greylocknews

Ex-planning board member asserts "clear pattern of bias" by moderator Adam Filson at Williamstown Town Meeting; Filson replies

(A pink voting card from town meeting: Should the town moderator vote?)

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. --  A former member of the Williamstown Planning Board has emailed Town Moderator Adam Filson, and selectmen, asserting a "clear pattern of bias" in the conduct of Tuesday's town meeting.  The email, (VIEW TEXT) which is a public record, says Filson was seen holding his pink voting card in favor of a controversial zoning matter, which email author Patrick Dunlavey says should only occur when a moderator's vote is necessary to break a tie.

Filson is general counsel to The Fairbank Group at Jiminy Peak, a Hancock-based resort and renewable-energy developer.

Dunlavey's email says the moderator "repeatedly interrupted" planning board member Ann McCallum as she was attempting to explain a proposed amendment she was offering to Article 35, which allows for the construction of a 120-room hotel on up to 10 acres of the 203-acre Waubeeka Golf Links property in South Williamstown.  His interruptions, Dunlavey said, "completely rattled her, leaving her to gfrantically figure out what to say and what to leave out."  Dunlavey continues: "She was booed by some yahoos in the audience, but instead of sternly correcting the offenders and granting Ms. McCallum extra time, you urged her to wrap it up." 

Filson replied by email to GreylockNews.com:  "For the official town record, it was my determination that the specific statements I ruled Ms. McCallum out of order on were attacks against the person and not attacks against the petitioner’s argument. I noticed no personal attacks in Mr. Parese’s statements and found those to be against the argument."

Dunlavey's email said that, in his opinion, Filson "did not apply these same standards to Stan Parese, (lawyer for Waubeeka public owner Michael Deep), "who seemed to have a microphone whenever he watned, for as long as he wantd it, to ay whatever he wanted to say, in whateveer tone he wanted to use." 

Dunlavey's email aslso notes that the moderator allows a revote on two out of four clauses of a Parese-requested amendment to the zoning change immediately after town meeting had just voted to approve all four clauses. "Town counsel did not opinion on whether you should permit the re-vote, just whether as moderator it was in your right to do so." 

RELATED LINKS:

• Berkshire Eagle story on town meeting 
• iBerkshires story on the town meeting 
• Secretary of state's guide town town meeting governance 
• Legal description of town-moderator duties 
• Massachusetts Moderators Association home page 
• Massachusetts laws about town meetings 

 

Amendments give Waubeeka developer option to put 120-unit hotel on driving range, documents show; college says some employee criticism of its position is "as it should be"

(ABOVE: Waubeeka 120-unit "country inn" could be sited on driving range with course, language shows. White line encompasses a 9.97-acre parcel)

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. -- A future developer of a 120-unit "country inn" at the Waubeeka Golf Links would be able to locate the lodging buildings deep into the course -- say, in the driving range -- at least a thousand feet off U.S. Route 7, if Town Meeting voters approve on Tuesday either proposals to give new zoning flexibility to owner Michael Deep.  

The option to site the lodging facility in the driving range is possible because of a key word used in both the "Acreage Amendment" recommended by selectmen as well as the "Square Footage" (or Gardner) amendment recommended by the Planning Board.  Each allow a developer to designate a 10-acre piece of the 203-acre golf-course site as an "Building Envelope."  The piece for lodging construction has to be a single piece, and some of it has to include a 2.5-acre parcel in the northeast corner of Waubeeka, alongside New Ashford Road (Route 7).  But the rest of the building area can be anywhere on the property so long as it reaches into the northeast corner -- in language of the amendments -- is "contiguous" or touching the northeast quadrant. 

Stan Parese, attorney for owner Mike Deep, has emphasized in presentations the potential for up-to-three-story lodging buildings in the northeast corner of the site because it is 5-10 feet below the grade of Route 7, and in theory less obtrusive. Concept plans drawn by architect David Westall show the northeast-corner site. An alternate location on the golf course has not come up recently in public. Other portions of the property -- such as the driving range -- would be 20 or 30 feet above Route 7, and thus potentially more visible to it, but also farther away from passing cars. At a higher elevation, views for guests could also be more spectacular. 

