Editorial

Names and Definitions

On March 22, not for the first time, the Planning Board discussed which properties fit under the Cottage Era Estate (CEE) portion of the proposed bylaw. Since a Wikipedia search of Berkshire Cottages lists me as a reference, I want to help. I am not sure how, but I will try.

A Berkshire Cottage is a specific thing like a dog or a donut. There are varieties—with or without sprinkles, mangy or well-groomed, Georgian or Italianate—but everyone knows a dog, a donut, and a Berkshire Cottage when they see one.

A Berkshire Cottage is a second home, never a primary residence, built during a specific period of American history, architect-designed, and of great size and heft. That is, a Berkshire Cottage is a palatial mansion with no fewer than 20 rooms on no less than 20 acres, built in the Berkshires during the Gilded Age. (Post-Civil War 1865 to America’s entrance into WWI 1917)

Adaptive reuses over 150 years might cause confusion. If there is confusion, the year built, the size of the house and grounds, and its use as a second home will clear it up. Even so, if the PB prefers a list, there is a list of Berkshire Cottages in Stockbridge in the back of my book (Berkshire Cottages). That list was copied onto the Wikipedia page with proper attribution.

A Berkshire Cottage is well-defined and recognizable and a list of them exists; on the other hand, no one, not even members of the Historical Commission or the Historic Preservation Committee could determine what fits under the CEE section of the proposed bylaw because Cottage Era Estate are three words strung together without meaning. There was no Cottage Era in American history, and to repeat cottage and estate in the same caption is, amazingly, both an oxymoron and repetitive. This is not to be pettifogging; words matter, especially if written into a bylaw requiring compliance and enforcement.

I hope this helps. It is hard to watch so much effort expended on work long since done and dusted. If this bit of definition is not enough, perhaps adding a bit of history? Forty years ago, I was honored when Mary Flynn invited me to contribute to the first Great Estates Bylaw. If how we got from there to here is of interest, see Stockbridge History below.

News

2021 Town Election

Stockbridge Updates will publish “Stockbridge Candidates Q&A”

Stockbridge Updates invites all those running to retain their seats and those challenging them to please contact Stockbridge Updates and schedule an interview.

Stockbridge Updates announces a change: There are so many candidates and contested races so rather than holding all responses until the end and posting them in a single issue, SU is posting candidate responses a few at a time beginning in this issue. Here are the first:

Candidates Q & A

1. Gary Pitney, Planning Board, incumbent

Why are you running?

To Serve. To give back to the Town that has given me so much. It is very rewarding to be a part of our community at the governmental level.

Prime Focus:

My prime focus is and always has been to be accessible, approachable, and fair. Make it easier for our community to feel comfortable asking questions and participating in our Town Government. We should all be on a level playing field with a common goal.

What would I like to say?

We have a great Town. It is a wonderful and precious place to live. This requires constant vigilance and care by everyone. We need to manage and care for our Town like the rare Gem that it is. Handle with Care…Be Kind…Be Thoughtful.

2. Mark Mills, Planning Board

What prompted you to run?

As of the end of 2020 I retired from my career as a financial journalist. That has given me the time to offer to serve the community. By nature, I am a planner. I held the Certified Financial Planner designation for 20 years and co-authored a book on retirement planning for the Baby Boom generation.

What would be your prime focus (or the one thing you would like to accomplish during your term in office)?

Stockbridge has a number of older residents who are living on modest incomes. The Town should make efforts to help these folks remain in their homes. We should also try to attract younger families to Stockbridge with an eye toward creating a robust future, while also preserving the rural character of the town.

What would you like to say to voters?

My wife, Nancy, and I have been Stockbridge homeowners since 2002. We moved here full-time six years ago. We chose Stockbridge because it is a wonderful place to live. We have made some great friends here. I have been here long enough to feel a part of the Town. I would like to make a contribution to a place that I have come to love. We have three children and four grandchildren who greatly enjoy their visits. It’s a special place; I want to help preserve and nurture it.

3. Jamie Minacci, Moderator

Hi Carole,

The three questions you posed to us:

A. I feel drawn to run, to end the 43-year term the current position has maintained. I would like to rejuvenate and bring new life to the position of moderator. That All position(s) have term limits…

B. My primary focus will and is to bring equalitarianism to our Town Meetings proceedings. That everyone has an equal opportunity to speak and to vote. To provide each person safety, respect and time to ask questions, to be heard.

C. I would like the citizens to know that I believe civic engagement is essential and necessary, and everyone’s voice needs to be protected and heard. That every citizen’s vote is equal no matter their income, address, education, or age.

4. Donald Schneyer, Water and Sewer Commission, incumbent

Hi Carole,

As a Stockbridge native, I enjoy giving back to the Town that I love. From being on the Stockbridge Fire Department for 38 years to over 30 years on the Water/Sewer Committee to more than 20 years as chair. I enjoy working with different committees and also with the new Town Administrator who has been very helpful. We are completing several projects including moving the water/sewer pipes from the Curtisville Bridge. The bridge is in terrible condition and the pipes needed to be removed. We also will be relocating the water line in the river at the Tuckerman’s bridge. We will take it out and mount it on the side of the bridge. Lastly, we are getting engineering done on the Park Street pump station. We will be replacing this antiquated station. We will continue to work with our forester on forest management around Echo Lake. This has been a project we have been doing for years with the revenue from the logging going into the Town coffers. Thanks.

