Stockbridge — With the introduction of another iteration of a proposal to develop the town’s historic 314-acre DeSisto property, the Select Board narrowed down its remaining hurdles to deciding the fate of what would be the municipality’s largest project to date.
The 35–37 Interlaken Road Realty Trust proposal, represented by attorney Jonathan Silverstein, seeks to push forward a mixed-use community under Stockbridge’s Cottage Era Estate Adaptive Re-Use or Rehabilitation bylaw. The regulation allows the development of a historic site with the proponent preserving, restoring, or improving its original features.
An April 4 peer review and subsequent hearing prompted Silverstein to respond with additional changes made by his client, with the nearly three-hour May 1 special permit hearing focused on remaining issues between the town and the developer. The next hearing is set for May 13 at 6:30 p.m., with May 15 scheduled as a backup for a Select Board decision if needed.
The peer review report can be found here. The peer review response can be found here.
Getting caught up to date
The property at 35–37 Interlaken Road, owned by Patrick Sheehan, has a long history of attempted redevelopment leading up to this point, beginning with a 2016 proposal that would have placed a hotel boasting 40 to 50 rooms and 139 residences on site, in addition to a restaurant and other amenities. It also included 34 single-family homes, a sore point for neighbors who voiced concern over the project’s density and its residential component since it meant clearing the property’s undeveloped rear portion.
That draft was withdrawn due to lack of support, and the development team went back to the drawing board, coming up with a late-2024 proposal focused on the front portion of the site and adding a hotel for hosting events as well as hotel suites and residences; single-family homes; and four workforce-housing units. Parking that would be available for certain events on the front lawn was denounced by those attending the packed Town Hall sessions as being unsightly, damaging, and not within the letter of the Cottage Era bylaw.
Additionally, at issue was whether proposed buildings on either side of the main house and connected by walkways could be considered extensions of the mansion falling within the bylaw or regarded as separate structures not allowed within 200 feet of the main house. Another thorn in the side of the developers was the 40-foot proposed height of these structures that contradicted the bylaw’s 35-foot height requirement despite the mansion height exceeding that provision.
The Select Board ordered a peer review, and the April 4 report filed by Beals and Associates led to a subsequent revision filed April 17, eliminating parking on the front lawn, shifting parking from the project’s surfaces to below-ground garages, and increasing landscaping and screening. The change in parking resulted in a decrease of 217 parking spaces.
The April 17 proposal can be found here.
Give-and-take discussion leads to some common ground
As a response to the peer review, Silverstein offered concessions from his client: certifying the back 208 acres of the parcel as a conservation easement to restrict its development; contributing $460,000 as represented by a $20,000 payment for each of the 23 proposed single-family homes in lieu of constructing four workforce-housing duplex units; and enhancing the connections, or walkways, between the two buildings proposed to flank the main house to be “substantial.”
“It’s not just a corridor connecting a breezeway but it’s really a building that connects the two residential structures that could have amenity space [such as] a solarium,” said project engineer Jim Scalise, president of SK Design Group Inc., of the latter alteration.
Select Board Chair Jamie Minacci pointed out that Kripalu Center for Yoga & Health has connected walkways of glass that are part of the building. “So they are in Stockbridge,” she said. “We do have them.”
Additional improvements in the draft include skewing the bedroom count from one-bedroom to more two- and three-bedroom units.
Select Board member Patrick White challenged the new proposal, advocating for the narrower conservation “restriction” on the 208 acres instead of an “easement” and further curtailing the potential development of a middle 17-acre section of the tract just in front of that acreage by placing an agricultural restriction on its use. “Otherwise, really, on the day we permit this, we could be in on a situation that on any point in the future you could come back with a new permit request,” he said.
Following a break, Silverstein agreed to a conservation restriction on the 208 acres, instead of the proposed easement, if an entity can be found to hold the restriction. White offered for the town to find that holding group, and should such a group not be found, a conservation easement would apply.
Regarding the middle tract acreage, Silverstein proposed that the area may be suitable for agricultural use such as greenhouses or even extend to a farm-to-table dinner but cautioned his client doesn’t want to be restricted in future potential uses should situations change. “In a lot of ways, this project is a little bit of a leap of faith,” he said. “We don’t know what sorts of amenities in the future the resort might think would enhance the experience of guests.”