The alternate site was first noted in a blog post on GreylockNews.com by a part-time Williamstown resident who did not want his name used because he does not want to inject himself into the discussion of the future of Waubeeka. The resident -- who has computer skills -- usedGoogle Maps to illustrate the driving-range site (above). In a follow-up email exchange, the part-time resident said: 

" . . . I think the acreage-controlled draft will result in a hotel going in on the current driving range. The 10-acre limit includes both the hotel envelope and whatever buildings/parking are needed for the golf operations. The current size of the golf operations is about two acres, which leaves 8 acres to work with somewhere on the property. The driving range is about that size. As a comparison, the Berkshire Mountain Lodge (a 146-unit timeshare property in Pittsfield) takes up about six acres. The (126-room) Williams Inn is about three acres. The Clark is about 20 acres. I think those comparisons help give a picture of what 10 acres would produce.

HUGE WINDFALL FOR DEEP?

" . . . My other point is that by providing this overlay, the Town is giving Mike Deep a huge windfall for the value of that property. Waubeeka is worth a lot more with the ability to build a hotel than it currently is today. There's nothing stopping him from selling the whole facility once the overlay goes through, and I suspect that that is exactly what he'll do. That's speculation on my part, but it's worth considering because no matter what the feeling in town about Mike Deep or Waubeeka, the simple truth of the matter is that ownership of that property can change in a heartbeat."

As Williamstown voters prepared for Tuesday's town-meeting vote on the Waubeeka rezoning, there were these developments:

• A Williams College official replied to a query from GreylockNews.com, asking the school to comment on worries that its employees might feel concern at town meeting in voting contrary to the college's interests or positions.  Said James Kolesar, a college spokesman: " . . . [C]olleges, including Williams, are by no means in short supply of public criticism from their employees, and that's how it should be." Williams is appealing to voters to approve an up-to-100-room hotel it proposes for the bottom of Spring Street, to replace the Williams Inn, which would be razed. 
  
  
• The Planning Board declared on a 5-0 vote that it finds no evidence of an Open Meeting Act violation in its deliberations leading up to a 3-2 approval of the so-called “Gardner amendment” proposing a 60,000-square-foot limitation on the size of a Waubeeka lodging development. The response was to an allegation its deliberations were improper. The claim was made by Williamstown resident David Leja in a letter received by the town on May 9 – they day before Gardner lost in a bid to be elected to the Planning Board.
  
  
• Thousands of Williamstown residents appeared to have received a postal mailing from Waubeeka Golf Links appealing for support at Town Meeting for its zoning amendment. The mailing does not say what will be developed if the zoning is approved and makes statements about tax benefits that have been disputed by opponents.

 

 

 

Complaint alleges Planning Board majority favors Williams hotel over Deep's; Planning Board asserts no Open Meeting Act violation; selectmen back Deep language 4-1; FinCom takes no action

This post was updated at 11:45 a.m., May 16, 2016 to reflect new action by the Planning Board. The headline previously read: "Complaint alleges Planning Board majority favors Williams hotel over Deep's; "indicates" unspecified Open Meeting Act violations; selectmen back Deep language 4-1; FinCom takes no action"

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. --  A town resident on May 9 filed a complaint with the town alleging a “possible Open Meeting Law violation” by three members of the Planning Board. On May 16, the Planning Board voted, 5-0, to send a letter to the complainant, David Legaj, saying no violation occurred.

The Open Meeting Act complaint also alleges bias by the board in favor of Williams College, and seeks the overturning of a May 4 board vote that went against developer Michael Deep. The three members each said they were unaware of any violations and that they follow the law.

There were these additional developments on May 9: 

• Selectmen voted 4-1 to reject the advice of the Planning Board on Michael Deep's proposed 120 "unit" hotel zoning change at Waubeeka Golf Links.  Selectmen agreed that the hotel building sought by Deep should not have its square-footage size restricted. The Planning Board recommends a limit of 60,000 square feet, roughly between the size of the Williams Inn and The Orchards. Voters must resolve the conflicting advice at the May 17 town meeting or table the matter. (LISTEN TO AUDIO OF THE MEETING) | READ TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING df
  
  
• The Finance Committee voted unanimously not to take any position on the Waubeeka proposal after hearing economic arguments for it from Deep's attorney, Stanley Parese.