5. Mark Faber, Tree Warden

What prompted you to run?

I want to help the Town, as my father did it when he was Tree Warden. I have the time, ability, and the knowledge.

What would be your prime focus (or the one thing you would like to accomplish during your term in office)?

Remove bad and dangerous trees, add more variety of trees, ones that can handle climate change.

What would you like to say to voters?

I am open to ideas and will work with everyone. I believe the Town is in good shape, I just want to keep it that way.

Town Election—Open seats in 2021

3-year terms: Moderator, Selectman, Board of Assessors, Board of Health, Tree Warden, Sewer and Water Commission

5-year terms: Planning Board, Planning Board, Housing Authority

Appointments: Finance Committee, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission – alternate

The current occupants of the seats are:

1. Gary Johnston, Moderator
2. Ernest (Chuckie) Cardillo, Selectman
3. Gary Pitney, Chair, Board of Assessors
4. Charles Kenny, Chair, Board of Health
5. Peter Curtin, Tree Warden
6. Donald Schneyer, Chair, Sewer and Water Commission
7. Christine Rasmussen, Planning Board
8. Gary Pitney, Planning Board
9. James Welch, Housing Authority
10. Jay Bikofsky, Chair, Finance Committee

Thank you all for your service. Good luck to you and to the contenders.

The people currently in the seats may choose to run again or decline to run. All those wishing to run will return nomination papers with requisite signatures by 5:00pm on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 to gain a place on the printed ballot.

Taken out papers:

• Christine Rasmussen, Planning Board, withdrawn
• Donald Chabon, Select Board
• Deborah McMenamy, Select Board
• Hugh Page, Tree Warden
• Carl Sprague, Planning Board
• Nina Ryan, Planning Board

Collected signatures and returned papers:

• Donald Schneyer, Water & Sewer Commissioner, incumbent
• Gary Johnston, Moderator, incumbent
• Mark Faber, Tree Warden
• Ernest J. (Chuck) Cardillo, Select Board, incumbent
• Charles Kenny, Board of Health, incumbent
• James Welch, Housing Authority, incumbent
• Jamie Minacci, Moderator
• Gary Pitney, Board of Assessors
• Gary Pitney, Planning Board, incumbent
• Mark Mills, Planning Board
• John M. (Jack) Henderson, Planning Board

Carole Owens, Managing Editor

News

Notes from Town Boards

Notes from Planning Board Meeting: March 16 via Zoom

Board Members:

• William Vogt, Chair
• Marie Raftery
• Christine Rasmussen
• Katherine Fletcher
• Gary Pitney
• Nancy Socha
• Wayne Slosek
• Jennifer Carmichael, secretary
• Consultant: Philip Arnold

In addition: Anita Schwerner, Don and Ann Chabon, Pat Flinn, Patrick White, and Roxanne McCaffrey

1. Proposal to preclude residences on the street level in the business district—presented by Roxanne McCaffrey on behalf of SB and Christine for PB. It is an amendment to “Principle Uses” section of Stockbridge Zoning Bylaw. There was a concern raised about what happens to residences now on street level in the business district. (Many may not know that the business district is not only Main and Elm Streets but continues on Pine and Shamrock Streets.) McCaffrey said extant residences were “grandfathered.” The question followed, what happens when they sell? It was assumed they could continue to be allowed as residences on ground floor. PB voted to approve 6 to 1; Kate Fletcher voted no.
2. The proposal will advance to Public Hearing, then to SB, and if placed on Warrant, then to Town Meeting for approval. Formerly held idea that PB could place something on Warrant was refuted. SB sets Warrant – all suggestions for inclusion go through SB.
3. It was announced that the three bylaws were “still with SB” therefore no discussion of Parking, Driveway or Sign Bylaws until returned. Consultant Phil Arnold moved on and discussed ADUs – Accessory Dwelling Units.
   1. Consultant asked permission to deviate from old format which may include “unnecessary excess language.” Permission granted.
   2. Main differences identified: Application process too complex.
   3. Accessory use inside house is By Right.
   4. Accessory use in detached space requires Special Permit.
4. White suggested that first the PB identify the problem it is trying to solve and then make minimum changes to bylaws to address that problem.
5. March 22 Meeting at 6pm to go over Cottage Era Estate portion of the proposed bylaw.
6. Rasmussen wanted access to Town website to post documents written by professionals on PB subjects.
7. Fletcher feared the PB process has not been open enough.
8. Don Chabon introduced himself and announced he is running for SB.

Meeting adjourned.

