Editorial

Editorial: Where there’s a will…

Thank you to the Chair of our Select Board and the Town Administrator for their response to the Stockbridge Updates editorial of January 1, 2023, including Town Counsel’s opinion.

The characterization of MACRIS, state, and federal laws is correct, but not necessarily relevant. Demolition of aged and historically significant structures in Stockbridge is controlled by Article XXII of the Stockbridge Bylaws. Article XXII also established the Historic Preservation Committee to make the determination based upon the variables articulated in the bylaw. Article XXII does not mention size as a variable that triggers or fails to trigger the process required prior to an allowable demolition. (Click here to read the bylaw; appears on page 40)

Furthermore, the stated purpose of the bylaw is not to advise the Building Inspector but to protect our historic structures. Paragraph one reads, “This Article is adopted for the purpose of protecting and preserving significant historic buildings within the Town and encouraging owners of such buildings to seek out alternative options to preserve, rehabilitate or restore such buildings rather than to demolish them.”

If there is confusion about something so basic as purpose, then perhaps the bylaw should be rewritten for clarity.

Stockbridge is well equipped to deal with saving an important historic structure and a bylaw that mandates informing the Town be informed if demolition is contemplated. Town Counsel searching for an interpretation after the fact that exonerates what came before?

SU has praised our former Stockbridge citizens for the hard and comprehensive work they put into bylaws that protect this village. Many others have joined in that praise. The law addresses the point where individual rights stop and communal interests begin. The law limits individual behavior. Not everyone likes that, but, it is left to us to enforce those bylaws. If the bylaw gave us the way, do we have the will?

by Carole Owens , Managing Editor

News

Notes from the Board of Assessors, January 9, Hybrid meeting

Present:

• Gary Pitney, Chair, Abigail Fredsall, Doug Goudy
• Tom Stokes via Zoom
• Michael Blay, Assessor
• Tammy Toupence, Secretary
• Peter Strauss

1. January 19 — deadlines for tax bills to be paid and abatement request filed
2. Goudy reminded everyone even if applying for abatement, one payment has to be made
3. Requests for tax exemption must be mailed by end of January — for exemptions due to nonprofit status. New addition to form to be filled out. The Assessor will ask for current use of any buildings owned by a nonprofit
4. Blay explained a use for Overlay funds: in addition to making up any shortfall from unpaid taxes, the fund was used to pay cost of upgrading and converting data.
5. Stokes and Strauss reported that, with help of Patrick White, Chair SB, they completed form for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) forms to be sent to nonprofits
6. The forms will be sent out soon but White suggested since Tanglewood is undergoing administrative changes (upper management quit) PILOT Committee wait to send those forms until new staff hired.

Meeting adjourned.

News

Notes from the Conservation Commission (ConCom), January 10, Hybrid meeting

Present:

• Ron Brouker, Chair, Sally Underwood-Miller, John Hart, Joe DeGiorgis, Tom LaBelle, Jamie Minacci, Lisa Bozutto

1. Minutes of December 13 approved as written
2. Sarah McKearnan requested a Certificate of Compliance for 2 Interlaken Crossroad as soon as possible. The work on the new septic is progressing. The house has sold, but the COC is necessary to close the sale.
3. Steven Mack requested a site visit to approve work on erosion controls on Ice Glen Road
4. 12 Mahkeenac Shores was continued as no representative present. However, this opened a discussion with the consultant from Fleetwood because this matter has been continued for a year or more meaning there was no compliance and no contact with absentee owners.
   1. The unresolved issue: The bylaws require that the owners DO NOT mow to the shoreline and DO plantings
   2. Underwood-Miller said there were problems getting in contact with owners and even learning who the groundskeepers were
   3. Hart said the situation was unacceptable
   4. They turned to Fleetwood consultant to ask what they could do
5. As it turns out the consultant said there is a lot ConCom can do
   1. If ConCom has not sent an Enforcement Order, they should do so immediately
   2. If they do not have names of the people to contact, then physically mark-out the area NOT to be mowed — cordon it off and attach a sign that says “do not mow this area and contact ConCom”
   3. If they can stop by and talk to workers or identify who is working there, then open the dialogue about what can and cannot be done
   4. There are powers ConCom has and actions they can take. Placing unresolved item on agenda for years and “continuing” it was not seen as acceptable to the Commission. Underwood-Miller said there were many of these.