The Open Meeting Act complaint dated as of Sunday and signed by David M. Leja, who gave his address as 141 Luce Road, Williamstown, was received by the town on Monday. Under the state Open Meeting Act, a board that is the subject of such a complaint has 14 days to respond. Messages left on a voice-mail machine at the phone number listed on Leja's complaint were not immediately answered. The Berkshire Eagle reported that Leja said he filed the complaint at the urging of others because the "the orchestration of the 'Gardner amendment' is problematic to many people in town because it has the appearance of a backroom deal."  He reportedly said he hoped his complaint would "clear the air." 

READ / VIEW COPY OF LEJA COMPLAINT

Town Manager Jason Hoch acknowledged receipt of the complaint and said he personally "have not seen any electronic correspondence on which I have also been copied that had more than two members of the Planning Board."  Amy Jeschawitz, the board’s chair, did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.

Leja’s complaint consists of an approximately 300-word narrative beginning: “I believe an intentional violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred.” It goes on to allege that Planning Board members Sarah Gardner, Ann McCallum and Elizabeth McGowan met at unspecified times, “in person or electronically.” The complaint provides narrative assertions about outside-of-meeting activities, but cites no specific date or time of any open-meeting violation other than the period between the board's April 28 and May 4 meetings.

It alleges the unspecified alleged meetings involving "working with a group of individuals including an abutter attorney"  in order to co-author a proposal – adopted 3-2 by the board on May 4 – to recommend a zoning change for a 50,000-60,000-foot hotel at the Waubeeka Golf Links. The complaint seeks to have that vote rescinded, if Open Meeting Act violations took place.

Sarah Gardner and Ann McCallum, who called GreylockNews.com with information about the complaint, said no violations occurred; that they are aware of the law, which generally forbids outside-of-meeting collaborations by a majority of a public body. In the case of the Planning Board, that would mean two members could meet, but not three.

Gardner called the open-meeting violation "completely absurd." She said that while she and McCallum have met outside of meetings, McGowan was not involved in such meetings.

McGowan also told GreylockNews.com she was not personally aware of any open-meeting law violations and has tried to avoid being present at public events where a quorum of the board might inadvertently be present. She said the three versions of the amendments to the Citizen's Petition were all posted to the Planning Board's Google Docs page on the Town Hall website by the afternoon of May 2, more than 48 hours before the meeting, "so there was plenty of time for everyone to read and digest the three proposals."

Leja’s complaint, although containing one factual error, generally alleges that the trio have showed bias against a proposal by Waubeeka owner Michael Deep, who is seeking zoning changes to build a hotel of up to 120 rooms "units"  (potentially multi-room suites)  on up to 10 acres of the 207-acre golf course. At the same time, Leja’s complaint says they favored a proposal by Williams College for a zoning change to build a 60-100-inn hotel at the end of Spring Street. Leja terms the Waubeeka proposal “a competitor” to the Williams bid.

Both are slated for discussion and possible voting at the May 17 town meeting.

The factual error in Leja’s complaint: It states Gardner, McCallum and McGowan are all employed by Williams College. Gardner and McGowan both teach at the school; McCallum has taught there in the past. Leja’s complaint also notes that the same three members voted to recommend voters approve the Williams-sought zoning change. However, it did not mention the vote was unanimous, 5-0 and was taken after the board invoked a state-sanctioned “rule of necessity” because of employment conflicts involving three of its five members – Gardner, McGowan and member Chris Winters, who also works at the college.

Updated at 10:48 p.m., 05-09-16, to include comment from Town Manager Jason Hocht

Updated at 8:04 a.m. on 05-10-16, to clarify that the Deep proposal is for 120 lodging "units" not rooms, and to include Leja comments reported by The Berkshire Eagle.

Updated at 8:25 a.m. to note votes by Selectmen and Finance Committee.

Questions about the Waubeeka 120-unit lodging resort bid -- answered -- the "unofficial" voters guide at Greylock Independent; Deep records video pitch and makes "survey" calls in town

(Photo: Michael Deep poses on Wednesday at Waubeeka Golf Links, in front of a concept drawing of his "country inn" proposal)

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. -- Amid an atmosphere of last-minute lobbying by Waubeeka Golf Links public owner Michael Deep, The Greylock Independent website, published by the non-profit Citizen Media Inc., published on Thursday a multi-question "unofficial voters guide" to a  controversial issue that will face voters at the Williamstown Town Meeting next week.  

