowed for by the Chapter 61 process.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely, Andrew Eisen
To All Concerne
As a homeowner and member of the IInterlaken Community, I am asking for your help. Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of a 35 acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. It is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there. Right now it is under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status it has to be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale. It is a lovely piece of land worth saving.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025. It is not only an important site for the preservation of wildlife habitats but important to keep the historical character of the neighborhood intact.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely,
Paula and Gary Shalan
To the members of the Community Preservation Committee:
As a homeowner and member of the Interlaken Community, I am asking for your help.
Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of a 35 acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. It is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there. Right now it is under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status it has to be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space.
I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale. It is a lovely piece of and worth saving.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025. It is not only an important site for the preservation of wildlife habitats but important to keep the historical character of the neighborhood intact.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely, Dean Olsher
Dear Members,
As a homeowner and member of the Interlaken Community, I am asking for your help. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee join forces to try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is currently under contract with a developer.
Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of this 35-acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. Further, it is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there which is even more alarming.
As I mentioned, the property is currently under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status, it must be offered under the right of first refusal to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! Please try to find a way to work with the Select Board on this as soon as possible.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025.
Please try to preserve this open space. It is a lovely piece of property in a section of our neighborhood that is so important to us. It’s peaceful, a place where for those of us who live off Route 183 can walk or run safely. We can’t afford to lose any more land to developers. And we should above all else maintain the historical character of our beloved neighborhood.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Kind regards, Leslie Ioffredo
To the Community Preservation Committee,
As a homeowner and member of the Interlaken Community, I am asking for your help. Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of a 35 acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. It is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there. Right now it is under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status it has to be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale. It is a lovely piece of and worth saving.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025. It is not only an important site for the preservation of wildlife habitats but important to keep the historical character of the neighborhood intact.
Our property is next door the proposed development. This destruction of 35 acres of forest will not only compromise our quality of life on a profound level, we are frankly stunned that the Selectboard would consider a proposition that would destroy pristine forest, a habitat for wildlife and the quality of life of residents in the vicinity.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely, Natasha Hritzuk
NOTE to Organizations having an interest in the Moffatt property purchase
I was shocked to learn of the proposed sale of this property to SK Design, with the potential for construction of about 16 housing units. I and my Interlaken neighbors ask for your help in affecting an alternative outcome.
The potential development of this property would drastically and permanently change the character of this historic neighborhood. It is noted as an example of an early industrial village, important to the development of Berkshire County over two centuries ago.
The present potential development would result in increased traffic and noise, degradation of the historic, pastoral and peaceful character of the neighborhood, and the loss of 35 acres of pristine natural habitat.
Interest in finding an alternative solution is growing. It is my hope that key organizations and individuals will work together to preserve the unique character of this beautiful and cherished neighborhood. (I, for one, will step forward to financially support any well reasoned alternative; many others will do so too.)
To our various conservation-related organizations, I say that now is the time for some creative thinking. Collectively, your charters and objectives should demand your close attention to resolving this issue.
A 35-acre development, in Stockbridge in a historic neighborhood? Seriously?
Now is the time for creative and expansive thinking. I hope you will all give this project the attention and involvement it so obviously deserves. Thank you for doing that.
Peter Acly
To the Community Preservation Committee,
As a homeowner and member of the Interlaken Community, I am asking for your help. Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of a 35 acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. It is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there. Right now it is under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status it has to be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale. It is a lovely piece of and worth saving.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025. It is not only an important site for the preservation of wildlife habitats but important to keep the historical character of the neighborhood intact.
Our property is next door the proposed development. This destruction of 35 acres of forest will not only compromise our quality of life on a profound level, we are frankly stunned that the Selectboard would consider a proposition that would destroy pristine forest, a habitat for wildlife and the quality of life of residents in the vicinity.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely, Grant McCarthy
Dear Members of the CPC,
As a homeowner and member of the IInterlaken Community, I am asking for your help. Our historical neighborhood is being threatened by the development of a 35 acre parcel that abuts 7-8 homes and conservation land. It is possible under town bylaws to build up to sixteen houses there. Right now it is under contract with a developer. However, because the property is under Chapter 61 status it has to be offered, under the right of first refusal, to the town or other entities that could buy it for use as open space. I am writing to you requesting that the Laurel Hill Association, Stockbridge Land Trust and the Community Preservation Committee try to save the Moffatt Family Trust property that is for sale. It is a lovely piece of pastoral land and worth saving.
The decision must be made and the contract signed before June 8, 2025. It is not only an important site for the preservation of wildlife habitats but important to keep the historical character of the neighborhood intact. Furthermore, as a result of the closure of the Curtisville Bridge in 2012, traffic and driving on Interlaken Cross Road, Hill Road and Trask Lane have already become challenging as people seek to go between Prospect Hill Road and Rte 183. The noise and disruption that would result from the construction of a housing development, not to mention the increased traffic from the added homes that would be created would be detrimental to the tranquility of our neighborhood.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this important site.