Editor’s note: Question: Might not changing the format and rewriting an entire bylaw make it more difficult for the public to track and understand the impact of the proposed changes. See SB meeting below. Even SB members had great difficulty understanding the changes proposed.

Notes from the Select Board Meeting: March 18 via Zoom

Present:

• Chuck Cardillo, Chair
• Patrick White
• Roxanne McCaffrey
• Michael Canales, Town Administrator

In addition: Christine Rasmussen, Jack Henderson (others may have been present but could not be seen)

Michael Canales reported on 6 projects in progress:

1. Averic Bridge – if low bid is accepted, Stockbridge is within budget and can accept and go forward. However, if low bid is challenged and if the next bid is lower, Stockbridge has to go to Town Meeting to approve extra cost: $800,000 approved; low bid $707,000; next lowest bid was $817,000 so if low bid not acceptable, town will have to request more money.
2. New roof on highway garage nearly complete.
3. Proctor Hall (old Town Hall) roof replacement complete, however, there was wind damage post repair. The money is available, and the repair is going forward. (Allocated for replacement $90,000; cost $70,000 – amount available for repair $20,000).
4. Green Committee – replacement of lights in wastewater treatment facility with LED lights complete.
5. Determination process: should Stockbridge take over street lighting as other Berkshire towns have, and if so, will Stockbridge save money? Recommendation at next meeting.
6. Larrywaug Bridge—re-advertisement for bids in process but complex. Difficulty stems from fact that when work stopped, some things were done while others not even begun. If more money is required, request for funds will appear on Warrant at Town Meeting. Work could be completed by Thanksgiving. Canales was asked questions. In order to move quickly on construction projects and repairs:
   1. If one project costs more and a second costs less, can money be moved from one project to another? No. Any time more is money needed, Town Meeting or a Special Town Meeting must approve expenditure.
   2. Can Stockbridge establish a “construction reserve fund” to have extra money available if bids are higher than cash on hand? No. Cannot award a contract unless entire amount is on hand identified for that project.
7. Regional School Committee asked for $15,000 per town for their project. However, they were awarded a grant for part of the cost and therefore reduced the request from Stockbridge and the other towns to $8000 each.

Bylaw Review

SB has 14 days to receive, read, discuss and decide before it must send bylaw proposals back to PB. SB can send back a proposed bylaw with approval, disapproval or stipulations/comments. Approval, disapproval, and comments of SB are read into the record at Public Hearing. After the hearing, PB can amend or not and return to SB for inclusion/no inclusion on Warrant for Town Meeting where the people vote. None of the three proposed bylaws were returned approved by SB.

1. Driveway Bylaw returned to PB with the following two stipulations: this bylaw applies only to new and not existing driveways; “safety” issues should not be included in driveway bylaw but in curb cut bylaw.
2. Off-street Parking Bylaw – returned to PB without SB support. Request that both versions – the SB version recommended to PB a year ago and the “totally reconstructed” version sent by PB be presented at Public Hearing.
3. Sign Bylaw – lengthy discussion ensued – unclear but apparently sent back to PB without approval. Discussion centered on:
   1. Disapprobation for process – too rushed – not enough time from when proposed bylaw received for SB to consider and decide.
   2. Strong recommendation for a joint meeting of PB/SB before “the clock starts”, that is, before the 14-day time limit begins.
   3. Strong disapproval of change of permitting authority wherein SB is cut out of the process and it resides solely with PB.
   4. PB being sole permitting authority was mentioned as a fait accompli by a PB member at the last PB meeting. That statement was reported and questioned by SU as it appeared to be assumed without a formal decision-making process.
   5. There was also an objection to PB Chair Vogt informally asking SB Chair Cardillo if he had any objection to PB as sole permitting authority and reporting in PB meeting that SB agreed.

Suggested Town Meeting Warrant items:

1. A proposed amendment to Stockbridge Zoning Bylaws Principle Uses that precludes residences on the ground floor in the business district.
2. Housing Trust Fund and the Housing Repair Trust Fund.
3. Short-Term Rental regulations.

White’s suggestion: with so much on the regular Town Meeting Warrant, perhaps a Special Town Meeting might be scheduled for only proposed bylaw changes?

Appointments to be filled by SB to Conservation Commission and Green Committee postponed to next SB meeting.

Meeting adjourned.

Notes from Planning Board Bylaw Review Meeting: March 22 via Zoom

PB members and consultant Jeff Lacy

Also present: PB candidates Jack Henderson and Mark Mills; Anita Schwerner, Nina Ryan, Patrick White, Julie and Barney Edmonds, and Jamie Minacci (Apologies to all who attended if not mentioned. Those eight were the only ones visible on screen)