Publication of the neutral-point-of-view voters guide came amid these developments: 

• North Adams insurance broker and rental-property owner Michael Deep taped a 50-minute discussion about his 120-"unit" resort lodging proposal with Stanley Parese, his attorney.  The program, viewable on Williamstown's public-access WiliNet channel, can also be viewed online (WATCH VIDEO).  In the video, Parese runs through a description of the project, and Deep appears emotional at one point as he talks about his worry that a closing of the Waubeeka Golf Links could put 40 people out of jobs.
  
  
• At least three Williamstown residents reported that they had been recipients of what appeared to them to be survey or polling telephone calls in which the callers asked questions about the Waubeeka proposal and then made assertions about it. One of recipients said her caller-ID showed the call came from a Chicopee-area phone number. When GreylockNews.com called the number, a voice message was heard to say: "Research call center .... is not available ... please leave a message after the tone."  An email to Parese asking if his client was the source of any polling calls was not returned.  One of the three phone-call recipients said: "I too received a call from someone who said she represented the Waubeeka golf club and asked whether I supported it: when I made clear that I didn't know enough about the issue at the time to know what my position was on it, and that I didn't want to be lobbied, she said that if I wanted to find out more about it (with a clear sense that that meant why it was a good idea), I could call at a number she recited, but which I didn't record.  Since I have no relation to the club that would make me a good person to encourage, I imagine that others were likely contacted as well."

RELATED LINKS 

• Deep leaves voters to speculate on square-foot size of project 
• COMMENTARY: Waubeeka project: A lawsuit waiting to happen? -- David Langston
• COMMENTARY: "We need to know scale" -- Stephanie Boyd 

Deep leaves voters to speculate on likely size of Waubeeka 120-“unit” hotel: Could it be bigger than a Pittsfield timeshare facility? Here’s a walkthrough

(Above, the 120,00 square foot Berkshire Mountain Inn timeshare in Pittsfield -- click on photo to enlarge)

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. – How big a hotel-and-golf complex could be developed at Waubeeka Golf Links if town-meeting voters next week take the advice of Williamstown selectmen?

One possible answer is: A resort 50 percent larger than the current Williams Inn. Another possible answer: Whatever a developer thinks can fit on 10 acres.

That’s because Monday’s 4-1 vote of the selectmen sided with Waubeeka owner Mike Deep’s desire not to have any square-footage limitation on his project buildings. The only restriction is a limitation of 120 “guest units” – which could be multiple rooms.

Five days earlier, on a 3-2 vote, the Planning Board recommended voters adopt a  maximum 60,000 gross-square-foot buildings restriction on the 10-acre development.

Deep’s attorney, Stanley Parese, declined at both meetings to suggest a square-foot measurement that his client would find acceptable. However, Parese already informed the town that a “concept” estimate would be 115,000 square feet, according to both Parese and town planner Andrew Groff, including: A hotel-restaurant of 102,000 square feet, and a golf clubhouse, pro shop, cart barn and maintenance building totaling another 13,000 square feet.

“Gross square feet” (GSF) refers to a sum of the usable space on all floors of a structure, not just the ground footprint. And it would of course include per-room hallway space, mechanical shafts, stairways, kitchens, meeting rooms, dining rooms, offices and the like.

Groff’s research for the Planning Board found the present 126-room Williams Inn has 70,491 GSF, or an average of 559 GSF per guest room. He found the 49-room Orchards Hotel has 51,346 GSF (1,048 per room average). The 195-guest-room Equinox resort and spa in Manchester, Vt., has 137,500 square feet of hotel and dining (705 per room average) and 28,000 GSF of golf clubhouse and overall maintenance. Finally, Groff found the 125-room Red Lion Inn in Stockbridge has 82,944 GSF (663 per room average) for its hotel and restaurants..

Averaging smallest GSF room sizes of the compared hotels yields a figure of 743 gross square feet, as potentially typical for a hotel with restaurant facilities. On that basis, a 120 “room” hotel and restaurant at Waubeeka would likely be at least 89,000 GSF.

A visit by GreylockNews.com to the Berkshire Mountain Lodge (the former Patriot Suites) on Dan Fox Drive in Pittsfield yielded additional information. Berkshire Mountain lodge is owned by the Berkley Group, the same Fort Lauderdale worldwide timeshare resort developer that owns Vacation Village at Jiminy Peak in Hancock.

