To Stockbridge Updates:

Thank you so much Carole. Very glad to stay in touch. SU so helpful in that regard.

Yes – all the best we can be and do in 2026.

(Also, another thank you, for listing me as a contributor to SU in your recap for the year.)

I am totally impressed with what you are doing for Stockbridge. If you don’t think it is making a difference, just look around!

Kind regards,
Ramelle Pulitzer

Hi Carole,

Just a quick note to thank you for your very kind words and kudos to the library. We are most grateful!

And, thank you, as always, for another informative edition of Stockbridge Updates.

Warmly,
Wendy Pearson (Director)

Hi Carole Owens,

I agree that we need to preserve our history. I also think that we are frayed and tattered after 50 years of defunding the common good across our nation. Libraries are great institutions of the public sphere. They are open to all and free to all, socio-economically diverse institutions that are vital to thriving communities. Many — too many — people think they can go it alone, do their own research on their smart phones, talk to others who may have opinions but perhaps not always information, and etc. Why we think a community institution whose mission is to provide opportunities for lifelong learning and cultural enrichment that are free to all is antiquated is a mystery to me.

Regards,
Sharon Shaloo

Dear Dr. Owens,

My name is Mike Lenner, and I am reaching out because my family recently purchased a home at 176 Division Street in Great Barrington. I have a strong interest in learning about the history of the land and the previous owners.

In researching the history of this area, I came across your articles and books, particularly your writing in the Berkshire Edge. Based on your work, I believe the land we now sit on was previously owned by an individual who perished on the Lusitania.

I would be grateful for any additional information or resources you might be able to point me toward regarding the history of the property or the previous owners.

Thank you very much for your time and expertise.

Best regards,
Mike Lenner

Dear Mr. Lenner,

I have not forgotten you, just over-committed. Please send me the names of prior owners. Your attorney probably did a tile search and provided you with the names. As soon as I have the names, I can help.

Thank you for being in touch, Carole

Letters regarding the Elm Court Debate: Modification or new application

To the PB from Bruce Blair in support of requesting a new application

Dear Planning Board Members:

First, thank you all for your service in dealing with the volume and pace of change that has come to Stockbridge. While change is bound to occur, I think that excessive scale of development is the critical concern that people in town are talking about these days. How do we manage the sheer size of rapid commercial and residential growth and still preserve the natural beauty and heritage of Stockbridge?

To that end, I am asking you to require that Elm Court submit a new permit. The developer has created a substantial new scale of development for the project, as is her right, but as the changes are so significant, a new permit should be filed to ensure the project is clearly described and appropriately regulated. The addition of 38 new residences in the permit modification presents questions of scale and town-wide impact that far exceed those in the original permit. These permanent residences are not the equivalent of guest rooms or “lodges” in any common-sense use of the terms and they add new layers of regulatory complexity to the project.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bruce Blair

To Berkshire Eagle from Shirley Miller in support of considering the modification and not requesting a new application

To the editor [Berkshire Eagle]: I don’t think a new permit for Elm Court is needed.

The nature of the project has not changed, merely the physical dimensions. This can be approved under the current permit without restarting the whole process which will add years to the project.

The modification process is open to the public, especially abutters. All will have the chance to raise objections and negotiate the final shape of the project. Compromise means that nobody gets everything they want. Surely, there is a middle ground that can be found under the current permit.

Shirley Miller

To the Editor:

A neighbor of mine who’s an attorney in New Jersey was on the Zoom meeting and had commented during the discussion. He mentioned he wasn’t sure but raised the question of whether amendments to a Special Permit could be appealed, which is what initially got me thinking about it.

Michael Lucia

Michael is a member of the Old Stockbridge Road Neighborhood Association (OSRNA.org)

Dear Michael,

It is not unusual for folks to write Stockbridge Updates and ask a question that they would like SU to research an answer or ask a Town official. SU is happy to do it, and actually, considers it part of our job.

So first we checked Mass.gov and learned: “Amendments to special permits can typically be appealed, but the process and rules vary by jurisdiction.”