1. The focus of the meeting was the Cottage Era Estate (CEE) portion of the proposed bylaw (Section H)
2. There was confusion about which draft would be addressed in the meeting and complaint about a draft being sent at 5pm before a 6pm meeting.
3. The Chair asked consultant to identify the changes in proposed bylaw. They were as follows:
   1. PB will become the sole permit granting authority.
   2. Application process will be shortened and simplified as follows: in old bylaw, there was a concept meeting and then a formal plan was submitted. It was an opportunity to sort out what was acceptable to town and developer. In current draft both are gone and replaced by a Conservation Analysis as described in NRHPZ bylaw of which CEE is a part.
   3. Language deemed by consultant to be “convoluted” was removed.
   4. Converted the “residential unit count”, that is, NRHPZ has a formula to determine the number of residential units allowed. Under CEE, a developer may want other than single family dwellings. So, taking DeSisto as the example, Lacy reminded the attendees that his NRHPZ formula allowed 38 residential units at DeSisto. Lacy then “converted the 38 single family dwellings into bedrooms by assuming a single-family house has 4 bedrooms and multiplying 38 times 4. Under CEE, 152 bedrooms would be allowed and could be reconfigured by the developer into (for example) one-bed apartments or 2 and 3 bed condos.
4. Raftery noted a contradiction in the CEE proposal. At one point CEE allows amplified music out of doors by special permit and at another point forbids it.
5. Next followed questions from Lacy to PB: why does a former draft say a Great Estate Inn must be on town sewer? Fletcher suggested it was to prevent sprawl. No one else knew and the language was eliminated. Lacy asked why there was the entire section on Great Estate Inns. No one knew and the section was eliminated.
6. Much time was spent on which properties fit under CEE and who decides (see editorial). The draft stated the Historical Commission decides. Fletcher suggested it should say the Historical Preservation Committee – it was changed. Lacy said the PB should have the last word, but Chair Vogt did not appear to want last word. In the alternative it was suggested that a list of Cottages to which CEE refers be created.
7. With either method there was concern that would place the bylaw in jeopardy. A list could be construed as spot zoning (singling out specific parcels). Alternately, without a list, Lacy said it might be floating zoning (unclear as to what the zoning bylaw applies). Both are illegal.
8. Fletcher objected to a bylaw removing permitting authority from SB as it was always with SB. Consultant dismissed what was traditional in Stockbridge and said it should be changed.
9. There were a series of questions from the attendees. As requested, no attendee spoke but submitted questions through the chat function. Nonetheless, only one was answered. Here are as many as could be captured.
   1. What if developer does not want to keep the Cottage? Can he tear it down? No answer
   2. How can you be writing a CEE Bylaw and not know where and what a Cottage is? No answer
   3. What is the rationale for removing permitting authority from SB and giving it to PB? Answer from consultant: that is the way it is done elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
   4. How are the people going to understand what they are voting on? No answer
   5. Where will the 175 people allowed at outdoor events park their cars? No answer
   6. What will happen to the Red Lion Inn and to Main Street if developers are encouraged to build more hotels and inns? No answer
   7. What happened to acreage restriction from earlier draft? No answer
   8. Are hotel bedrooms in addition to or part of the 152 bedrooms allowed? If in addition, doesn’t that increase density exponentially?
10. A PB member said if CEE is appended to the proposed NRHPZ bylaw as Section H, the bylaw will be 18 pages long and very confusing.
11. Lacy began at top of page one and went through Section H – CEE.
    1. It is 5 pages. Lacy recapped what he shared in beginning of meeting and added…
    2. Using DeSisto as model: of the 320 acres, 5% or 16 acres could be impermeable surfaces (roads, walkways, parking, tennis court etc.)
    3. Hotel and non-residential buildings could be as much as 15% or 48 acres
12. There was discussion about future meetings and the meeting adjourned.

Editor’s Note: Questions

1. Several times discussions about changes to the draft since last meeting were mentioned. When and with whom did those discussions take place? Were they violations of the Open Meeting Law? It is important because OML helps the public follow the process and better understand the changes in order to approve/disapprove the final product at Town Meeting.
2. One reason given for not answering questions was not to interrupt the work because there is a time crunch. What is the time crunch? SB suggested it could set a Special Town Meeting to present bylaws whenever PB is ready.

Historical Commission Meeting: March 24

Present:

• Linda Jackson, Chair
• Peter Williams
• Maria Carr

Also present: Michael Canales, Chris Marsden, Patrick White, Bruce Blair, Kate Fletcher, and Carole Owens

1. Michael Canales reviewed the plan for restoration of the Children’s Chime Tower donated to Stockbridge by David Dudley Field in 1878.
2. Patrick recapped the three parts of the planned restoration: the bells and the stand for the bells as well as the console, the roof and the structure.
3. The roof would be restored in an historically correct manner. The structure needs the least amount of work almost completely restricted to repointing. In historic structures the limestone is often deteriorated. The biggest part of the work is the bells, the console (the levers that actually play the bells) and the stand that holds the player of the bells as well as the stand that holds the bells.
4. Discussion followed on whether to restore or replace parts. Jackson pointed out that the Commonwealth Secretary of the Interior standard is to repair before replacing. Blair said that repairs have been made over the 183 years perhaps to the point where they can no longer be attempted.
5. A companion discussion was whether to restore the bells and tower to their 1878 configuration or increase the number of bells to increase the range of music that can be played and therefore replace the console to operate 14 rather than 11 bells.
6. Was the final objective enhanced musicality – how melodious and range of —or restoration to the 1878 condition.
7. Those final decisions were postponed pending further information.
8. Attention turned to the first necessary step: placing the project on the Warrant at Town Meeting and seeking approval for the funds so the Tower and bells do not deteriorate any further and work can begin.
9. Blair, who should be thanked for beginning this process with Claire Williams, thanked Canales, White (on behalf of the SB) and the Historical Commission for carrying this project forward.
10. White thanked the meeting participants for the meeting itself that was conducted, White said, as all meetings should be – constructive, goal oriented, civil and well-informed.

