Continuation of public hearing to consider the application of Vanderbilt Berkshire Estate, LLC (BVE)(Elm Court) located at 310 Old Stockbridge Road. The applicant is requesting (a) to allow the extension, alteration, reconstruction or change of use of a preexisting nonconforming barn, and (b) to amend the existing special permit. The property is in the R4 zone. The Select Board, acting as Special Permit Granting Authority, was called to order by Chair Jaime Minacci.

This was the second session and focused on the peer review provided by Beals Associates. For your convenience, the complete report is attached here 

Tim Czerwienski and Todd Morey presented the findings on behalf of Beals Associates. Czerwienski explained that their role was to indicate if the plan was or was not conforming with the bylaws and if more details were necessary in certain parts of the submission.

He mentioned that he was asked whether this submission was more an amendment or should have been submitted as a new proposal. He said that was more a political or legal questions not really in their purview. He did express the opinion that it appeared to him that 4 acres were disturbed in the 2014 approved plan and that in the amendment 40 acres would be disturbed in the amendment and that would constitute a significant change.

Jonathan Silverstein, attorney for BVE, corrected him and pointed out that in the 2014 approved plan, it stated 27 acres would be disturbed not 4 acres so the difference was not great.

Czerwienski then went through the comments made in the report. 

• The proposal was compliant with the Scenic Mountain Bylaw and also appeared to comply with Conservation Commission requirements. 
• Comment 7 – how would the exterior of the house be treated
• Silverstein replied there would be no changes to the exterior 
• Comment 10 – the exterior lighting was subtle and attractive; however, was it sufficiently bright for pedestrian safety? 
• Comment 11 – noise seemed to be adequately addressed 
• Comment 15 – need for sidewalk off property and along the road was up to Lenox to decide (while the entire property is in Stockbridge, the road and therefore the curb cut are in Lenox). Czerwienshi recommended them for safety. 
  
  With respect to pedestrian safety on the property, the network of paths meander and may be ascetically pleasing, but people tend to walk from one point to another in straight lines so might consider that they would walk off the paths Czerweinski objected to the size of the plans and suggested using a larger format so more details would be visible Floor plans and elevations of exterior condos are insufficient in detail – add size in square feet and number of bedrooms for example 
• Comment 20 – wanted more detail on the landscape plan even including exact type of tree or plant to be used 
• Comment 22 – propose using Lenox water and sewer – provide a letter from Lenox agreeing With respect to razing and rebuilding barn (condemned) – the original was non-conforming and the proposed location for the new is less non-conforming so does not constitute a problem With respect to the amount of money to be paid to the Affordable Housing Trust under the Residential Inclusionary Bylaw passed in Stockbridge, there appeared to be a problem either with our bylaw itself or with the calculation as the law says the amount is calculated on size of houses (# of bedrooms) and that number is not specified. Morey discussed need for storm water run-off plan
• Silverstein asked that BVE be treated fairly and in accordance with how other applications for special permits were treated. He used the example of DeSisto. In that case the application was approved without a storm water runoff plan but listed as a condition that one would be created later. 
  
  Morey also wanted more details about material to be used on paths and other surfaces which may be permeable or not.
  Discussion followed with comments and questions from the SB, then comments from those present, and last those on Zoom.

The first speaker enthusiastically supported the project because it would increase taxes collected and award the Affordable Housing Trust (AHT) over a million dollars. That was important since Stockbridge has not met it’s legal requirement for affordable housing. The Chair corrected him: Stockbridge was one of the first municipalities in the Commonwealth to meet the requirement and now exceeded it. The estimated $1.7 million that AHT would receive is the figure questioned by Czerwienski.

Two others spoke in favor. Abutters had concerns. Chair of the Planning Board spoke and requested a site visit and to have input into the plan. Though PB has no legal position in the process, Fletcher felt PB could make a contribution.

Both attorneys for BVE mentioned specifics wherein BVE appeared to be treated differently than DeSisto was.

There was concern from a representative of the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohican Nation that there was no mention or consideration of their history. Linda Law said she would be delighted to work with them. Silverstein pointed out that the Special Permit application was not the appropriate place for that.

The Public Hearing was continued. Meeting adjourned.