Great Barrington — Amid swirling controversy over plans to raze most of the former Searles Middle and High School for a 95-room hotel, the Planning Board Thursday (September 10) continued its site review of engineering plans and functional design.
Vijay and Chrystal Mahidas’ Bridge Street hotel proposal is still mired in contention over plans to demolish a designated historic structure, a designation that allows the proposed hotel to have more rooms than allowed under the town’s 45-room limit established by a 2014 bylaw. Residents have also expressed concerns over size, design and what some say may be an explosion in traffic in the tight village center as a result.
In a split vote the board had earlier voted to recommend the hotel proposed by 79 Bridge Street, LLC for a special permit approval, for which the final decision rests with the Selectboard. That public hearing will be held Wednesday, December 16, 7 p.m. at the Monument Mountain High School Auditorium, and likely will be continued to another date for a vote, said Planning Board Chairman Jonathan Hankin.
It wasn’t until after the Planning Board’s recommendation, however, that the town’s attorney issued an opinion on the 45-room limit bylaw, saying a portion of the former school must be saved.
“If I’d known what town counsel said, I’d have voted differently,” said board member Jack Musgrove. While he wasn’t asking for a recount, he wanted his letter entered into the record, and recommended the board always complete their site plan review before issuing advice to other boards.
Board member Malcom Fick, however, then made a motion to revoke the board’s previous positive recommendation in light of the legal opinion and the demolition, which he said violated the bylaw.
“Can you find where it says you can vote twice on a matter?” Hankin asked, adding he thought doing so would set a precedent that would undermine the board’s future recommendations.
“Can you find where it says you can’t?” responded Fick, wondering whether the board is “duty-bound to change our vote if it was based on bad information.”
Musgrove told Fick his letter, in essence, covered that base, and agreed with Hankin that it was “a slippery slope — then everything is open to review.”
There was an angry back and forth that resulted in Hankin offering to resign and give Vice Chair Suzie Fowle his keys to the Town Hall office. People in the audience yelled for Fick to “take them.”
Brandee Nelson stepped into the ring: “We’re here for site plan review,” she said. Fick withdrew his motion.
Kate McCormick, attorney for the Mahidas said while the new architectural plans are not ready yet, there was “lots of community involvement in [the adjusted] project.” She said the team had considered a host of elements from how the project will relate to the rest of town.
McCormick further explained that the hotel footprint is “99.9 percent set in stone,” but that is was “tweaked a little bit from previous plans.” The only thing changing, she said, is the “skin and architecture.”
Engineer Jim Scalise of SK Design Group, Inc. explained how the site was made more pedestrian friendly with more connections on the site and leading into town and to the Housatonic River. He said there will be an increase in green space and less parking spaces. An oak tree doomed by the original plan was saved, he said, by a change to the entrance on Bridge Street. The Mahidas’ landscape architect Craig Okerstrom-Lang was there to talk about an increase in rain gardens for catching stormwater, and the choice of trees twice reviewed by the town’s tree committee, he said.
The board requested more information in advance of their January 14 meeting, about a few items having to do with the hotel’s proposed “meeting rooms” at the site of the former gym, and the number of parking spots to accommodate conferences there.
Great Barrington resident Gabrielle Senza said she was worried about parking spillover in a town with “limited space.”
Alford resident and Great Barrington property owner Ron Blumenthal said that while he appreciates the challenges faced by board members, and thought Musgrove’s letter was “commendable,” he said the site review “avoids the main issue of the building remaining intact.”
“The plan is still showing a building that is going to be knocked down,” he said.