Oh-oh, it said “rules vary by jurisdiction,’” so SU checked with our Town Administrator. Here is that exchange:

Michael, someone had suggested to me that an amendment to a Special Permit might not be appealable, but they were not sure.

Michael Canales, Town Administrator (TA), responded, “The Town does not make determinations regarding appeal rights. The Town’s role is processing applications, the permitting authority making determinations based on the information submitted, and the Town carrying out those decisions in accordance with state and local law.”

I asked what happens if the Amendment is denied.

“Under Massachusetts zoning law, if a special permit or similar application is denied, the applicant generally must wait two years before reapplying for the same or substantially similar project, unless the permitting authority votes to waive that restriction. An applicant may also withdraw an application prior to a decision, in which case the two-year waiting period does not apply.

Michael Canales

Town Administrator

Since the first answer was an explanation for why he didn’t answer, SU checked further and asked Jonathan Silverstein, attorney for BVE.

Attorney Silverstein responded:

Good afternoon, Carole,

Nice to hear from you. Please see my responses to your questions in the text of your email below.

I wish you a very happy and healthy New Year.

Jonathan

1. First question, I would like to know if the abutters are correct in believing they cannot appeal a modification. No, this is not correct. Any decision of the Select Board as special permit granting authority may be appealed under the State Zoning Act.
   1. I do not fully understand his second answer. Attendees as well as members of PB seemed quite sure that VBE can change the word modification to new and resubmit the same day. They seem equally sure having a new proposal offers them more rights in the process than a modification. Michael’s answer sounds as if VBE has to wait two years to resubmit if the modification is denied unless the SB/Permitting Board waives that the restriction. That sounds debatable and debatable points go to court and that takes time. The Select Board should treat this as an amendment and focus its review on those aspects of the project that would change under the current proposal, rather than pretending that a fully approved project does not already exist. However, were the Board to decide instead to treat this as a “new” special permit, no new submission would be required from VBE. The application materials VBE submitted to the Select Board include all of the documents and information required for any special permit application—new or amended. The 2-year prohibition on “repetitive petitions” would only apply if the Board voted to deny VBE’s application.

Jonathan M. Silverstein
Blatman, Bobrowski, Haverty & Silverstein, LLC

Carole,

I understand now that the process for appealing is the same whether it’s a new permit or an amendment. Thanks again for taking the time to explain it.

One point I think is worth putting out there is that the petitioner/owner should seriously explore whether the entire Elm Court property can be brought fully into Lenox. In practice it already functions as a Lenox neighborhood, access, day-to-day use, and the impacts are all felt on the Lenox side, so having it split across town lines just creates confusion and makes the permitting/process feel messy and duplicative. Even if it’s not simple, it could be something that becomes part of a broader negotiation: align the property with the town that actually services and experiences it, and reduce the ambiguity about who has authority and responsibility.

Michael Lucia

Editor’s note: Our Town Administrator has requested on Town email over his title that SU post this: “My responses are provided in reply to specific questions you have asked as a citizen, and I ask that they be recognized and presented as such. Press releases and official Town communications are issued through established publications such as The Berkshire Eagle and The Berkshire Edge.”

SU is honoring his wish that his responses be “presented as such.”

And yet…

We are not sure SU is less than any other newspaper listed in the editorial above and not sure how the request fits into guidelines from Mass.gov

“In Massachusetts, there are no specific state regulations that govern how a Town Administrator interacts with the press. However, general principles of public information and transparency apply. The key points are:

• Public Records Law: Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 66, Section 10 mandates that public records be accessible to the public, which includes communications from town officials, including Town Administrators. 
  • Local Policies: Individual towns may have their own policies regarding press interactions. It is advisable to check local bylaws or administrative policies for specific guidelines. 
  • Role of the Town Administrator: The Town Administrator typically serves as the chief executive officer of the town and may be the primary spokesperson. Their responses to the press can be influenced by the town’s communication policies. 
  • Best Practices: Town Administrators are encouraged to communicate transparently and effectively with the media, balancing the need for public information with confidentiality and legal considerations.

We hope that Stockbridge Updates will be treated as a serious local resource for our townsfolk and thus will be automatically included when Michael sends out press releases or other informational pieces to print or on-line media.