Berkshire Mountain Lodge has 146 two-room suites averaging 900 square-feet per suite and records of the Pittsfield city assessors’ records give the gross square footage of the five-story building as 120,072 square feet. Each suite has a bedroom, a large bathroom and a living room with kitchen appliances installed at one end of the livingroom.

"Rooms, units" and "kitchens"

The language of both the selectmen-endorsed Waubeeka proposal sought by Deep and the planning-board endorsed proposal both define a “country inn” as a permitted use in the zoning overlay they would create. It is defined as “an establishment where overnight transient sleeping accommodations are provided to lodgers in one or more guest units without kitchens.”   Nowhere do the proposal talk about “rooms.”

In addition, neither state building code or local rules appears to define the word “kitchen” leaving the meaning of that word to common assumptions Is an area of a room that has some appliances in it a “kitchen.”

Thus an all-suites lodge like the Berkshire Mountain Lodge timeshare structure in Pittsfield would be a permitted use under either proposal.   It is considered general against the law (see North Carolina and Florida cases) to use zoning to regulate ownership, thus nothing in the proposals would prevent the use of a Waubeeka structure for multi-room timeshares.

Assuming 900 square feet per “guest unit” across 120 units, the Waubeeka hotel and dining facility could conceivably be 108,000 gross square feet over three floors, or about 36,000 GSF per floor. The Pittsfield timeshare development averages 24,014 GSF per floor.

Or, put another way, at 108,000 gross square feet, a Waubeeka resort would be 50 percent larger than the 70,491 square foot Williams Inn.

Thus, a permitted all-suites hotel as would be typical of a timeshare development – something that is not restricted by any of the zoning proposals before town meeting on Tuesday – could have an estimated ground footprint 50% larger than the Berkshire Mountain Lodge.

Groff, the town planner, says an average single hotel room is about 500 GSF.   That’s consistent with the Williams Inn figure. If a Waubeeka project were built to a room size more typical of The Equinox – considered a high-end resort – at about 700 GSF per room, that would entail an 84,000 GSF, three-story building, or about a 28,000 square-foot ground footprint – still about 16 percent larger on the ground than the Pittsfield timeshare – which is on 17 acres.

All of this is speculative, because both Deep nor his attorney have consistently declined to provide to GreylockNews any definitive figures, despite receiving a detailed email on May 9 from GreylockNews.com outlining a similar analysis to that give above. They say that, because Deep has no developer lined up yet and therefore no definitive plan, they would be speculating.

Instead, voters – and officials -- are speculating.

“I don’t know what the 120 rooms means in terms of square footage,” town resident Stephanie Boyd told selecmen at their Monday meeting. “There is not something we have been able to get answered.” Boyd erroneously referred to rooms, when both proposals speak of “guest units.”

Adding Andrew Hogeland, a selectman: “One-hundred and twenty units doesn’t mean anything terms of size to people . . . the Williams inn is about 120 units and Sweetwood is about 70 units but their sizes are very different . . . the concern about using units as the only unit of measurement is, nobody knows what that means.”

Hogeland, who lives in South Williamstown near Waubeeka, also said he thought the lack of a square-foot measurement would make it difficult for Deep’s zoning-change bid to pass. He said: “And at Town Meeting, which is the last time that the Town Meeting will have a say on how big this development is going to be – if they say how big it is going to be based on a number of units, which isn’t even a measurement, that’s going to be a big hurdle, I think, to get over.”

(Below, digital rendering of Berkshire Mountain Lodge timeshare on Dan Fox Drive in Pittsfield -- click on photo to enlarge)

Puddester, Kapiloff to join Planning Board: Thomas joins, Patton returns to selectmen; Begeron and Caplinger win school seats

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. -- In close contests, Susan Puddester and Christopher Kapiloff took seats on the Williamstown Planning Board on Tuesday. Jeffrey Thomas will join the Board of Selectmen and voters elected Jane Patton to a new term as selectman.  Joseph Bergeron and Dan Caplinger will join the elementary-school committee.

Puddester, wife of the second-ranked administrator at Williams College, and Kapiloff, a Williamstown native and school safety-glass entrepreneur, won with 54.4% and 46.9% of the vote, respectively. Puddester defeated Sarah Gardner, who got 45.6% of the vote in a two-way race with Puddester for one seat.  Gardner is a Williams environmental-science professor and planning expert. She has been among a three-vote majority on the Planning Board seeking to limit the physical size of a proposed 120-unit hotel at Waubeeka Golf Links sought by Michael Deep.  