Silverstein countered with providing an easement prohibiting the development of dwelling units on that section and requiring Select Board approval for any special permit modifications proposed to uses in connection with the hotel resort.
White, who stated he wanted only an agriculture restriction on that section, voiced concern over what other uses the developer may be contemplating for the site and requested either an enumeration, or listing, of possible uses being considered for the tract or allow the conservation restriction covering the back 208 acres to expand into that section. “From my perspective, this is all about preservation, preservation of land and preservation of the mansion,” he said, adding that the governing regulation is a preservation bylaw. “We are going to want to understand exactly what can be [added] in the absence of an agricultural restriction.”
Silverstein responded that, currently, “this land isn’t protected.” “We can go in there and forest it; there’s so many things we can do, and we’re committing on a permanent restriction on two-thirds of this property and a very substantial restriction on more than half of what’s left,” he said. “This wasn’t our original concept. We did this because it was what was asked of us. There have already been a lot of concessions and a lot of tradeoffs, and we’re just asking for some consideration of flexibility because we want this to be successful and we hope you do too. We don’t know what might someday make sense to ask permission for.”
White also pushed for a greater monetary subsidy in lieu of the workforce-housing contribution, arguing the price quoted is below what the units could sell for on the open market. Silverstein returned with a $25,000 contribution for each of 23 single-family homes for a total of $575,000—or an additional $115,000 over his initial proposal to be paid in lieu of constructing four on-site workforce-housing units.
The lack of stormwater-management plan details stalled the move forward with the project, with the Select Board and Town Counsel Christopher Heep seeking a full plan now at the permit phase. Silverstein responded that such a plan is premature at this point since the site plan can change. Additionally, he said the Stockbridge Conservation Commission is required to provide stormwater permits at each phase of the project so a green light now may prove duplicative, or even contradictory, at a later date.
Select Board member Ernest Cardillo joined White in addressing the core of the Cottage Era bylaw and its intent to restore the town’s historic structures to their original design as much as is possible. They questioned Silverstein and Scalise as to what, specifically, would be salvageable from the DeSisto property mansion and an alternative should the front facade of that structure crumble upon development.
In response, Scalise noted an independent inspection showed the rear wall and north wall of the mansion’s south wing to be “in terrible condition,” requiring replacement. He said the capacity of the floor system will be reviewed as the load will increase under the new use. Scalise committed to saving the front façade of the building and maybe 50 percent of the sides but is “hoping for more” when his crew digs into the site. Silverstein agreed to provide regular reports to the Select Board on the project’s progress and pointed out that his client also has an incentive to save the historic structure as being the focal point of the financial endeavor.
Residents respond
Two attorneys representing abutters to the property addressed the dais on behalf of their clients’ opposition to the project, noting the proposal’s failure to detail a stormwater-management plan, decrying the building connections as being contrary to the Cottage Era bylaw, and stating that the hotel residential units are tantamount to a multifamily dwelling prohibited under the regulation.
Resident Stuart Hirshfield argued that the project’s traffic study—which showed generally acceptable limits except at a “peak hour” on Saturday—was performed in the winter and should have been done during the summer when second-home owners and visitors proliferate at Tanglewood. “Route 183 is a place where it’s dangerous to walk generally, and when you have the potential for hundreds of cars in addition to what we ordinarily have, you’re creating a major, major danger,” he said. “I do believe that we are at a crossroads in the town, right now. If we allow developments like this, Stockbridge is not ever going to be the same.”
Longtime Meadow Road abutter Jim Mann asked why the town needs to approve the project, questioning its anticipated economic and tax benefits when the region has more pressing issues such as offering affordable housing. “If you live in this town, think about what it will be like for 850 people to show up in your backyard,” he said. “It’s unfair and an unkind thing.”
Other residents joined in, advocating that their safety isn’t being addressed, with one abutter, Mary Caraccioli, requesting a site visit from the Select Board to her neighbors.
However, the meeting drew out project supporters as well, including Wayne Slosek who applauded the preservation of the on-site land amid a proposal aimed at bringing much-needed revenue to the town. He acknowledged the proposal involves an applicant who “wants to work with the town, not come in and have an argument.”
“They’ve bent over backwards to try to do things that would accommodate the town and have made changes that had been requested,” Slosek said. “And, at some point, it does have to be profitable.”
Slosek said the state bylaw was created “for this exact situation.” “If we’re not going to allow it here, we’re not going to allow it anywhere,” he said.
