 |
|
ATown of Lenox
Zoning Board of Appeals
Land Use Meeting Room
Minutes
April 30, 2008
Members present: Chair Pam Kueber, PK; Harold Brown, HB; Shawn Leary Considine, SLC; Clifford Snyder, CS; Jim Overmyer, JO
8:00 p.m. Fereal Realty Trust d/b/a Seven Hills, 40 Plunkett Street (Map 3, Parcel 83), modification of Special Permit under Section 5.5 to allow Seven Hills to continue use and activities on 15 + acres as opposed to approximately 26 acres, separating 11 acres, currently not utilized by Seven Hills, with frontage on Laurel Lake Road from the Seven Hills property and use.
The original hearing was held on March 19, 2008 with the following members sitting:
Chair Pam Kueber, PK; Harold Brown, HB; Shawn Leary Considine, SLC; Daniel Mintz. A fifth member could not be present and the applicants decided to proceed with four members. After that hearing, Daniel Mintz recused himself as he had become aware that a friend was an abutter to Seven Hills. The Mullin Rule, which allows a member who cannot be present at a hearing to listen to the audio, was applied and both Clifford Snyder (CS) and Jim Overmyer (JO) are participating in this hearing. The March 19 meeting was continued to April 9, but due to an unanticipated conflict of a participating board member, that meeting was continued to this date.
PK reviewed the documents that have been filed:
Submission of Attorney Gail Garrett that accompanied the original petition
March 17, 2008 Cain Hibbard Myers and Cook
March 31, 2008 Attorney Phil Heller
March 19, 2008 White Civil Engineering Report
April 30, 2008 Cain Hibbard Myers and Cook
Additionally letters from the following were received:
Lenox Planning Board
Hunter Runnette
Robert Voss
Roberto Flores
Making the presentation was Attorney Phil Heller who stated that Seven Hills has been a full service inn since 1951, a pre-existing non-conforming property consisting of 25 acres. A special permit was granted in 1967 and this petition is to modify the Special Permit. Mr. Heller claims that the opponents purchased their property knowing that next door was a full service inn. At the time the petition was filed, the owners were proposing to divide the property into two parcels because they were having difficulty selling such a large parcel of land. The purchasers, Denis and Robin Wong, wanted to acquire only 15 acres with the inn; therefore the proposal is to create two parcels with Seven Hills on 15 acres and the remaining 10.3 acres with the potential of being developed. Warren and Hope
Hagler, whose property abuts Seven Hills, oppose the plan. In trying to accommodate the opponents, a proposal was made that would limit development of the smaller lot to one single family house and a building envelope that would be in a treed area, shielded from the Haglers. Also a 150 feet south boundary would have no structures, but an access road with landscaping between the road and the Haglers.
Attorney Robert Fuster Jr., representing Mr. and Mrs. Wong, updated the Board and said that his clients are now opposed to any restriction on the operation of the Inn. He said they did not intend to operate the inn as it has been operated, with large numbers of guests, having a restaurant, having a liquor license etc., and if they did, they would have to come before the Zoning Board for approval. There are no plans to have over 99 people. The number 99 is significant because any more than that would trigger the building code which would require a sprinkling system. Their plans are to restore the inn and have it as their residence. Mr. Fuster says that this proposal makes the property more conforming as this is a residentially zoned neighborhood and that the Wongs would not agree to any
restriction in what they could do with their property in order for the subdivision to occur.
The Planning Board approved a Form A, the document known also as Approval Not Required under the Subdivision Control Law, which permitted the division of the 25 acre parcel into Parcels A and B. The Wongs purchased the property on April 4, 2008 with the agreement that if the Zoning Board approved this petition, Fereal could repurchase Parcel B.
Mr. Wong stated that while his intentions are to downsize the activities at the inn, he did not want to be bound by any restrictions as encumbering the property till the end of time would stifle the vitality of the property and the effect on the community. He feels that the Haglers are using this process to impose their will on this property. Mr. Wong offered to sell to the Haglers the property at the price he paid, and then they could restrict the use.
Attorney Syd Smithers of Cain Hibbard Meyers and Cook, representing Warren and Hope Hagler, suggested that with the intensification of a non conforming use, some rational restrictions should be imposed. He said that the Haglers are not seeking to take value from the property, but want to know what is going to happen with the property. Reducing the acreage for the inn, building on Parcel B, are intensification of uses, and that Mr. Smithers says, is more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mark Vander Brosch of 40 Laurel Lake Road asked that the Board represent those abutters who did not retain an attorney. He argued that Seven Hills is not technically an inn, but a motel and that this petition is reducing the buffer to the neighborhood.
Hope Hagler stated that at the Planning Board meeting on April 8, 2008, Mr. Heller had represented that parcel B be subdivided, would work out restrictions and would properly protect the Haglers, but was not a forthcoming negotiation.
Mr. Hagler said that he had made an offer to purchase the Wong’s property and to put restrictions so that nothing could ever be done on Parcel B, but it did not work out.
Ms. Wong described her excitement of acquiring this property, running the inn and being a part of the Lenox community, but now feels frustration. She was not aware of the Hagler’s offer to buy.
CS said that in this hearing nothing specific is forthcoming and suggested that the attorneys get together to discuss the restrictions. SLC also suggested that the parties try to work things out on their own.
Buzz Gray asked for clarification on whether the road proposed for the development on Parcel B had been approved. Shannon Boomsma of White Engineering said that she had done the delineation of the wetlands on Parcel B in July of 2006. Discussion ensued regarding wetland issues, size of building envelope, clearing of property, etc. He is against proposal because putting a 600 foot road into a wetland buffer zone is intrusive, need to protect the wetlands.
Andrea Winter also voiced her opposition because of the wetlands and having restrictions opens up enforcement issues.
Conrad Decker does not approve of the elimination of the buffer that presently exists.
At this point PK called for a 5 minute break.
SLC made a motion to close the public hearing. CS seconded the motion. The applicants were asked if they wished to move forward. Both attorneys, Phil Heller and Robert Fuster Jr., stated that their clients wished to withdraw the petition.
SLC made a motion to give permission to permit the applicants to withdraw their petition and CS seconded the motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| ||
 |
|
  |