Editor’s Note: At the request of the Conservation Commission SU would list those who are in violation.

Meeting adjourned.

News

Statement on demolition of the Lamond Garden Pavilion designed by Daniel Chester French

Appropriate outrage has been voiced regarding the demolition of the Lamond Garden Pavilion by a private property owner on Prospect Hill Road. The pavilion was designed by renown local artist Daniel Chester French, and was one of dozens of Stockbridge structures listed in the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s MACRIS database (Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System) .

We asked Town Counsel to review if any laws were broken with the regard to the demolition. We received this response:

The listing of the pavilion on the state MACRIS does not confer any protection on the structure. It is not in an historic district, which would require compliance with G.L. c. 40C. It did not require any federal or state funds for demolition. Therefore, if there is any recourse for its demolition, it would only be under Article XXII of the General Bylaws — the Historic Preservation and Demolition Delay bylaw. By its terms, the bylaw does not apply to this structure. My reasoning is as follows:

Purpose — The purpose of the bylaw is to provide advice to the Building Inspector with respect to the issuance of permits for historically significant buildings. The bylaw regulates the issuance of building or demolition permits. The demolition of the pavilion did not require any permit.

Procedure — The procedure for review by the Historic Preservation Commission is triggered by filing an application for a demolition or building permit. If the Commission determines that the structure is a Significant Historic Building, then the effect is to bar the Building Inspector from issuing a permit for 12 months. The Commission has no authority to preserve an historic structure; it can only delay the issuance of a permit by the Building Inspector. Again, when no permit is required, there is nothing that the bylaw can delay.

Based on our current understanding the structure was less than 200 SF, no demolition permit was required to be issued by the Building Inspector, and no permit was requested.

In hindsight, we wish the owners of the property in question had attempted to save this structure by either moving it to a different location on site, or by offering it for relocation to the town or another private property owner. We want to emphasize, however, that we had no mechanism to mandate such a course of action.

Many of us are saddened by the decision by the owner to demolish this structure. We encourage all owners of private property to review the MACRIS database by visiting this link:

https://maps.mhc-macris.net/maps.html

Our historic preservation bylaw requires a review of most of these properties before they are modified or demolished. We strongly encourage private property owners to familiarize themselves with this database, and to respect the long tradition of historic preservation that is central to the character of Stockbridge.

by Patrick White, Chair, Stockbridge Board of Selectmen and Michael Canales, Town Administrator

News

Notes from the Community Preservation Committee (CPC), January 5, Hybrid meeting

Present:

• Sally Underwood-Miller, Chair, Tom stokes, Patrick White, Carole Owens, Linda Jackson, Jay Bikofsky
• Ericka Oleson, Secretary
• Ranee Warner

1. Stokes asked to elect officers. Underwood-Miller was again named chair
2. Stokes said we should ask Parks and Rec for a member as no one has attended from Parks and Rec during last year
3. Underwood-Miller wishes to update the grant application. White suggested that ConCom run changes by TC
4. MA may require a formal plan for awards — if so, the committee felt it should be tailormade for Stockbridge
5. MACRIS (Mass Cultural Inventory) was mentioned as a valuable resource online
6. It was suggested that a preservation restriction may be required of organizations that accept CPC funds. Chair said “that could be a nonstarter”
7. Stockbridge has ARPA funds available if CPC wishes to hire consultant to write the plan
8. Conversation about potential open spaces that may need CPC funds followed. The areas included — Monument Mt, Elm Court, 37 Interlaken, the Chestnut Preserve. Discussion about efforts to save Swann property (steep slope/Monument Mt.)
9. Purpose of meeting to set schedule — set as follows:
   1. Public Meeting 4pm 19 January
   2. Applications due NOON 10 February
   3. Voting meeting #1 27 February 4pm
   4. Back-up meeting 6 March 4pm
   5. Any changes in schedule will be posted
10. Funds available: $683,453 plus 3% of tax revenues

Meeting adjourned.

