Saturday, February 8, 2025

News and Ideas Worth Sharing

HomeViewpointsPETER MOST: Village...

PETER MOST: Village of DeSisto

No one could have contemplated that a well-intentioned bylaw designed to preserve historic cottages could be leveraged to create an enormous resort village in a rural residential zone.

Friends asked me to review the revised special permit application seeking to transform Stockbridge’s DeSisto School property into a resort community and attend the January 16 Select Board meeting considering the application. Although my usual patch is somewhat south, my interest was piqued as someone who favors a regional response to South County’s housing needs. What could possibly be wrong with a plan that includes construction of new single-family homes in Stockbridge?

Every trip down Interlaken Road presents an opportunity to note how poorly the mansion has aged since the community rejected the developer’s 2016 plan to construct 216 homes, “hotel residences,” and hotel suites. Fair to wonder if in the subsequent eight years the developer scaled back the development in consideration of the surrounding residents’ valid objections.

The short answer is that the current proposal certainly gives a nod to local opposition but nonetheless fails to meaningfully minimize the project’s scope. The current plan, as with the last, seeks to pound a large round peg into a rural residential neighborhood. The next iteration—and there will need to be a next iteration—can certainly do better.

Overall, it would be fair to say the developer’s revised plan was not well received at the meeting, although not universally condemned. Those who favored the application noted that development is inevitable and that the town would be ill served by letting the property languish. No doubt by individuals from other parts of Stockbridge, it was noted that the proposed resort would bring jobs and increased tax revenue. One person expressed concern that the property could become a solar farm if undeveloped, which is implausible given the developer’s desire to recoup what at this point must be a significant investment.

Opposition to the permit application mostly concerned its scale and inconsistencies with the letter and spirit of Stockbridge’s Cottage Era Estate zoning bylaw. Regarding its scale, consider the following:

  • The application seeks a permit for a seasonal population of up to 825, about 40 percent of the town’s estimated 2024 population of 1,984. By way of comparison, the village of Housatonic’s estimated population in 2024 was 950.
  • The plan calls for 782 parking spaces. For comparison, downtown Great Barrington has approximately 975 parking spaces.
  • At 314 acres, the property dwarfs the Stockbridge Main Street Historic District, at 162 acres, and the Lenox Village Historic District, at 170 acres.

In short, the developer is asking the Select Board to create the Village of DeSisto. Many in Stockbridge—those who drive along Interlaken Road, enjoy Stockbridge Bowl, and live in the area—have good reason to be dismayed at the prospect of a Housatonic-sized village appearing in their midst. No one could have contemplated that a well-intentioned bylaw designed to preserve historic cottages could be leveraged to create an enormous resort village in a rural residential zone.

While the Select Board should want to gauge public opinion, its legal mandate is to determine if the permit application complies with the town’s Cottage Era Estate bylaw. Denying a permit application in compliance with a zoning bylaw is grounds for suit. Of course, granting a permit application that contravenes the Cottage Era Estate bylaw would invite litigation from abutters and other affected parties.

Stockbridge can deny the permit application as presented without fear of any legitimate legal claims. The application fails to comply with the Cottage Era Estate bylaw in at least the following ways:

