Town of Lenox, MA - Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes,11/07/2007

7:00 pm Greylock Greylock Federal Credit Union, Modify a Special Permit Section 5.5, Site lighting, 444 Pittsfield-Lenox Road. Property is in the C-1A Zone (Map 50 Parcel 12). Board members individually participated in a site visit prior to this continued hearing. Continued from October 17, 2007. At the October 17 hearing, Daniel Mintz advised he would be unable to participate in the Nov. 7 continued hearing. The applicant agreed to continue with four Board members present.

Mr. Jerome of Greylock Federal Credit Union presented an updated lighting plan and advised that each proposed light would produce 2.5 foot candles. The light would be directed downward and around the perimeter. The Board felt the proposal called for more lighting than is necessary for the location and asked the petitioner to reduce the double lights to single lights. SLC made a motion to grant the petition for the allowance of 4 additional lights which is a reduction of the seven originally proposed. CS seconded the motion and the Board agreed 4-0. SLC made a motion that the Greylock Federal Credit Union would make the best effort to reduce wattage if asked. ND seconded the motion and the Board agreed 4-0.

7:15 p.m. Ethylwynde, Yokun Avenue, Map 12 Parcels 2 & 2-1, Review of Decision regarding petition filed April 11, 2006, Public Hearing May 3, 2006, continued to May 31, 2006. Decision meeting May 31, 2006. There was a review meeting on Nov. 1, 2006, but was continued to May 2, 2007. Because this Decision has been appealed, this review continued to November 7, 2007.

Mr. Heller reported that the appeal is still in litigation and asked for a further continuation. The Board agreed to continue to September 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM.

7:15 p.m Marcia Golden, 52 Cliffwood Street (Map 46, Parcel 65) Special Permit under Section 5.5 to construct a 6’x10’ addition and a Variance under Section 8.4.4(a) to construct a 10’x10’ screened porch.

Presenting the petition was Ms. Golden and her contractor, Don Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald disclosed that he is the Assistant Building Inspector for the Town of Lenox and that he is filing the necessary paperwork with the Town Clerk regarding his appearance before the Zoning Board.

Mr. Fitzgerald presented plans that were revised after the petition was filed and stated that the applicant is no longer seeking a Variance because it has been determined that the part of the project to construct a 10’ x 10’ screened porch meets all setbacks.

There were no abutters present. Two letters from Jeff Vincent, Superintendent of the Department of Public Works, were read into the record. No other letters were received.

SLC made a motion to grant the request for a Special Permit under Section 5.5 to construct the 6’ x 10’ addition, and the withdrawal of the request for a Variance. CS seconded the motion and the Board approved 5-0.

7:30 p.m. Kelie Wright, Essencials Day Spa, Inc., 55 Pittsfield Road (Map 17, Parcel 40).~ Special Permit under Section 6.6-1-E.10, Professional Trades and Crafts, and Site Plan Review under Section 6.4.1, to allow a spa and salon to operate in an existing building.~ In the alternative, Petitioner requests a Variance from Section 6.6-1.E.9.

Mr. Case reviewed the history of the past five years. He said the most difficult part of this property has been finding tenants for Building 12, the large building in the very back of the development. The size has been a deterrent so he has demolished about 1/3 of the 35,000 building. Reducing the size has made the space more attractive and marketable. Ms. Wright approached Mr. Case about moving her business at the location and he felt the use was a good match.

Mr. Heller explained the application for applying for the Special Permit, and Site Plan Review and in the alternative a Variance. He felt that this request could be granted under the Special Permit, as this use falls under Professional Trades of the Zoning Bylaw. Employees have to have licenses to provide the spa services and must have continuing education.

The spa would operate within 8,000 square feet of the 24,000 square foot building. An addition to the footprint would be a 12’ x 58’ screen porch. The roof of the entire space will be replaced with a peaked roof.

Mr. Scalise talked about the impacts of the conversion of approximately 8,000 square feet from a retail use to a spa and hospitality use. Sewer and water would result in a net difference of 302 gallons a day, less than a single dwelling unit. Mr. Scalise said that the previous analysis for storm water management, traffic and parking for the previously approved project were compared with this project and he states this project complies with all previous reviews.

A letter received November 7, 2007 from Jeff Vincent, Superintendent of DPW was read into the record. He suggests that as long as the total flow for this project has not increased, this use would be acceptable.

Ms. Wright stated that her existing business with 24 employees is conducted within 3200 square feet. She wants to expand and to add employees and has a goal of becoming a “green” spa that utilizes solar and decreases water consumption. No new services are being proposed.

MA provided results of her research into the meaning of “professional person” and licensing requirements and feels that this business falls under profession trades.

SLC made a motion to grant the petition for a Special Permit under Section 6.6-1-E.10, Professional Trades and Crafts, and Site Plan Review under Section 6.4.1, to allow a spa and salon to operate in an existing building at 55 Pittsfield Rd. CS seconded the motion. The Board agreed 5-0.

SLC made a motion that pursuant to the request in Mr. Vincent’s letter of Nov 7, 2007, that as a condition of this Special Permit, the petitioner is required to submit plans to the DPW and gain approval for their licensed cross connection. This letter is referenced and Mr. Scalise acknowledged that he would stay within the parameters stated by Mr. Vincent. CS seconded the motion. The Board approved 5-0.

ND asked that Mr. Case revisit the issue relating to the entrance to Kennedy Park, stating that the path is poorly marked and narrow and suggested compliance with the previous decision be a condition of this Special Permit. CS responded that he did not feel that this condition was applicable to this Special Permit. Mr. Case said that he would comply with the earlier decision regarding this matter and Mr. Heller said that when the work is completed, he will write a letter to the ZBA to confirm. PK noted that in the future, the ZBA may want to set dates or ‘complete by’ benchmarks for specific parts of a large complex within a decision related to issues like this.