Stockbridge — After five months of presentations, reviews, and debate, it appears the Select Board may decide on whether to move forward with a special permit for the DeSisto property on May 15.
The upshot? A previously noticed meeting set for Thursday, May 15, will give attorneys for both the applicant and the town time to review proposed conditions stemming from Tuesday’s session and present a possible solution that may give Stockbridge its largest financial development to date.
Here is what you need to know before Thursday.
From past to present
The question of developing the historic tract has plagued the local Select Board for years, starting in 2016, with a project that was deemed too dense and required sizable site clearing. Filed in November, the 35–37 Interlaken Road Realty Trust’s application for a special permit eyed a proposed mixed-use community on Patrick Sheehan’s 314-acre site at 35–37 Interlaken Road, in accordance with Stockbridge’s Cottage Era Estate Adaptive Re-Use or Rehabilitation bylaw. That regulation allows for the development of a historic site if the project proponent preserves, restores, or improves the structure’s original features.
The developer’s representatives have returned to the Select Board numerous times in the following months, adjusting their plans in response to concerns from board members and raised in a peer review report as well as by the public, with those hearings lasting from two to three hours each session.
The developer’s conditions
The Tuesday evening hearing on May 14 saw 15 conditions introduced by Jonathan Silverstein, the attorney for applicant 35–37 Interlaken Road Realty Trust, and project engineer Jim Scalise, president of SK Design Group Inc.
The developer’s proposed conditions can be found here.
According to the May 14 proposal document, highlights of the draft DeSisto project include:
- A residential component with 23 single-family homes and four town homes that may be substituted with single-family homes;
- A resort component with six hotel suites, 133 hotel residential units, dining facilities consisting of two restaurants and drinking facilities, hotel amenities such as pools and recreational projects, conference/retreat facilities, and agricultural uses;
- The preservation of the Mansion’s front façade, 50 percent of its two side facades, the preservation or replication of the front roofline and chimneys, and the preservation or reuse of interior architectural pieces in the common areas “to the extent practicable”;
- The building of no structure with a height greater than the existing mansion, which, at 40 feet, already exceeds the bylaw’s 35-foot threshold;
- The granting of a Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Permit before each phase begins as well as providing updated construction, stormwater pollution and prevention plans, and construction traffic management plans in addition to holding preconstruction meetings with corresponding department personnel;
- The exterior construction hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, with no exterior construction on Sundays; and
- A donation of $575,000 to the Stockbridge Affordable Housing Trust and $175,000 to the town for a community benefit once all required permits are received.
Additionally, and in response to the relevant town bylaw preventing outlying buildings from housing a greater floor area than the main structure, Silverstein introduced a condition that would reconfigure the size of those other buildings, decreasing each building so as to “not exceed 37,110 square feet, (or the actual gross floor area of the mansion as of 2002, if different.)” With the adjustment, the total number of buildings may increase from seven buildings to eight smaller buildings, Silverstein said, but the number of units will remain the same.
The Select Board’s conditions; Conservation Restriction plan disagreement
As with the project’s developer, Select Board member Patrick White presented a four-page draft of notes and conditions he was seeking on behalf of the town. Those notes and conditions can be found here.
At the heart of the issue is the project’s conservation restriction plan, with a 17-acre middle section of the tract at its crux. That conservation restriction plan can be found here. A copy of the buffer plan between the project and abutters can be found here.
The developer’s May 13 conditions propose a conservation restriction on 220 acres of the site, allowing for “passive recreation” by resort guests and residents to include trails and unpaved paths for activities such as hiking, biking, hayrides, and horseback riding.
At the May 1 meeting, however, White pushed for a conservation restriction on the 17-acre middle portion of the property that proved to be a stalemate between board members and the developer who agreed to not put residences on the section; instead seeking the flexibility to determine in the future as to what use could be made of that portion of the property.
With the middle section under a conservation restriction, White said the town can conserve acreage from the start of the wetlands to the property’s western border, action that “reaffirms the preservation aspect of this [project].”
Scalise noted the development team’s hesitation to place the contested tract in a conservation restriction, with those issues primarily related “to the operation of the resort.” Requesting a delay in creating a conservation restriction for the smaller tract, he and Silverstein reasoned that a hotel franchise embarking on the project, such as Le Meridien or The Four Seasons, may desire some amenities and recreational activities on that acreage and, without knowing what those requirements might be at this point, merits flexibility in the restriction. “Our issue is that we’re not sure what those uses necessarily are until we get through those negotiations which could take us some time,” Scalise said.
White reiterated the town attorney’s advice: to not leave discretionary items unaddressed at the point of granting the special permit.
However, Silverstein was concerned that the unknown plans for that tract may not fall within the Commonwealth’s requirements for a conservation restriction. “I’m just trying to be really clear about what we think can work from a business perspective,” he said. “A lot of the things that we’ve been asked to agree to, and I know we’re not there yet—it would be like trying to start a business with one hand tied behind our back.”
White delved into the state-defined, or model, template, for a conservation restricted property that includes possible plans such as farm-to-table dinners and camping. “I want the business to work for you,” he said. “I also want the conservation restriction to apply to the whole. I don’t really want to go through this special permit process again.”
The restrictive use of pesticides or toxic fertilizers as a condition also prompted a back-and-forth between White, Select Board Chair Jamie Minacci, and the developer’s team, with the latter asking for flexibility in case of an infestation of ticks or other issues that may require chemical intervention.