News

Notes from the Planning Board, January 3, Hybrid meeting

Present:

• Kate Fletcher, Chair, Lis Fletcher, Marie Rafferty, Nancy Sosha, Wayne Slosek
• Carl Sprague via Zoom
• Donna Brewer, Town Counsel (TC)
• Patrick White, Chair Select Board
• Anita Schwerner

1. With respect to the minutes, Raftery asked if the minutes should reflect that a conclusion reached about transferring Lake and Pond Overlay District (LPOD) to ConCom. Fletcher said no conclusion was reached. Raftery asked if they could discuss LPOD and reach a conclusion. It was the only thing on current agenda so discussion was in order, however, Fletcher wanted time for a “close read” before conclusion.
2. Minutes approved as written.
3. Fletcher introduced TC and said she was present to answer questions.
4. The first question: Was Tom LaBelle, ConCom, correct when he said ConCom could not take over LPOD because ConCom was not a special permitting commission? TC: correct
5. Slosek: Our discussion last meeting was what to do to have ConCom take over LPOD. If Tom is right, is there anything we can do? Both Wheeler and Slosek asked is LaBelle right? TC said he was but ConCom can take over parts of LPOD and PB could keep issuing of special permits
6. Fletcher suggested maybe LPOD is not working that well and PB should review and suggest bylaw changes.
7. Others said that would cause delaying a decision again.
8. TC suggested splitting up LPOD and further suggested transferring LPOD to General Bylaws to ease the process of reassigning parts
9. Fletcher asked a question about site plans and TC responded that based on court precedent, PB can only approve the permit or approve with conditions cannot turn down a special permit
10. Fletcher again mentioned “close read” and rewriting LPOD. Wheeler said is was clearly reading just matter — as TC suggested — of taking parts out and placing with ConCom
11. Slosek asked TC if this was a sensible process. TC said yes — best practice to take out what PB does not usually deal with
12. Rafferty said “we don’t want giant houses on small lots.”
13. Fletcher said any approach should be systematic and incremental — PB should keep Raftery’s idea on the back burner. Someone objected that they won’t get anywhere. Fletcher said we’ll think about density. Sprague said there are only a few tools to control density around the lake and LPOD does control density
14. TC pointed out that design is not covered in LPOD
15. White was opposed to splitting off parts of LPOD. White felt the important thing was to enforce our bylaws whichever Board or commission oversees.He suggested joint oversight and enforcement by PB and ConCom
16. Slosek “if it’s our job let’s do it”
17. Fletcher suggested removing discretion and rewrite to make requirements “cut and dried” — again suggested “study and rewriting”
18. Wheeler suggested creating a pamphlet explaining requirements for dissemination to the public.
19. Chair said there was consensus; another member said there did not appear to be

Meeting adjourned.

News

Notes from Water and Sewer Commission — January 3, Hybrid meeting

Present:

• Don Schneyer, Chair, Peter Sosha, John Loiodice
• Michael Canales Town Administrator
• Patrick White, Chair Select Board
• Tony Campetti, Sewer Superintendent
• Michael Buffoni, Water Superintendent

1. Canales reported the water and sewer rates would be ready for consideration at the February meeting.
2. Canales mentioned money — an estimated $99,000 for sewer expansion
3. The Department of Environmental protection (DEP) requires an ascension (or succession?) plan so when Buffoni and Campetti retire, there will be trained and properly credentialed people to replace them. Buffoni estimated it would take five years to train and credential the potential employees.
   1. Canales suggested Stockbridge begin an apprenticeship program now.
   2. It was a concern that Stockbridge might train folks who then leave for jobs elsewhere. White suggested in order to hedge against that, use “hometown guys.”
4. Campetti reported the Influx and Infiltration study (I&I) is 90% done. When done, we will know how much pipe has to be replaced and how much fixed. Also, how many manhole-covers need replacing
5. Consultant, David (Cricket or Pricket?) is working on the Master Plan — Canales said it is going well — there are five areas without sewer but close to sewer. They are north of causeway, Glendale, Ice Glen, Lake Drive and one other location (?) It would be $50,000 to do an evaluation. White suggested moving forward and using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds
6. Progress is being made on the salt shed. Apparently when finished, equipment can be stored inside
7. Public Comment period — Anita Schwerner asked about the “private sewer line” on Train Hill mentioned by Paul Sundberg at last the meeting. She believed that after one year, a sewer line becomes the property of the Town. Schneyer said that is true now, but that sewer line was put in prior to the law being passed and it is not retroactive. Canales said the sewer line could be taken by eminent domain if it were established that it was in the public good to do so.
8. Schwerner also asked about the water and sewer bills at 37 Interlaken — who pays them? 37 Interlaken requested an abatement on the that sewer bill and paid water bill.