On that congenial note, the meeting adjourned.

Notes from Joint Finance Committee/Select Board Meeting: March 25 via Zoom

Present:

• Chuck Cardillo, Chair
• Patrick White
• Roxanne McCaffrey
• Michael Canales, Town Administrator

Finance

• Jay Bikofsky, Chair
• Jim Balfanz
• Bill Vogt
• Neil D. Holden
• Steve Shatz
• Diane Reuss
• Pamela Boudreau

In addition: Others may have been present but could not be seen. If they spoke, they are identified below with their comment.

Joint Finance/SB meeting conducted by Jay Bikopfsky, Chair Finance

1. Fire engine number 2 requires major work and is up for replacement in two years. Suggested more cost effective for Highway Department to “patch up” rusted areas and move up replacement date to next year.
2. Add 5 “on-call” volunteer fire men and women and raise the rate per hour from $8 – $12. Total increase $9000.
3. There was a discussion of hoses, custom trucks, a 2018 pumper truck and 25- to 30-year-old trucks. The intent is to move equipment around balancing cost effectiveness and adequate service.
4. There is an anticipated increase in Stockbridge contribution to tri-town (Lee, Lenox and Stockbridge) ambulance coverage. It could be as high as $140,000.
5. Compensation for a Conservation Commission (ConCom) part-time professional for enforcement of ConCom regulations. No figure mentioned. Kate Fletcher asked if this fell under the responsibilities of the Building Inspector as it does with PB regulations.
6. Beth Laster-Nathan, on behalf of Lake Drive Association, requested sewer connection. It was referred to Michael Canales.
7. Warrant items for approval by the people at Town Meeting
   1. Underground cameras for Water and Sewer — $12,000 from surplus cash
   2. Engineering for Tuckerman Bridge repair — $38,000
   3. Repaint Quiet Knoll water tank $3690
   4. Park Street Pump Station $720,000 (borrow)
   5. Karen Marshall explained study 600 of Stockbridge cemetery’s oldest headstones —
   6. $20,000 and $5600 for highway department headstone repair.
   7. Regional School Planning grant – Stockbridge’s contribution reduced from $15,000 to $8000 due to grant awarded.
   8. PB requested $40,000 to continue two consultants for another year. Asked how much of $40,000 awarded last year was spent – Chair Vogt did not know. PB member Fletcher estimated $11,500 spent on the two consultants. Selectman White requested a joint SB/PB meeting to discuss budget and bylaws.
   9. Add $50,000 to OPEB (Other Post—Employment Benefits), which is the fund for the cost of benefits, other than pension distributions, that employees may begin to receive from the Town of Stockbridge once they retire.
   10. Housing Rehabilitation Trust $100,000 aimed at enabling seniors to repair and therefore remain in their homes (works as a reverse mortgage does – money paid back to town when house is sold). Select member McCaffrey objected and said it might be duplicative of a Berkshire Regional Planning Grant Program. Canales explained in that grant program the money is all spent.
   11. Stockbridge Bowl testing (approximately $35,000)
   12. Parks and Recreation — resurface tennis and basketball courts and fence areas (approximately $90,000)
   13. Children’s Chime Tower — repair. Some grant money available for 1878 structure but if granted would require a deed restriction – alternatively borrow full amount — $600,000 estimated.
   14. Streetlights — $15,000 to study if lights should be taken over by town (from National Grid) and bulbs replaced w/LEDs. Total savings to town could be$28,000 annually.
   15. Highway truck replacement — $145,000. Could be paid for by debt or could be taken from free cash.
   16. Canales explained plan to create level debt annually by strategizing borrowing and pay-downs.
   17. Red Lion corner — cost of engineer to redesign to be presented at later date.

Joint meeting adjourned – SB meeting called to order by Chair Cardillo

1. Police Chief Darrell Fennelly requested approval of new reserve officer. Approved
2. Riverbrook School sent $2000 in lieu of taxes. Selectman White suggested it be returned with thanks because Riverbrook is undertaking expensive repairs this year. Agreement, SB asked Canales to call and discuss.

Appointments

3. Tenant representative to the Stockbridge Housing Authority, Michael Volk.
4. In order to appoint both applicants to ConCom, White offered to step down from ConCom on condition he was named SB representative to ConCom. Approved, and Gary Johnston was named alternate member and Lisa Bozzuto regular member.
5. Miles Moffatt named to Green Communities Committee.