Kapiloff grew up in a house adjacent to the hotel site, and has been generally supportive. Neither Kapiloff nor Puddester have formal planning training. Kapiloff, with 46.9% of the vote, overcame Anne Hogeland (42.1%), an attorney with years of service on various town boards, who lives in South Williamstown and had also sought to limit the square footage of the hotel proposal.  Kapiloff also overcame Bruce MacDonald, a real-estate developer, who got 7.1% of the vote in the three-way race for the second Planning Board seat. 

The elementary-school contest was a five-way race for two seats.  Bergeron garnered 28.9% of the vote and Caplinger 20.5%.  

Here are the results, as tallied and read by Town Clerk Mary Kennedy (click on the photos to rotate and enlarge for reading). 

Planners vote 3-2 to recommend 50,000-square-foot size limit on Waubeeka hotel bid; developer will push for no limit

This blog post was changed on May 9 to insert the word "building"where underlined in the third paragraph, and also to replace the word "rooms" with "lodging suites" as underlined.  The changes add specificity to owner Mike Deep's proposal to town meeting.

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. – Town meeting voters were advised on Wednesday to approve a zoning change to allow a developer to put a hotel of up to 50,000 square feet (roughly 50 individual rooms) alongside the Waubeeka Golf Links.

The Planning Board split 3-2 to make the recommendation, establishing the square-foot limit on the hotel, as they sought to deal with course owner Michael Deep's threat that he will otherwise close the scenic 18-hole public golf course and seek to build affordable housing there.

LISTEN TO AUDIO OF WEDNESDAY'S MEETING

Its members did so after the developer’s attorney, Stanley Parese, refused to offer any specific building size limitation his client would accept. In addition, Parese began a meeting of the planning board by declaring his client would move for a vote at town meeting to approve a building of unlimited size and rooms lodging suites on 10 acres – no matter what the Planning Board recommended.

As a result, the town’s voters for now are faced with attending a May 17 town meeting with conflicting advice from the developer and the town’s elected planning board on how to deal with Deep’s threat to close the 207-acre golf course and terminate its approximately 40 employees.

Deep wants to be free to pitch to developers a building of any size on 10 acres; the planning board majority wants a cap at about 50,000 square feet. Deep purchased the course for $1.2 million about two years ago. The South Williamstown parcel has been cited by a state report as one of the most scenic areas in Massachusetts because of its expansive views of the 3,491-foot Mount Greylock, the state’s highest peak. It lies at the intersection of two major entries to Williamstown -– state Route 43 and U.S. Route 7.

The language recommended by the 3-2 vote would allow a developer to increase total buildings on the 207-acre site to 60,000 square feet by setting aside 40 acres under a perpetual conservation restriction. That would be in addition to 67 acres which must be put in conservation restriction to do any hotel development on a 10-acre parcel near Route 7 and the Five Corners. There is already about 10,000 square feet of golf buildings on the site, so the hotel would be capped at roughly 50,000 square feet.

The size restriction is important to Deep, because he has said he will seek an experienced developer to finance and build the hotel and he is concerned about presenting a town-approval with size flexibility. But the planning-board majority, in turn, does not trust that the result would be a hotel that is economically viable yet not oversized for the viewshed.

Some of the discussion at Wednesday's meeting was contentious and at some points personal, as the planning board settled into a familiar pattern of 3-2 advocacy, with Sarah Gardner, Elizabeth McGowan and Ann K. McCallum voting in favor of the size-limited hotel and D. Chris Winters and Amy C. Jeschawitz voting against it (because they wanted no size limitation).

For example, at one point Winters said a size limit on the building would “kill an economically viable opportunity for the site . . . and I think that was the intention from day one.” At that point and later, each of the three planners voting for the 50,000 square-foot restriction refuted his statement, saying they have consistently supported a hotel of some size as part of a plan to keep the golf course open and support open space. The board majority have argued for more information from Deep in order to assess the balance between a viable size and the affect on the views and environment at the town’s key gateway.