Meeting adjourned.

News

Correction

Hey Carole,

Hope all is well. I received a couple inquiries regarding your Stockbridge Updates notes item #4 that suggested the AG’s office is requiring that my boards do verbatim minutes.

“4. The Board received complaints alleging violations of the Open Meeting Law. Wilusz reported the matter is now resolved — no violation found by local counsel or the Attorney General’s office. There was a request that minutes of the meeting — where possible — be verbatim “

I haven’t gone back and looked at the meeting video and we haven’t done the minutes yet but if I made a comment about that I apologize but the AG’s final determination does not require nor suggest we do verbatim minutes. I briefly talked about the final recommendations asking us to be sure we are capturing public comments for example and the important parts of the meeting. (Which we have always done) Meeting minutes are not required by law to be a transcript but more of a summary.

Thanks, James J. Wilusz, R.S.
Executive Director/Registered Sanitarian
Tri-Town Health Department

Hi Carole,

I agree with Jim on this. There was a request by the AG to improve the headings and specificity of the notes, but not at all to make them inclusively verbatim. To the contrary, there have been multiple rulings and our counsel’s advice that speak against massive word-for-word meeting documentation.

I must add that the Updates have always provided an extremely accurate synopsis of all the public meetings I have been privileged to follow. Great job!

Charles Kenny MD
Chair BOH

Gentlemen,

Thank you for reading SU and for taking the time to submit a correction.

Carole

News

SU FYI

Hi Carole,

One more Daniel Chester French item in Town that people can readily see and appreciate — the Standing Lincoln in the Jackson Wing of the Stockbridge Library. Long on loan from the Williams High School Alumni Association, the statue was gifted to the Museum & Archives in 2020. A little history: when the “new” school (now Town Offices) was dedicated in 1914, the statue was a remembrance from the “Graduates and Friends of the Old School,” (Academy) who had contributed $1 each and purchased the statue for $165.

Thanks,

Pat Flinn

Carole,

No one seems to have been aware that the Historic Preservation Commission should have been notified and that public discussion should have taken place.

All round, not a success. Personally, I feel that even a symbolic fine is in order. I’m putting this topic on our commission agenda for Feb 6. This is a special problem, but there will be others down the road. Publicity is good. Concern is welcome. Any thoughts would help.

Carl Sprague, Chair, Historic Preservation Committee

Coming soon! A monthly column, Dateline: Stockbridge, in The Berkshire Edge

News

Events

1. Berkshire Botanical Garden Marks 26th Annual Winter Lecture – February 18, 5pm – 6pm — Online Presentation by Midori Shintani, Head Gardener of Tokachi Millennium Forest
   
   “Volumes” is on display at the Leonhardt Gallery
   
   “Cuttings” magazine is coming soon
   
   Barn raising – January 21
2. Stockbridge Senior Center offers new weekly activities. Walking Club Tuesdays and Thursdays 10am; Knitting Club Wednesdays at 11:30am; Chair Yoga and Gentle Yoga Mondays and Wednesdays at 10am
   
   Luncheon: January 18 11am with poet and artist Leslie Kline
3. Norman Rockwell Museum – Norman Rockwell Drawings, 1914-1976 is on display untscension March 26, 2023

Analysis

Notes from Agriculture and Forestry Commission (AFC), January 9, Hybrid meeting

Present:

• Matt Boudreau, Chair, Abigail Fredsall, Lisa Bozzuto, Shelby Marshall,
• Erik Rasmussen via Zoom
• Others present named as they speak