2021 Town Meeting: June 12, 2021 10 a.m. Rain date June 13, 1 p.m. Election May 18

Bylaws

1. Short-Term Rental Bylaw – Select member McCaffrey suggested registration and Selectman White pointed out with permitting there is revocation of permit after 3 or more infractions; making enforcement easier. Registration imposes fine for infractions. Rentals by corporations or any entity opposed. Only person can rent.

Attendees uniformly thanked SB for its efforts and had the following questions:

Ben Liptzin asked if this bylaw would lead to removal of offensive dumpsters (Answer depends on size). Loretta Scheel asked if it was retroactive (Answer: no). Barbara Zanetti wanted to know if these regulations apply to licensed B&B? (Answer: no) Ken Krentsa asked if SB can regulate parties (Answer: no. Public can police to respond to excessive noise). Kate Fletcher asked if fines can be placed on tax bill to assure payment (Answer: no)

2. Stockbridge Bowl Stewardship Commission (SBSC) is currently a committee with membership, a budget, and a purpose. White asked why make it a Commission by bylaw? He maintained it tied the hands of future boards. McCaffrey wanted to assure its continued existence. White also pointed out this bylaw names specific members and they or their organizations may not exist in 50 years but bylaws do. The current Chair of the SBSC, Jamie Minacci, objected that she knew nothing about this proposal. Never saw it, and agreed with White, it was functioning well as a committee and no need for bylaw to make it commission. Kate Fletcher added there were too many committees, boards and commissions for so small a town.
3. Renewal of license for outdoor events with alcohol. Approved for Tanglewood and Naumkeag with objection that Naumkeag extended its Winter Lights event 24 dates without addressing SB.
4. Request from Stockbridge Bowl Association for their report to be included in Stockbridge Annual Report. The responses from members were pointed:
   1. “Read it and not pleased with it.”
   2. “Don’t like it; it is basically propaganda and not a report.”
   3. “Not a report because does not include any financial information.”
   4. “I was taken back by tone.”
   5. “At least not as obnoxious as other years.”
   6. Canales said a Stockbridge Annual Report is mandated by law and what must be included is enumerated. Anything else, for example SBA report, is included if approved by SB.

The matter was tabled for a year. The meeting was adjourned.

Editor’s questions:

1. If McCaffrey is an owner of rental properties, might she have recused herself, or at minimum, explained her current relationship to short-term rentals?
2. Since White is an abutter, in an abundance of caution, might he have recused himself or at minimum announced the circumstance before voting on the Tanglewood seasonal license?
3. Could the SBA letter have been read into the record so attendees could know what was objectionable?

News

Opening and Closing in the Time of COVID

1. The Commonwealth is launching a home-bound vaccination program March 29—details online at Mass.gov
2. Tanglewood announced a “short season”. The music festival will open from July 9–August 16 for live concerts. The audience will be limited and CDC recommendations will be observed.
3. On July 1, Governor Baker is easing all travel restrictions.

by Carole Owens, Managing Editor

Perspective

Stockbridge History—Doc Campbell Heals a Community

Part Two

I was seven years old crossing East Main Street when I was hit by a car. I was picked up, gently placed in the police cruiser by Police Chief Bill Obanhein and delivered to Doc Campbell’s office. Doc Campbell was calm and reassuring. He told me everything would be okay. His bedside manner came not from medical school training, but from a natural compassion. In a small way, I was being mentored for my later professional life as police chief, wherein patience and calm were critical.

I knew at age seven that Doctor Campbell’s presence gave us all peace of mind and the knowledge that Stockbridge would be helped.

Not all our encounters were on equal footing. When I moved to the evening shift, I parked on Vine Street hoping to catch those running the stop sign at the Fire House. When caught, Doc would very softly say, “Gee Rick, did I miss that stop sign?” And I would say, “Yeah Doc, just like the last 27 times I pulled you over for not stopping there.” He may have provided a cure for many people, but I was never able to cure him of that bad habit.

Doc took up hunting and went with other Stockbridge men to “deer camp.” I was surprised by his fear of snakes, but Doc had a remedy. It was a swig of hard liquor.

Part of life is death and in addition to being a small-town doctor he was also an associate medical examiner, another job that brought us together. It somehow seemed fitting that the man who brought so many people into this world, and patched them up, should also be present as they left this world.

Over time Doc took longer and longer to arrive at the scene of a death. Finally, Obanhein lost patience and asked what took him so long! Doc turned to Bill and in his usual manner replied, “They’re not going anywhere Bill.” I took it to mean, death came when it came. No need to hurry toward it nor hurry away from it. Doc was saying we just needed to live life. Obanhein, however, just wanted to return to his bed.