Minacci suggested that should future water and sewer connections be available, neighboring homes to the project be offered the opportunity to tie in.
Other conditions delineated by White include tree preservation and replacement of some trees that are removed, organic farming, restaurant seating numbers, earlier exterior construction starting time in winter months, adding solar energy panels, sequencing construction, and restricting amplified sound.
Deliberation
All three board members acknowledged the difficult decision before them, with member Ernest “Chuck” Cardillo, who has a background in construction, relying on the local Cottage Era Estate bylaw that lies at the core of their vote. “The applicant has made multiple concessions to fit what we’ve been asking for,” he said. “I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such a compromise and a dialogue and a back-and-forth agreement on a project.”
White agreed, noting the bylaw originally allowed only inns, a definition changed by town vote in 2013 to include resorts and hotels. He voiced concern over the alternative of 62 homes allowable on the tract in addition to an equal number of accessory dwelling units, with the proposal concentrating the project’s density in only one area at the front of the site, benefitting drilling and environmental purposes.
“I think that the town gets what it needs, and I think that at least there’s a chance that this will have a smaller scale than what is permitted, at least in the short term,” White said, adding that the project will take years to build out.
Echoing her colleagues’ sentiments, Minacci said different boards and commissions will weigh in on the project as it comes before them. She also confirmed that the site’s road is scheduled to be repaired in the coming years and a previous blasting project near Meadow Road prompted no complaints. “We have to remember this special permit was not our doing; this bylaw was written by other people, and we have to follow it,” Minacci said.
Residents split
Residents reiterated their concerns over the increased traffic the project will bring to the area, especially during Tanglewood season, and its impact on the locale’s safety.
Attorney Peter Puciloski, who represents abutters Allen and Valerie Hyman, objected to adding more, albeit smaller, buildings as not being an “appropriate” addition to the proposal but a “modification of the plan” that sits before the dais. He found that plan to not conform to Stockbridge’s Cottage Era Estate bylaw. “You’re not limited to imposing conditions that the developer said,” he addressed the board. “You’re here to impose conditions that protect the town and its residents.”
Residents said they feared that the project’s construction, drilling, will have a negative impact on the karst aquifer, described as the porous bedrock that runs beneath Stockbridge and allows water to flow quickly below the ground with minimal filtration; specifically that contaminants from the site will reach private wells and Lake Averic.
“When you drill a well for your home in Stockbridge, you’re drilling into bedrock, you’re drilling into karst,” resident Denny Alsop said.
According to abutter Dr. Charles Kenny, a karst hydrologist should be consulted as to the safety of the town’s water supply should the DeSisto proposal proceed.
Although Kenny heads the Tri-Town Boards of Health, he spoke on his own behalf and requested the Select Board require the project’s full stormwater-management plan be submitted by the applicant before voting on the proposal as Town Counsel Christopher Heep suggested in the last session. Silverstein had argued that delivering such a plan at this point would be premature and subject to change as the overall project plan develops.
“You owe it to us whose drinking water is at risk to hear the other side of the story from qualified experts before you permit this project,” Kenny said.
According to Town Administrator Michael Canales and White, a University of Massachusetts-Amherst expert who was performing a geological survey of Lake Averic passed muster on the proposal. Lake Averic is the town’s primary water supply.
“We’ve got limestone all over the Berkshires,” White said of the Karst environment. “I was buoyed today by the fact that Brian Yellen from UMass, who a resident expert actually recommended, … did not express any concern around the impact on Lake Averic and the groundwater on this development today.”
However, Kenny pushed the board to wait until this study was completed before approving the proposal as the DeSisto project drains into three drainage areas—northwest into the wetlands, southwest into Lake Averic, and southeast to the Housatonic River—and is therefore governed by National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
Resident Stuart Hirshfield questioned the developer’s track record for the success of similar projects and, citing water and environmental concerns, Mary Caraccioli asked board members to decline the project “for now,” reupping her previous session’s offer to make a site visit.
Resident Lisa Sauer referred to the 54 comments in the peer review as having been “lost,” asking the dais to review the document once more.
With three or more units under one roof and each comprised of kitchens, bedrooms, bathrooms, and living areas, Sauer suggested that the hotel residence suites qualify as multifamily dwelling units, units that aren’t allowable within the Cottage Era Estates bylaw.
As with Kenny, Sauer urged board members to wait for their decision on the project until the stormwater plan is submitted.
However, Wayne Slosek, a member of the Planning Board but making an address on his own behalf, praised concessions made by the developer for the project. “So much has been given, as far as acreage,” he said. “It was 208 acres, now it’s close to 230 acres that is being given back as conservation restricted.”
Slosek noted that the middle 17-acre tract, if used for anything other than what the conservation restriction covers, would require a special permit covering it in the future. “I think that fully protects the town,” he said, adding that procedure adds flexibility to the developer’s business plan.
Similarly, resident Tom Schuler spoke in support of the proposal and stated that future endeavors by the developer in conjunction with the project would require further approval, or “procedural guardrails,” by town officials, including the Conservation and the Sewer and Water commissions. “I think these folks have come in good faith,” he said. “They have made a number of changes in the application and in the proposal to accommodate the questions and issues raised by our board and by our townspeople.”