1. Minutes of December 5 meeting approved as written
2. Single agenda meeting: woolly adelgid
   1. What does it look like? A cotton ball under the greenery
   2. What does it attack? Hemlocks
   3. Why this meeting? As members of ConCom and AFC have made site visits, they observed infestation of woolly adelgid on hemlocks in Ice Glen and around Lake Mahkeenac.
   4. Bozutto reported that up to 72% of the land around the lake is still forested. She asked what percent of the forest is hemlocks? That is, what impact will the woolly adelgid killing the hemlocks have on the lake?
   5. Tom LaBelle researched the question and found (in a book by David Foster) that widespread death of hemlocks will affect the amount of light and the dead trees will be replaced with seedlings
3. Peter Grima (forester) said death killing hemlocks is gradual — over years — big. Three major concerns are: invasives; how to salvage value, and getting rid of “hazard trees”
4. Sally Underwood-Miller understood that sugar maples naturally replace and most often replace dead hemlocks
5. Jess Toro (tree expert) said the hemlocks are not playing a major role on lake but are playing major role on waterways approaching lake for example Shadow Brook, Bullard, Gould Meadow and Tanglewood
6. Bozutto discussed need for a replanting plan but pointed out that while 72% of land around lake is forested, it is divided into many small lots. Planting will vary from owner to owner; difficult to have a single plan
7. Toro pointed out that replanting is not necessarily one to one. To replicate the form and fuction of the hemlocks, she recommends planting a variety of trees to replicate the canopy, the breath and function of a single hemlock. Someone suggested that basswood and tulip poplar are good replacement choices
8. Chair suggested this is an ongoing discussion and it will take time to reach the point of making recommendations

Meeting adjourned.

The Last Word

Reader to Reader

Editor’s Note: Stockbridge Updates has a policy that it does not post letters without attribution. The following is a one-time exception. The reason is the number of people who felt strongly and wrote clearly about the demolition of the Daniel Chester French Garden Pavilion but did not want to be identified. SU is posting unattributed comments to highlight two problems — loss of an historic structure and the unfortunate condition that any of us is uncomfortable speaking out. I hope we address both issues sometime soon. SU respects and thanks all those who do speak out.

Carole – Your editorial moved me. The town should have declared it a preservation monument. It could have been moved to town land…I’m angry, but Happy New Year to you.

Carole,

Your editorial is very good, and I completely concur. Stockbridge is desired because of its refusal to change or destroy its history and natural beauty. Daniel Chester French’s work, any of it, must be preserved. TA [Town Administrator] needs to get the answer why the pavilion was destroyed. PS. Stay healthy, the town needs you.

Carole

If Baldwin authorized its demolition, he should be fired immediately. If he didn’t and the owners did it without checking for Bylaw requirements, they should be fined (if possible) or the very least be ostracized socially from the community.

Carole

I’m truly outraged at what occurred at 22 Prospect Hill. Like you, I drive by almost daily and wonder WTF is going on…and now this. I’m ashamed that I didn’t notice it. 

If there are hearings, etc. wherein these folks will be asked to comment or defend their actions I would like to know about it.

Shame on them. Shame on them. Carole, Thanks for all you do. 

To Whom it may concern:

As a lifelong citizen of Town, I was very concerned about the demolition of the French structure on Prospect Hill. Did the homeowner or contractor contact Ned to get a permit to remove it?

This is another example of why each department, including the con com needs to publish brochures for homeowners and new buyers outlining what regulations exist in town. I think it should be simple bullet points. I also think that contractors need to sign off that they have read the conditions placed on projects by our various boards and committees.

To [blank]:

I spoke with Ned this morning. He had no idea. I also spoke with Margaret Cherin – the new Chesterwood director – who did know that the pergola was to be removed (for grading apparently). Chesterwood made the new owners aware that this was a significant historic structure. Anyway, it’s a fiasco. Publicity is good — there will be others down the road.

Editor’s note: On another subject. For many the Talbot Center was an important part of then Town and they miss it. Following one Stocbridge resident and daughter of a very important engineer offers a solution.

Dear Carole,

Little did I know until I went down to the Dump today that opening the Talbot Center could be so easy!

All that has to be done is to remove the existing ramp and put a new one in parallel to the existing one but going to the 2nd door. There is enough room for a ramp with the proper grade; that was the entrance that was always used previously. 

If the building needs to be replaced a new one can be placed in the same location.