Doc’s death came after a long life lived to its fullest. Doc, the Town thanks you for your bedside manner, your little black bag, your snakebite remedy, sense of humor, sense of calm, and 50 years of watching over us – your friends and neighbors of Stockbridge.

by Rick Wilcox

Perspective

Stockbridge History—The Great Estate Bylaw

Stockbridge Selectman Mary Flynn brought us together with the advice: “before you touch a bylaw, clearly define the problem and make the minimum change possible to solve it. The people have to approve a bylaw, and they must understand exactly what they are being asked to approve; what problem it will solve, and what impact it will have.”

With that in mind, Mary Flynn, Jeff Parsons (a Berkshire Cottage owner and grandson of the builder) and I sat down with a few others to define the problem. The Berkshire Cottages were being destroyed. How do we save them?

We had starting points. Lenox was working on the same problem, and we knew what the most common adaptive reuses were: schools, private clubs, and inns. Plus one condo in Lenox and one in Stockbridge.

To make the solution Stockbridge-specific, we asked exactly what were we trying to save? For Stockbridge, it was always history and its physical characteristics. Therefore, the most important elements were the house itself, the visual relationship between it and the road, and maintaining low density. Those made Stockbridge look as it did; made it so loved and livable.

The Great Estate bylaw made preservation of the Berkshire Cottage mandatory, controlled density with limited adaptive reuses, and preserved the Gilded Age Great Lawn – that space between the Cottage and the road, that is, preserved an historic viewshed.

If I remember correctly, we appended a list. I think we used mine, but it is easy enough to compile, since by definition, a Berkshire Cottage was built before WWI.

The bylaw was enthusiastically approved. The Town realized then what we cannot afford to forget now: the economic base of Stockbridge is inexorably linked to preservation of our history, our open space and low density, and even Rockwell’s vision of us.

The bylaw was short-lived. Te Marians of the Immaculate Conception, owners of Eden Hill, a Berkshire Cottage, challenged it. The bylaw was struck down. It is a matter of record and can be checked, but if memory serves, it was deemed spot zoning.

For a time, we had no Great Estate bylaw. Rumor had it that the bylaw was resurrected and rewritten for the benefit of Elm Court development. True or not, it became a part of Stockbridge Zoning Bylaws – altered but not entirely. What seemed a victory for Elm Court was not acceptable to the next owner/developer of a Berkshire Cottage.

Next issue: Desisto and the current proposed bylaTrain tracks at Lower Bowker’s Woods.

by Carole Owens

The Last Word

Reader to Reader—We Got Mail

Hi Carole,

The Red Lion intersection was created in 1745, and by 1870 was referred to in the Laurel Hill Association minutes as “Monument Square.” Over the years, South Street was widened to accommodate “Fountain Park,” which had acquired the Cat and Dog Fountain during the Civil War, a gift from Mr. Gourley, whose house hugged the corner of South and Main Street. In 1990, CATS magazine writer Phil Maggitti penned a tongue-in-cheek article about Stockbridge’s Cat and Dog Fountain quoting from a 1980 Springfield Republican newspaper article which read, “A 128-year-old landmark stone statue of a cat hissing at a dog, meant to symbolize progress versus preservation, was taken out of storage and set back on the corner of Main Street and Route 7 last week. When asked which animal represented progress and which animal represented preservation, well known cat lover Mary V. Flynn replied, “Why isn’t preservation progress?”.

My grandmother, Grace Bidwell Wilcox, curator of the Stockbridge Library Historical Room from 1938 to 1968, shared that oral history regarding the fountain with me and suggested it was more about the democratic process in Stockbridge, some hissing and barking, but healthy debate with the best interests of the Town at heart. The island, now the “John & Jane Fitzpatrick Park,” has shrunk to about half of its original size to accommodate more recent traffic needs.

Rick Wilcox

Dear Rick,

I love these snap shots of Stockbridge’s past.

Thank you,

Carole

Carole,

I appreciate your coverage in Stockbridge Updates of the recent zoning issues the Planning Board is grappling with. I have dutifully read and worked to understand your reporting on this. I recently also had an opportunity to read consultant Jeff Lacy’s answers to various recent Updates’ points.

Reading both side by side, I realize that the language of both, while meant to make various points clearer, are in fact, making them harder to understand.

Neither the Updates’ points, nor Lacy’s answers, give a clear understanding of the underlying questions and possible outcomes of various changes. How will our town be potentially changed by different choices?

Stockbridge Updates is the perfect vehicle for this kind of clarity, so I’m urging you to turn your skills to helping us all understand this important issue better.

Thanks,

Karen Marshall

Dear Karen,

Thank you for the kind words. It is the PB’s job to explain clearly what they are doing and why. It is SU‘s job to report it. However, you are one of three letters received asking SU to clarify the issues and the impacts of the four proposed zoning bylaws. SU will do its best starting in this issue (See Editorial and Stockbridge History). SU attends town meetings and reports. SU asks questions, and on occasions, points out countervailing facts. SU will continue to do so, but since requested by readers, in every issue, in the appropriate place, such as the Editorial, SU will try to clarify. Let us know how we are doing, and please remember the most important thing: you, the voters, must approve these Bylaws at Town Meeting. If you do not understand the issue addressed, the bylaw itself, or its impact, vote no. It is not definite; PB can go back to the drawing board and come back before you later with better information.

