To the editor:
I am writing to address statements made in a recent letter to the editor from John Beacco, a resident of Lee and a former Selectman from the Town of Stockbridge, in which he implied that something underhanded had taken place at a recent West Stockbridge special town meeting.
While he didn’t say that exactly, it seems obvious to me that’s what he meant when he wrote: “Quietly at a special town meeting which is an ideal time and place for mischief, voters (more likely an organized faction) transferred the power to award special permits in West Stockbridge from the Select Board to the Planning Board.” My one word response to that is “hogwash.”
As someone who served as a Selectman for 24 years in Stockbridge, John knows better than most people that almost all actions taken in small town governance are done “quietly,” not because boards or “organized factions” are trying to hide something from the community, but simply because there is very low attendance at almost all meetings related to town governance. This is not the case for a special town meeting. These meetings cannot be conducted unless the number of registered voters present meets the legally required number for a quorum. While the number of voters needed to form a quorum for a special town meeting is relatively small, the idea that business conducted in this public forum is being done “quietly” is ridiculous.
Also, because of his long tenure in town government, John would know better than most that some articles in a Town Meeting warrant will draw groups of voters that are strongly in favor of or against one or more articles. Calling those voters “an organized faction” is a negative characterization of voters who simply want their votes to be counted on an article of special interest to them.
Regarding the transfer of the authority to grant special permits from the Select Board to the Planning Board: It’s important to note that this change was the product of a long term process to review and update the town’s general and zoning bylaws. A dedicated group of volunteers (I was one) devoted hours of their personal time since January carefully reviewing the current General and Zoning bylaws. The bylaw changes recommended by this group were reviewed and approved by the Select Board before they were included on the warrant for this year’s Annual Town Meeting and on the Warrant for the recent Special Town meeting.
Transferring the responsibility for special permits to the Planning Board puts that responsibility where it should have been. It removes it from a governing body (the Select Board), whose members come to their positions with limited or no knowledge of zoning bylaws, and puts that responsibility in the hands of the town board that has the mandate to administer zoning bylaws, as well as the knowledge and experience to act on that mandate. This is a positive change—long overdue—for the town and one which the voters deemed appropriate to approve.
I would also like to speak to the critique of the Select Board that was in place when the special permit for The Foundry was finally approved and the subsequent enforcement of the “reasonable restrictions” outlined in the special permit.
The restrictions in the special permit that was granted to The Foundry were not created by the Select Board. These restrictions were worked out by the parties to the dispute and their attorneys, who in turn presented those to the Select Board as a solution to moving forward with the review of the Special Permit. The fact that these restrictions were presented to the Select Board as a solution is an important point because it leads to the topic of enforcement.
Enforcement of trespassing and parking violations is part of the Police Department’s mandate, a task for which they are trained and that they have the tools, knowledge, and expertise to execute. How well they have performed that task is a question that can be asked and answered.
Enforcement of noise levels is a task that no one working for the town has the tools, knowledge, or expertise to execute. Have attempts been made to resolve this issue? I believe they have. Has anything come of those attempts? Not to my knowledge. Is this a problem that needs to be resolved by the Town? Some say yes, but I would say no.
I believe the discussion of a solution needs to focus on the good faith agreement between the disputing parties. They worked out an agreement, including specific restrictions, and publicly declared that they would both accept the restrictions.
In a reasonable world, I believe the party that was the source of the parking, trespassing, and noise issues, who agreed to comply with the restrictions in the special permit, would feel motivated or obligated to monitor all three restrictions to ensure compliance and would also be willing and able to demonstrate, if requested, that their business is complying with the restrictions.
In my opinion, a good faith agreement does not require a third party to spend time and resources to monitor and force compliance. A good faith agreement is just that—a pledge to conduct business in a manner that complies with the business owner’s publicly declared commitment to be “a good neighbor.” That’s where this issue lies, that’s where the solution needs to come from.
Roger Kavanagh
New York City
The writer is a former West Stockbridge resident and former member of the West Stockbridge Select Board.