Best wishes Shirley Miller

Dear Carole,

Thank you for this [Stockbridge Updates].

I went to school up here and bought my first home on North Church Street in 1979. I am grateful for responsible people who keep others informed. If you think I could help you in some way, please let me know. Many thanks and Happy New Year! 

Rachel Fletcher H. Kinney

Photographers

Jay Rhind: Gallery of Images

Perspective

Berkshire Botanical Garden Marks 26th Annual Winter Lecture 

Berkshire Botanical Garden presents Midori Shintani, head gardener of Japan’s famous Tokachi Millennium Forest, in its online Winter Lecture, “Discovering Tokachi,” on Feb. 18, 5 – 6 pm.

Midori will share how she and her team have nurtured the native forests and cultivated garden areas through the seasons. She will also explain how her gardening methods are rooted in the accumulated wisdom of the ancient Japanese belief of mother culture, and how she has built a solid partnership with garden designer Dan Pearson and her garden team.

The Tokachi Millennium Forest is located at the foot of the Hidaka Mountains in Hokkaido, the northernmost island of Japan. The project was originally started in 1990 by a local newspaper company that acquired about 990 acres there to create a carbon-offsetting forest. Eventually this became a project to restore the natural forest ecosystems, to share with the public and be sustainable for the next 1,000 years. The garden project of the Tokachi Millennium Forest began in 1996. In 2008, the forest officially was opened to the public, and has continued to evolve. 

Midori Shintani was born and raised in the Fukui Prefecture in central Japan, in the countryside surrounded by sea and mountains. Spending time with plants in this area rich with nature was an early influence. Midori trained in horticulture and landscape architecture at Minami Kyushu University, Japan. In 2002 she moved to Sweden and trained to become a gardener at Millesgården and Rosendals Trädgård. In 2004 she moved back to Japan and worked at a garden design and landscaping company and perennial nursery, gaining experience in both traditional and modern techniques to create her own gardening style. Since 2008 she has been the head gardener of Tokachi Millennium Forest, merging “new Japanese horticulture” into wild nature. She writes and lectures widely.

Tickets for the Winter Lecture are $30 for members of Berkshire Botanical Garden and $35 for non-members and are available online at berkshirebotanical.org/events 

Established in 1997, the Winter Lecture Series was initiated by the Berkshire Botanical Garden to bring inspiring and noted speakers to the region to talk about horticulture, landscape design and history, plants and plant exploration, and home gardening. Past speakers have included such luminaries as Tom Coward, Marco Polo Stufano, Dan Hinkley, Edwina von Gal, Penelope Hobhouse, Bill Cullina, Fergus Garrett, Debs Goodenough, Dr. Michael Dirr, Ken Druse, Anna Pavord, Thomas Woltz and Margaret Roach. Proceeds from ticket sales support the Garden’s education programs.

by Felix Carroll

Perspective

CTSB

After becoming a member of the Five Town Cable Advisory Committee, I was surprised to learn that a high percentage of the funding for CTSB is based on the number of Spectrum subscribers. CTSB is paid a percentage of the Spectrum subscribers in the 5 towns of Stockbridge, Lenox, Lee, Great Barrington, and Sheffield.

The committee is currently negotiating a new 10-year-contract with Spectrum and an important negotiable item is CTSB’s budgetary needs. Those who have Cable TV services pay a monthly fee that is for funding Public Access Channels. As a non-profit organization CTSB is dependent on this funding to function, to update equipment and provide high quality and high definition programming which is available on their website and the Cablecast app. However it is only being broadcast in standard definition on Spectrum TV which is not pleasant to watch and not in keeping with our contract.

The 3 different CTSB stations are supposed to be broadcast on Spectrum TV stations below channel 50 but instead they are on Channel 1301, 1302 and 1303. This is a problem for those who don’t receive these channels and it’s also a problem because the broadcasts are not in high definition, In addition, the only way to see the current tv guide listings is to go to the CTSB website because the cable guide does not list the individual programs.

I went on a tour of the CTSB offices and studios with Rich Frederick, the Executive Director, and learned that CTSB provides so much more than recordings of meetings. Their studio and equipment is available to community members to use to produce content that is informative, educational or entertaining and there are some amazing programs that are being created.