Sincerely, Bruce Auerbach
To the Members of the Stockbridge Select Board,
We, members of the Interlaken neighborhood of Stockbridge, ask that you allow the provisions of Chapter 61,including the right of first refusal in connection with the proposed sale of the property, to be followed for the full 120 days. Please do not expedite the decision on the Interlaken Crossroad property owned by the Moffatt Family Trust. There is interest in keeping it as open space and we would like the full time allowed for this interest to be pursued. Should you follow the guidelines provided by law, they would have until June 8 to do their due diligence.
Thank you so much for your attention to our request,
Meryl and Phil Cedar
From the Board of Trustees of the Laurel Hill Association (LHA)
The Laurel Hill Association convened on April 16, 2025, to consider a matter of significant public and institutional interest: the potential exercise of the Town of Stockbridge’s Chapter 61 right of first refusal on the Interlaken Cross Road/Moffatt property. This deliberation followed requests from town officials and several concerned citizens.
Prior to the meeting, LHA board members conducted thorough due diligence to assess the property’s alignment with LHA’s historic mission “to do such things as shall serve to improve the quality of life and of the environment in the town of Stockbridge.” This process included an on-site inspection and consultations with both private and public environmental experts to evaluate the property’s ecological significance and habitat value.
The Properties Committee submitted detailed findings for consideration by the full Board, addressing key criteria such as: (1) whether the property functions as a visual or ecological gateway to the town; (2) its contiguity with existing LHA holdings; (3) the presence of significant wildlife or ecological assets; (4) projected long-term maintenance obligations; and (5) the financial feasibility of acquisition under the Chapter 61 framework, should the Town of Stockbridge assign its right of first refusal to LHA.
After extensive deliberation, the Board concluded that the property does not meet the criteria for LHA acquisition. Specifically, the property is not adjacent to current LHA holdings, lacks notable ecological value, and poses considerable environmental remediation challenges. These include the presence of junk, abandoned vehicles, and a large number of invasive species that would be difficult, if not impossible, and certainly costly to remove. Additionally, the acquisition cost significantly exceeds LHA’s available financial resources. Historically, LHA has acquired 90% of its property through philanthropic donations rather than direct purchases. LHA is committed to protecting open spaces and the character of our historic town. However, we must weigh aesthetic and ecological value against cost to maximize the impact of our limited resources.
While LHA shares the community’s interest in conserving this land, it is not in a financial position to purchase the property outright. However, LHA remains committed to working with the Town of Stockbridge, nonprofit organizations, and private stakeholders. We are open to sharing and leveraging our nonprofit status to support eligible funding opportunities and will actively participate in any collaborative efforts aimed at preserving this land for public benefit.
The Board recognizes the urgency of this matter and reaffirms its dedication to finding cooperative solutions that reflect our shared values and commitment to environmental stewardship.
Sincerely,
The Board of Trustees
Laurel Hill Association*
Hilary Deely, President
Robert Sedgwick, Vice-President
Tim O’Brien, Treasurer
Lee Bolman, Secretary
Robert Flower
John Graziano
Ben Nickley
Cheryl Resetarits
* Two Laurel Hill trustees, Kate Fletcher and Lis Wheeler, have been advised by town counsel that, as members of the Planning Board, they could not sign any documents on behalf of LHA and are recused from signature of this document.
The general position of the Stockbridge Land Trust (SLT) is this.
The Land Trust is not in a position to purchase the land. The assessed price is $150,000. As such, we could generally assume the fair market value for the land is between that and $300,000. The current sale price is 4x the assessed value. As a nonprofit, we cannot purchase a property well over the fair market value.
Additionally, the Land Trust has had a general position of not owning land but rather focusing on holding the CR on properties.
In reviewing the land, it is predominantly white pines and so it meets the forestry provision for a CR.
There is a considerable presence of invasives on the property, especially where it abuts conservation land to the west. The Land Trust holds CRs on those Acly properties. Monitoring of those properties has become increasingly challenging due to felled trees due to natural occurrences and the presence of invasive thorned plants.
Other than that, short of a thorough baseline report, it is unclear what other conservation value the property presents. According to our recent CR work, the State has changed the CR template and emphasizes more concrete requirements for CRs.
On the other hand, if this land were bundled with the adjoining Moffatt land, there would be considerable argument for establishing a CR.
It is the position of a number of members on the Land Trust that a modest development similar to another one located on Interlaken Crossroad could be possible with provisions for conservation setbacks to protect the conservation land to the west and the wetlands on the Moffatt property to the east.
In speaking with our colleagues at BNRC and Laurel Hill, it appears they have come to the same general position on a number of items above.
That said, if a number of landowners who abut the property wanted to go in with the Town/CPC to purchase the property and wanted a CR on the land, the Land Trust would be willing to work with you all to make that happen.
If the Town wanted to purchase the land, it certainly can do so and then set it aside as protected/recreation lands similar to Gould Meadows and Bullard Woods which would then come under the purview of the Conservation Commission.Rich Bradway, President, SLT