  • The bylaw provides that “[n]o new detached structures will be erected within two hundred (200) feet of the principal building on the Lot, except for minor accessory structures …” The application seeks permission to construct three new buildings within 150 feet of the cottage. To do so, the developer suggests attaching the new structures to the manor by a covered walkway, claiming that the new buildings are not “detached.” As lawyers like to say, the argument fails the straight-face test. Unsurprisingly, no legal authority exists supporting the “covered-walkway theory.” If the developer is wagering that its “covered-walkway theory” will be accepted by the Select Board or validated in the courts, it has made a losing bet.
  • The bylaw provides that the proposed use shall alter the grounds “to the least extent practicable.” The intent of the Cottage Era Estate is to preserve the historic look of the cottage and fronting grounds. The application states that “[t]he sweeping landscaped grounds between the mansion house and Interlaken Road will remain as open space.” That statement is hard to square with the plan to park 180 cars on the grass (or mud, following a rain) adjacent to the mansion house. The generally accepted definition of “open space” does not include 180 parked cars.
  • The bylaw provides “[t]here shall be no outside broadcasting of amplified sound, including from under tents or other temporary structures.” Meanwhile, the permit application merely commits that there will be no “amplified entertainment.” Presumably, that means amplified speakers and accordion players are permitted at the proposed wedding venue. To be approved, the permit needs to explicitly prohibit all sound amplification. With West Stockbridge’s recent difficulties in mind, the permit should set a maximum decibel level at the property lines with easily ascertainable rules regarding the sound-level testing mechanism.
  • The bylaw provides that no new structure may exceed the “gross floor area larger than that of the principal structure” of approximately 13,325 square feet. One proposed structure exceeds the limit by approximately 3,000 square feet, and another structure exceeds the limit by approximately 6,000 square feet. It is hard not to note that the bylaw is being ignored.
  • The permit proposes four “workforce housing” units sold at cost, an oxymoron. “Workforce housing” is based not on the cost of a structure but with consideration of an area’s median income (AMI). For high-housing-cost states, including Massachusetts, “workforce housing” is up to 150 percent AMI (elsewhere, the limit is 120 percent AMI). A condition of approving the developer’s plan would need to limit “workforce housing” cost at 150 percent AMI.
  • The application provides a detailed traffic study conducted on August 15 and 17 last year, cherrypicked dates when James Taylor, John Williams, Yo-Yo Ma, and other popular performers were not in the offing at Tanglewood. The Select Board needs to be advised what adding 825 cars heading toward Tanglewood on one of the marquee days means for residents and visitors to Tanglewood, although one need not be a traffic engineer to know “nothing good” will be the answer. The next iteration of the permit application should analyze how long it will take to get to Tanglewood when James Taylor is playing and how long it will take to evacuate the surrounding area in the event of a natural disaster. The proposed Village of DeSisto must not imperil the lives of residents in the area.

Plainly, the current proposal is dead on arrival, which begs the question: If not a village resort community, what could be constructed at the property consistent with Stockbridge’s zoning bylaw? Rather than try to shoehorn a village into the residential zone pursuant to the Cottage Era Estate bylaw, does the developer have any other options?

The developer should avail himself of Stockbridge’s Cluster Subdivision bylaw, which will permit up to 75 homes on the property, 20 of which could be affordable. A win-win: The neighbors would embrace the plan, and given that one-bedroom Canyon Ranch condominiums are now selling for over $2 million, the developer would have an unfettered path to profit. The Stockbridge Bowl neighborhood cannot absorb a village, but it and the town would welcome 75 single-family homes. That is the right path forward.

Survey Monkey Question

Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll:

  1. “Do you favor the Village of DeSisto development plan as currently proposed?”
  2. “If you do not favor the current permit application, would you favor a single family home development at the DeSisto School property?”

Survey Monkey Results

Here is the result of the following recent survey questions:

  1. Do you favor proceeding with a special town meeting to consider the citizen’s petitions to purchase GBFD and HWW? As of publication, 71.43 percent of respondents said “no.”
  2. If you favor proceeding with a special town meeting to consider the petitions, are you in favor of (1) purchasing HWW for an amount not to exceed $2.3 million, (2) purchasing GBFD for an amount not to exceed $2 million, and (3) merging the two water companies? As of publication, 55.56 percent of respondents said “no.”
  3. Do you believe the shareholders of HWW will agree to sell HWW for an amount not to exceed $2.3 million? As of publication, 76.92 percent of respondents said “no.”

Days Great Barrington has wrongfully withheld Community Access Fees: 334

spot_img

The Edge Is Free To Read.

But Not To Produce.

Continue reading

I WITNESS: Erasing democracy is easier than you think

Donald Trump is a zero-sum kind of a guy. He only feels that he has won if everyone else loses, and in order for everyone to lose, they have to be destroyed.

LEONARD QUART: Trying to survive Trump

Trump took office and brought a regime set on revenge and retribution and committed to the destruction of institutional norms. It is an administration much more nihilistic than conservative.

CONNECTIONS: I want to stop the meanness

Stay focused. We are not helpless. We can and should oppose the meanness.

The Edge Is Free To Read.

But Not To Produce.