A few highlights on Channel 1301 (Public) include Community Highlights, Solo Creatives of the Berkshires produced by Sherry Steiner, musical performances and much more. The Education Channel 1302 includes the 34th Annual Fall Festival of Shakespeare, Monument Mountain TV productions, school sports and all kinds of school committee meetings including the 8 Town Regional. And the Government Channel 1303 shows meetings from the 5 towns. The ability to watch and participate in meetings in real time as well as to access them anytime on CTSB has been widely embraced by the residents of Stockbridge, both full and part-time.

I encourage you to explore the programs available on the three channels and take advantage of the opportunity to produce your own. You’re all invited to stop by and visit CTSB to learn more.

by Anita Schwerner

Perspective

Enforcing Our Bylaws

I imagine you have received several communications regarding this sad turn of events [demolition of the Daniel Chester French garden structure]. I am writing in part because I am distressed that this representative of the history of our town has been lost, but also as a long-time member of the Conservation Commission (ConCom) where we way too often see applicants who profess to be (or, perhaps, actually are) ignorant of the laws and bylaws in our town. 

As Chair of the Community Preservation Committee (CPA), while I seriously doubt financial considerations were a factor, we could have assisted the property owner in a quest to preserve this building. 

As a member of the ConCom, the destruction of trees, open space, habitat, and aesthetic beauty of our town is of paramount concern to me. Trees are being cut down (yes some are diseased) and every square inch of buildable land is being scooped up, too often without permits in place, by people for whom money is no object, driving housing prices even higher and more unaffordable.

Our quaint little town, one everyone professes to adore and value, is changing in ways that will soon make it unrecognizable. 

While this is not all related to Daniel Chester French’s pavilion, it is, nevertheless, a sad state of affairs infecting our small town. If the rural and historic nature of the town is not of value, why would anyone want to move here? New citizens need to become stewards of this very special place. Many of the newly renovated and built houses are a testament to the attitude that money can buy anything, when, in fact, it is often destroying the very fabric of our town. 

We need young families, with children who attend our schools, who can serve on our Fire and Police departments. There was a time when the police and firefighters knew their neighbors — knew if they had children or dogs, knew who the stray horse or cat belonged to, knew when a troubled teen was not a bad kid, just one who was angry about a divorce or had a substance abuse problem and took steps to help. Now most of our citizenry are second homeowners who don’t even vote! 

We need to educate, prioritize, and get our act together before it’s too late. We need to further limit the size of structures on a lot, we need to beef up the bylaws that are in place to protect our lakes and streams, we need to figure out what’s going to replace the ashes and hemlocks, we need to revise and rethink many of our bylaws, we need to create housing for moderate-income families… I’m not suggesting we return to Norman Rockwell’s Stockbridge, only that we do what we can before we lose it altogether.

Editor’s note: Thank you, Sally, for this excellent contribution to SU and your many years of service to Stockbridge.

by Sally Underwood-Miller

Perspective

More to the Story

On behalf of Chesterwood, I would like to respond to the recent destruction of the Tea House structure at 22 Prospect Hill, a garden folly designed by Daniel Chester French in 1916 for his friends, the Lamonds, at their property called “Fair Acres”. In addition to being one of the country’s most revered sculptors of public monuments at the turn of the century, French also had a keen interest in garden design (as evidenced by the gardens and woodland trails at Chesterwood) and was often called upon by friends in the Berkshires to create designs for their gardens. Several gardens are still extant, several fell into disrepair. Over a year ago Chesterwood was approached by the owners of 22 Prospect Hill looking for more information about the Tea House on their property — no longer part of any formal garden but a remnant of the original Gilded Age garden. Fortunately, Chesterwood holds archival photos and blueprints of the structure which we happily shared. About a year later the owners contacted Chesterwood again with the news that they have determined with their contractor that the structure must come down within a matter of days. Again, we visited the Tea House and pressed the owners and contractor into finding a solution, either to move it further back on their property, approach a neighbor, appeal to the town, etc. Unfortunately, the contractor moved quickly before a solution could be found. Chesterwood is deeply regretful about the loss of this piece of Daniel Chester French’s legacy as an artist and garden designer.

by Margaret Cherin , Interim Executive Director, Chesterwood