“There is not a number that I am going to utter,” Parese said. He said it is too early to assess what size is needed. “The square footage ends up being an artificial impediment” to that process, he said.

Going into Wednesday’s meeting, planners had hoped to reach a 5-0 consensus on some recommendation to voters on how to deal with a “Citizens Petition” to switch zoning of the golf course from 2.5-acre residential lots. The petition, if adopted by a two-thirds majority of those voting at town meeting, would allow for a “country inn” containing “guest units without kitchens.” That language would appear to permit multiple-room suites and non-kitchen cooking facilities typically found in fractional or time-share facilities. However, last week, Deep’s attorney said earlier language citing time-share ownership had been withdrawn.

Debates on Wednesday ranged across such issues as whether:

• The language adopted by the three-vote majority represented a compromise.
  
  
• The planning board, in seeking a site limit, was doing work that should be left to the zoning board during special permitting hearings.
  
  
• A 50,000-square-foot hotel is large enough to be financially viable.
  
  
• The board’s consideration of a zoning change for Williams College to build a 100-room hotel on Spring Street has been more deferential than treatment afforded Deep’s Waubeeka plan.
  
  
• It is possible to find a balance between economic development and perpetual open-space protection.

Among key points of testimony or statements by board members:

• It would be a “significant disaster” to vote down the project, said developer and Finance Committee member Charles Fox. The FinCom is slated to hear Deep’s economic arguments for the project at a meeting on Monday, May 9, the day before a May 10 local election to, among other things, choose two members of the planning board.
  
  
• Selectman Hugh Daley said he thought a hotel of 120 rooms on 10 acres would be a “good plan.” He called it fair and reasonable.
  
  
• “A compromise is not a compromise if it kills this proposal,” said former school principal and former selectman David Rempell. He said it would be “mind boggling” if the planning board did not recommend the hotel project.
  
  
• The 50,000-square-foot building limit “is in fact a real compromise . . that will create a reasonably sized hotel,” said attorney Sherwood Guernsey, who lives alongside the golf course. “The beauty of the town is a major economic driver.”
  
  
• “There is enough concern about building size that the metric [square footage] matters,” said Selectman Andrew Hogeland. A less-than-unanimous vote will “feed the narrative” that the project should be reworked, he added.
  
  
• “I think this process is flawed and . . . at some levels I am embarrassed,” said Selectman Jane Patten. She had urged the Planning Board not to put a size restriction on the hotel building other than 120 "guest units."
  
  
• "This whole process has practically been run by the developer and his lawyer," said South Williamstown resident Susan Schneski. "I just think the tail has been wagging the dog." 

Planners set to meet with no clear consensus yet on Deep hotel zoning bid for Waubeeka; Guernsey endorses Gardner language for 60,000-square-foot size limit; Deep silent

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. – Members of the Williamstown Planning Board were struggling on Tuesday to find an approach to saving a golf course in South Williamstown from a threatened shutdown by its owner, Michael Deep, by agreeing to Deep’s request to authorize building a “New England country-style inn” alongside. The Planning Board was scheduled to meet at town hall at 5 p.m. on Wednesday to try and find common ground.

Deep has declared that unless voters at the May 17 Town Meeting approve a zoning change for the 207-acre parcel – considered one of the most scenic in the state because of its view of the 3,491-foot Mount Greylock – he will close the 18-hole public golf course, which he says is losing money, and seek to build affordable housing on the parcel. On Monday, Town Planner Andrew Groff posted on the Planning Board website three options for zoning changes:

• OPTION ONE -- Characterized by Groff as supported by Deep, would permit a hotel of unlimited size to be built on a 10-acre parcel on U.S. Route 7 (New Ashford Road) immediately north of the current golf clubhouse. It appeared at last week’s Planning Board meeting to be supported by two board members, Amy Jeschawitz and D. Chris Winters. Deep and his attorney did not respond to email request for comment on Tuesday.
  
  
• OPTION TWO -- Also discussed at last week’s meeting, would place a square-foot restriction on the size of a hotel and golf buildings within a similar 10-acre parcel. At the April 28 meeting, size limits of from 50,000 to 75,000-square-feet were discussed. By comparison, The 49-room Orchards Inn is 50,000 square feet. There was no agreement at last week’s meeting on what figure to use. At last week’s meeting, the notion of limiting the square-footage appeared supported by three members of the planning board, Sarah Gardner, Ann K. McCallum and Elizabeth McGowan.
  
