 |
|
Town of Lenox
Zoning Board of Appeals
Land Use Meeting Room
Minutes
December 12, 2007
7:00 PM Buccaneer Development, Inc., 12 East St., Map 4 Parcel 34, SP under Section 9.6 to construct 16 duplex buildings containing two dwelling units and two buildings each containing one single family dwelling unit. Units restricted to person 55 years of age or older. Continued from August 15, 2007, September 5, 2007, and October 3, 2007, *November 14, 2007
Members present: Chair Pam Kueber, PK; Jim Overmyer, JO; Shawn Leary Considine, SLC; Cliff Snyder, CS; Daniel Mintz, DM
Staff present: Mary Albertson, Town Planner, MA; Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA
*The meeting on November 14, 2007 was cancelled due to family emergencies. DM acted as Chair and was present at the designated hearing date and time to continue the hearing to December 12, 2007.
PK explained to those in attendance that there were two different petitions for Buccaneer before two Town of Lenox Boards, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board has been hearing the petitioner’s request for a Special Permit for a retirement community. As a result of feedback from the community and the Zoning Board of Appeals for the SP under Section 9.6, a new plan was submitted. At this hearing, the petitioner presented a formal presentation on the difference in the original plan and the current.
DM disclosed that he was not at the September 5, 2007 hearing, but had listened to the audio, read all of the correspondence received since that time, and went to the site today.
Presenting the application were the following:
Attorney Felicity Hardee of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP of Springfield, MA
Dan Rothschild also of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP
Jim Scalise of SK Design Group, Inc.
Jonathan Griffis, Developer
Felicity Hardee
Ms. Hardee gave a brief history of the two petitions submitted:
1. Designation of OSRD to the Planning Board
2. SP for a retirement community in the R1A zone to the ZBA
Originally the plan called for duplexes, clustered to take advantage of the OSSRD as the proponents understood in consultation with the previous Town Planner, Joellyn Warren.
The project was presented to both boards and there were concerns relative to setbacks and density. The plan was modified to have no duplexes, reduce the number of units from 34 to 23 and to increase the setbacks so all structures would conform to the requirements in the R1A zone. Ms. Hardee said that now the project conforms to all requirements of the R1A zone and kept the open space promised in the OSRD. Also, a retirement community is a residential use therefore it is consistent with the residential district.
In response to the concerns relative to density, the size has been reduced by 30%. Section 9.6 of the Bylaw states there shall be a minimum of 8,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit whereas with this plan there is 45,000 square feet. The project meets the requirements of the OSRD.
In regards to public access to the open space Ms. Hardee said that this parcel abuts a parcel already subject to a Conservation Restriction, thereby increasing the area. The applicant is willing to provide access with a low impact walk as a condition to the Special Permit.
Ms. Hardee addressed issues that were expressed consistently:
1. Traffic impact-The study done was on a 34 unit project. This project is now for 23 single family units.
2. Density-The duplexes have been eliminated.
3. Character of neighborhood-The project is residential in a residential neighborhood.
Ms. Hardee said that the Planning Board denied the Special Permit for an OSRD, but maintains that the application does not require one, by referring to the Zoning Bylaw Section 14.2, subsection 2. This project is an “Approval Not Required” project and thus is not obligated to secure an OSRD even though it is eligible.
In regards to complaints about the housing style, and looking like a “cookie cutter” project, the applicant has agreed to modify the facades, paint, etc.
Jim Scalise
Mr. Scalise addressed the technical issues of the project stating that the proponents have provided traffic, water and sewer reports. The project would not adversely affect the Town of Lenox water and sewer systems.
PK stated that typically with an application to the ZBA, the Planning Board reviews and submits a letter either supporting or not supporting the petition. In this instance the Planning Board did not issue a letter. She asked the proponents and audience members if anyone would like to continue this hearing until the Planning Board issued a letter. No one made a request to continue and it was concluded, based on the denial of the OSRD Special Permit request by the Planning Board at their December 11, 2007 hearing that it would be fair and reasonable that the ZBA proceed with their decision without an advisory letter from the Planning Board.
PK told Mr. Scalise that she read the entire traffic report and had noticed that in Section A page 2, Section 4.0, “Accident History” of the report it was stated that at the crash rates at East and Walker Streets intersection were above the state wide average, and at the intersection of East and Housatonic Streets the crash rate was somewhat higher than the state wide average. PK said that she was infuriated because she remembered the traffic engineer stated at a previous hearing that “everything was acceptable” and skipped over it this detail and “not called out.” She advised Mr. Scalise, in order to maintain trust with the Board to not do this in the future. She then asked Mr. Scalise to discuss the crash rates and the level of concern. Mr. Scalise discussed in
some detail and said that there is not a reoccurring traffic pattern that is causing accidents. He concluded that the number of accidents is not a significant number and that this project will not make the intersection worse.
Those in attendance were given another opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the project. Speaking in opposition were the following:
Mary Jo Piretti
Jim Herrick
Richard Mendel
Tom Bosworth
Brian Shepardson
Valerie Herrick
The comments were a repeat of comments made at previous hearings that the proposed project would:
1. Create undue traffic congestion
2. Impair pedestrian safety
3. Not be in harmony with the general intent of the Bylaw
4. Be undesirable
5. Be out of character with the neighborhood
At approximately 8:45 p.m., CS made a motion to close the Public Hearing. SLC seconded the motion and the Board voted to agree 5-0. At this point it was decided to take a short break.
At 8:50 p.m. the hearing reconvened.
SLC made a motion to grant the requested special permit for a retirement community consisting of 23 single family residences in the R1A zone. DM seconded the motion.
The members discussed the request and gave their opinions as follows:
CS stated that he appreciated the effort by the Petitioners, but felt that that the project is not desirable to the neighborhood.
SLC felt that the density of the project is excessive; the created traffic from the project would be detrimental. Overall, she feels the project is detrimental to the neighborhood.
DM commended the team presenting and especially Jim Scalise for the engineering and trying to respond to abutters concerns. He said that even if the initial requirements have been fulfilled it is not the only criteria for determining a special permit as there are a number of other factors the ZBA must consider. He questioned whether it is this appropriate for a retirement community under Section 9.6 of the Zoning Bylaw. He said this is the only multifamily that is allowed in the R1A zone and he does not think that a project like this was envisioned for this kind of neighborhood or this kind of space. He believes that it was anticipated that a project such as this would be more appropriate in a smaller, denser area of town. Also DM said that often open space that is being preserved is not build-able due to
steep inclines, or wetlands. He feels that this project is not consistent with the character of this neighborhood and that because of the traffic impact on that corner with the school in this zone, he is not in favor of the project.
JO stated that though the developer has offered a compromise, that a 23 single family unit project is 150% more than what would be permitted in a standard subdivision. In his opinion this development does not fit into a single family neighborhood.
PK said that the project does not meet the requirements stated in Section 6.1.1 of the Town of Lenox Zoning Bylaw. She feels that putting in 23 units at once does not give the town the ability to watch what happens with traffic as opposed to a few units at a time.
The members voted 0-5 (0 in favor and 5 opposed), thereby rejecting the project.
Minutes approved on by PK November 21, 2007:
· October 3, 2007
· October 17, 2007
· November 7, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| ||
 |
|
  |