Let’s have clarity about proposed hotel at the Searles School campus

Much of the discussion [about the hotel proposal] has either lost sight of the real issue or has twisted it into something it is not. I’ve been distressed by the seeming willingness of the participants in this debate to obfuscate what is, in actuality, a fairly simple question.

If the number of comments to this publication is to be taken as a bellwether, then there can be little question that no topic has more energized southern Berkshire County in the past few months than the request by Vijay and Chrystal Mahida to build a hotel on the site of the former Searles School on Bridge Street in Great Barrington. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has either lost sight of the real issue or has twisted it into something it is not. I’ve been distressed by the seeming willingness of the participants in this debate to obfuscate what is, in actuality, a fairly simple question.

The current design for The Berkshire, a 95-room upscale hotel that would preserve components of the original Searles building.
The most recent design for The Berkshire, a 95-room upscale hotel that would preserve components of the original Searles building.
  1. The Selectboard has only one issue before it on the Special Permit application…and it is not what a number of anti-hotel commentators have claimed.

The Selectmen of Great Barrington must decide if the Mahida proposal fits within the definition of the Town bylaw enacted in May of last year, to wit, 7.10.2, which modified, in very limited circumstances, the prior 45-room limit on hotel size in Great Barrington. In general, no hotel may contain more than 45 rooms but the SPGA (Special Permit Granting Authority) is empowered to deviate from that limit and grant a permit to build a larger hotel if the proposed hotel is “…a component of a project that redevelops or reuses historic structures.” The bylaw then goes on to state what constitutes a historic structure and it is clear that the former Searles School fits within that category, having been so designated by the Historic Commission this past summer.

The sole test that the Selectboard must use to determine if the Special Permit is to be granted is whether or not the proposed hotel “redevelops or reuses” the structure. The Board may not determine if the hotel will “rehabilitate a historic structure.” (See letter to the Editor of The Berkshire Edge by Eric Shamie earlier this month, wherein he states, totally incorrectly, that “…the Selectboard needs to answer just one question: Does the proposed development rehabilitate a historic structure.” But then again, Mr. Shamie has a pecuniary interest in the denial of the Mahida permit.)

Likewise, the Selectboard should not and must not determine if the Mahida plan constitutes “historic preservation” of the Searles School, as suggested by Steve McAlister, in another letter to The Edge. McAlister was allegedly a Planning Board member somewhere in the Commonwealth for 19 years and he should know better than to publicly be so incorrect. “Redevelop and reuse” is the test, not historic preservation. Mr. McAlister may wish that the bylaw read differently but it does not.

  1. The Selectboard’s task is not to determine the intent of the bylaw.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation (and yes, the bylaw is a statute) that the person or body doing the interpreting will not go beyond the four corners of the document if the meaning is clear and unambiguous nor will there be resort to extraneous sources, e.g., comments made during introduction and passage of the statute, if the words in the statute have readily discernable meanings. The bylaw requires “reuse or redevelopment,” not rehabilitation or restoration. The reason for the statutory interpretation rule is quite simple; it is assumed by the courts who are asked to determine legislative intent that if the legislators intended to use words that are not found in the statute, they would have done so and that the absence of these words is taken as evidence that they were intentionally left out. What the Selectboard must do…and do nothing more…is to determine if the final hotel plan “reuses” or “redevelops” Searles School. I’m not suggesting that this is an easy task for the Board but it is certainly doable. The Board has been presented with a design that may or may not reuse or redevelop. And it is the Selectboard’s task to determine if the proposed hotel does that. Whatever the decision, there will undoubtedly be people who will say it was an incorrect one. And those people that disagree have recourse; virtually all decisions of such boards and agencies are reviewable by the courts,

 

  1.  If a hotel is not built on the Searles School site, any other use is allowed.

This is such a basic idea that one would have expected it to be emphasized in the hundreds of comments that have been made in the past few months. I’ll repeat it: The bylaw in question only concerns a hotel that has 46 or more rooms. If the Houston/Shamie “unofficial” offer is ultimately accepted by Iredale and if the Special Permit to the Mahidas is denied, then they (Houston/Shamie) can bulldoze the school to the ground, put up a Dollar General store and they will be in complete compliance with Great Barrington zoning rules. It is indeed curious that although Mr. Houston and Mr. Shamie seem to be the primary moving force behind the Save Searles School movement, they have not uttered a single word about whether they would “save” the school or raze it if they became the owners. If Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s decides that they should have a branch in Great Barrington…a decision that would presumably not endear them to either the Co-op or Guido’s…they may, if all other zoning and other laws are complied with, come in, eliminate every brick of Searles and build their store without impediment.

So let’s be clear what we are talking about and what we are protesting. Despite what you are hearing, we are really not all that concerned with the disappearance of the Searles School. We just don’t want a hotel having more than 45 rooms on that site. If you think that the proposed hotel does only lip service to “reuse” or “redevelopment,” be careful what you wish for. The citizens of Great Barrington could find themselves with something much more offensive. So if three years from now you are scratching your heads and asking “how did that happen” when a Wal-Mart stands on Bridge Street…think!!

_________

A former federal prosecutor, Carl Stewart, a resident of Alford, is chairman of the Southern Berkshire Regional School Committee. He is also a current member of Alford Finance Committee, and for 19 years was a member and chair of Alford Planning Board. He maintains an office in Great Barrington.