A full house, 57 people in-person and on Zoom, attended the third in a series of public hearings held to consider 35-37 Interlaken Trust development. The single agenda item for this Public Hearing was to discuss the Peer Review.

While the Peer Review is paid for by the applicant, the reviewer is acting in the interest of the Town and the permitting body, in this case, the Select Board.

They review the extent to which a proposed plan adheres to the Town Bylaws, and specifically, the Cottage Era Bylaw and its intent.

Tim Czerwienski, Associate Director of Land Planning for Beals Associates, offered an hour-long explanation of the firm’s April 4, 2025, written report. He said the central point of the Cottage Era bylaw was to preserve and enhance – never detract from – the traditional, historic architecture and grounds.

Czerwienski voiced concern over 40-foot tall buildings when the bylaw has a 35 feet limit. Czerwienski voiced concerns about certain elements being incomplete e.g. elevations for the connections from the secondary buildings to the manor house, and storm water treatment plans, and to determine if the hotel residences actually function as a multifamily residential use that is not allowed in the parcel’s zoning. He also had concerns about the work force housing. Jonathan Silverstein, attorney for35-37 Interlaken Trust responded with remedies as follows:

The Select Board voted to enable the Beals consultant to communicate directly with the developer. Silverstein suggested a schedule to conclude the Hearing as follows: 4/24 applicant responds to Peer Review; 5/1 Next Hearing; 5/15 finalize conditions Public Hearing continued

Notes from special meeting of Community Preservation Committee (CPC), April 22, 2025, Hybrid meeting

Chair Sally Underwood-Miller called the meeting to order and explained 

1. We were holding this special meeting in response to requests from Stockbridge residents who wrote letters expressing concern about the Miles Moffatt property.
   1. Since there was no applicant before the CPC, we could only express opinions and conditional actions. (Conditional on an applicant coming forward).
      
      The Chair went around the room and asked for opinions. She then took a straw pol of the CPC members and found a result in the affirmative, that is, money should be granted in the amount of $100,000 toward purchase of the property. As the Chair explained, if we want to control what is done with property, we have to own it.
      
      The issue writ large is development and over-development in Stockbridge. As the price of Stockbridge real estate rises exponentially, the profit margin increases and attracts developers. The specific issue is a 35-acre property in Interlaken over which the Town has a right of first refusal.
      
      While members of the audience, for example, Steve Shatz, a retired real estate attorney, was displeased that a meeting was even called as he thought it inappropriate, the Chair disagreed and said that it is always appropriate to respond to the concerns of our citizens.

Notes from the Select Board (SB), April 24, Hybrid meeting

The SB approved two one-day liquor licenses Stockbridge Library and Camp Mahkeenac.

Then directional signs installed at the Civil War monument and Gould Meadows were discussed. After an hour, it was decided to postpone the decision for 60 days. The two signs to which folks expressed the most objection will be removed. The Committee (consisting of Barbara Zanetti, Executive Director, Stockbridge Chamber, Jorja Marsden, Finance Committee, and Michael Canales, Town Administrator) will meet and recommend new locations.

Final consideration of the Operating and Capital budgets to be submitted to Town Meeting were discussed. 

• There were no changes to the operating budget and it was approved for submission. 2.
  • The Capital Budget required 3 changes 
    • Chime Tower will need additional funds to remove and repair the copula and treat mold. $200,000 from Free Cash was approved 
    • The stipend of $4000 per Board of Assessors member was removed and now was restored – $12,000. 
    • There was an item not explained about dedicating $50,000 to a retirement fund rather than placing it in then operating budget each year. Although the Town will spend the same amount of money as required doing it this way does not effect the tax rate as operating budget items do. 
  • There were two Citizen Petitions. Canales explained that they were properly drawn and certified so the SB could not prevent them from being placed on the Warrant. The SB could 
    • Determine where on the Warrant to place the petitions. They placed them last (# 17 & 18). Vote was 2:1, Patrick White voted no because items that were apt to generate discussion should be earlier. 
    • Refuse (with respect to the second petition about ground water) to refer it to Planning Board. This would have the effect of “killing the petition” because even if approved by TM – the Mass Attorney General could disallow it for failing to follow proper procedure. (For further explanation see Reader to Reader below: letter from Anita Schwerner and Canales’ response). 

With respect to the other Citizen’s petition re: Miles Moffatt property (exact wording under SU FYI above), Canales read what he called a “memo”. It said. “As to the first petition, the money may be appropriated but it will only be spent if the Select Board votes to exercise the option. Town Meeting (TM) cannot force the Select Board to exercise the option.” No copies were handed out or attached to the SB agenda online. Although, the central function of TM is to approve spending recommended by the SB and CPC, TM is placed in the position of recommending spending to the SB in this case. No information was given about the source of the memo. Although 22 people attended the SB meeting to support the Citizen’s Petition, no discussion was entertained.
Meeting adjourned