Thank you and your husband for all the work you do on behalf of Stockbridge.

Carole

Dear Carole,

I moved to Stockbridge in June of 2019, with my amazing dogs, to continue my Cancer treatments. I live on a very historic property. After doing quite a bit of research, I found old deeds and had the Mohican Tribe out, with 2 Archeologists. It has proven that Chief Konkapot had his original homesite here, and Agrippa Hull.

Hull was an African American Revolutionary War hero instrumental in starting West Point Academy. He was also the largest landowner in Stockbridge of African American descent, at the time. I plan on creating a sign in his honor.

Working with the wonderful Conservation Commission, I created a Pocket Park, on a small section of the property in Chief Konkapot’s honor. Open for anyone to use and enjoy the beauty of nature there. Read, meditate, launch a kayak and bird watch, etc. I cleared overgrown areas of invasive species. Had an obstruction removed from the Culvert that was trapping turtles and fish, killing them. Catching all debris from upstream and creating floods that didn’t need to happen. Since the removal, so much wildlife has returned, as well as the natural migration of that wildlife.

The Mosquito Committee stopped by last year and stated that because all of these corrections were made, the mosquito population has dropped significantly in that area.

During my treatments, I try and keep a positive attitude and create beauty in my yard for others to enjoy. I’m the one that had all the Christmas decorations up, so people had something wonderful to look at during this trying time of the virus.

During the latest winds, several of the large white pines were damaged. They are older, diseased trees. Including a 75-foot dangling treetop. I’ve had Tree experts come out and I’m also a Master Gardener, with a Masters in Horticulture. We think they are dangerous so I’m taking them out.

I’m not asking the Town to cover the cost of this, since the trees are on the property. I am covering that cost. I plan on amending the soil and putting in Winter Redbud or Chestnut trees.

I look forward to reading more of your newsletters and getting involved in Stockbridge.

Thank you,

James Lawson

Dear Mr. Lawson,

Thank you for writing to Stockbridge Updates. I drive by your pocket park often and I thank you for beautifying Stockbridge. Best wishes for your complete recovery,

Carole Owens

Carole,

BRAVO on your editorial!!!! (Charlie’s viewscape of the probable attempted development of the DeSisto property is not complete; the entire presentation should be shown with the development superimposed on topo maps.)

John Beacco

Dear John,

Thank you so much for your kind words. I hope sometime soon you will write a piece about Stockbridge. You have lifelong memories of your hometown.

Best wishes as always,

Carole

Hi Carole,

In your most recent Update, I thought your Editorial addressed the issue of change in a most thoughtful and candid manner. I agree that change, by itself, is not as important as the outcomes and impacts it brings. When it comes to development, I have always preferred a slow, thoughtful, and careful approach which supports the saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Stockbridge, literally and figuratively, ain’t broke!

Barney [Edmonds]

Dear Barney,

Thank you. Always nice to hear from you.

Carole

Dear Dr. Owens,

A letter for publication, although in my judgment this should be a story.

Although Stockbridge Update has run many stories about the Bowl and SBA (Stockbridge Bowl Association), it hasn’t yet informed its readers about one development in the relationship between the Bowl, the SBA, and the Town that I hope would reassure its readers about SBA’s earnest wishes for a constructive relationship with the Town in facilitating the best use of that remarkable town asset. After receiving the award of attorney fees you did report, following its successful effort to eliminate unwarranted town resistance to its longstanding plans for Bowl improvements, the SBA advised the Town administrator that it would dedicate the whole of that award, $19,000, to the planned improvements at the Town Beach. It said that it would donate the money as those expenses were incurred. To date the Town has not asked it to surrender any of the funds, but the Berkshire Eagle, for which you so often write about Town matters, had a major story about this, calling it a settlement of previous differences. Shouldn’t it be in Stockbridge Updates?

I’d be much happier if you yourself included this story in your next edition, but if not, please print this letter in your letter’s column.

Respectfully,

Peter Strauss, SBA Board member

Dear Mr. Strauss,

Thank you for your letter and for informing SU readers of SBA’s “earnest wishes for a constructive relationship with the town.” I hope others who work with SBA will write and confirm that that was their experience.

You make the point that you would like SU to “write a story about SBA.” Unfortunately, Stockbridge Updates can’t because, except in the editorial, SU only reports. SBA has no open board meetings and does not post minutes so SU cannot report on SBA regularly and has no way of knowing SBA decisions, attitudes, or planned activities. SU will report on any meeting SBA makes public.

During the lawsuit that SBA brought against the Town, there were court proceedings and public documents about which SU could and did report. In addition, when SBA members attend public meetings, SU reports their attendance and contribution.

In the meanwhile, if you wish to report on SBA activities, please write an article for SU. Many do and all are printed. An article from SBA might help to counterbalance other voices (See SB meeting). Again, thank you for your letter. SU looks forward to an ongoing communication.

Carole Owens