  
• OPTION THREE -- Drafted April 28 by board member Gardner. It sets a 50,000-square-foot cap on the size of all building on the Waubeeka site, but allows the size to grow up to 60,000 square feet if Deep agrees to put increasing amounts of land under a perpetual conservation restriction, barring any new building. Gardner said on Tuesday that her proposal was being last-minute reworked.

GUERNSEY BACKS GARDNER PLAN

Former state Rep. Sherwood Guernsey, an attorney who lives adjacent to the golf course, has been among a group of South Williamstown -- including some non-abutting town residents -- meeting and commenting on the Planning Board’s deliberations.

Guernsey emailed the group on Monday saying he felt the Gardner ssquare-foot-limitation option deserved their support. Guernsey wrote that limiting the gross floor area of buildings “is much more protective of a small Country Inn than acreage; if we give a developer 10 acres, he’ll fill it.” Guernsey also wrote that a hotel bigger than roughly the size of The Orchards “is hardly a reasonably sized country inn that would fit with the beauty of the value, a prized value for all Williamstown residents.”

Deep and his attorney, Stanley Parese, did not respond to email inquiries. A copy of the email inquires send by GreylockNews.com to them may be found at THIS LINK.

All three proposals include some form of conservation restriction on a 67-acre wooded parcel that is part of the Waubeeka, but not used for golf.   Options one and two would allow Deep to build the hotel before restricting the 67 acres. The Gardner option would invoke the restriction when a special permit to begin construction is issued. There is also disagreement about whether trees could be cut to allow a solar-panel installation on the 67 acres.

There is also disagreement about whether the protected 67 acres should be governed by the town or a “qualified conservation organization” and whether it should be open to public recreation.

All three proposals define the hotel as including “guest units without kitchens,” implying that units could have multiple rooms and kitchen-like facilities within a room not called a kitchen. It is not clear whether such language would make such units attract for fractional ownership. At the April 28 meeting, Deep’s attorney said “timeshares” were no longer a part of his proposal.

WHAT IS INTENT?

A striking difference among the three proposals is their statement of intent. The Gardner proposal, as made public on Monday, says the zoning change – the “Waubeeka Overlay District” is “intended to preserve the existing golf course by allowing new income-producing uses on the property and allowing for open space.”

Indeed, it has been a focus of Deep’s advertising supporting his development bid that his desire is to preserve the golf course and the related jobs.

The other two proposals, including the one said by the town to be supported by Deep, declare the zoning change is to “permit and encourage redevelopment at the Waubeeka property” to preserve most of it as a community recreational and open-space asset that is consistent with the South Williamstown Historic District and is “encouraging the reuse and enhancement of an existing economic asset.”   They do not mention preserving a golf course.

TOWN COUNSEL IN THE LOOP

Groff, the town planner, said on Tuesday that the town’s attorney has been reviewing and advising on various iterations of the zoning change, and “based on the guidance received from counsel I believe both staff requested drafts (Options 1 and 2) are legally sound documents.”

 

Ex-Williams Inn owner sees problems with Spring Street hotel site, prefers Waubeeka or current site; says at least 100 rooms needed for viability

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. -- It makes more sense to build a hotel in South Williamstown at Waubeeka Golf Links than on the end of Spring Street, and a hotel needs to be about 100 rooms or larger to be economically viable, says Carl ​J​. Faulkner, the former longtime owner-operator of the Williams Inn.

​"In Williamstown, the best location for a new inn is the present site of the Williams Inn, even if the inn needs to be closed for about two years in order to accomplish this," Faulkner said in a interview and written comments to GreylockNews.com. "Otherwise, the Waubeeka site would be the next-best site. Spring Street/Latham Street, I feel is less desirable. It's location, location, location."

VIEW READER COMMENTS TO THIS POST

The problem with a Spring Street site proposed by Williams College for a "new" 60-room Williams Inn is that it is not on a major route ​traveled by ​the ​tourists who are the main source of economic viability for any non-resort hotel, said Faulkner. Faulkner noted that the intersections of U.S. Route 7 and state Route 43 at South Williamstown was once the location of the Idlewild Inn. While not familiar with developer Michael Deep's proposals for a "New England-style country inn" resort at Waubeeka, Faulkner expressed doubt any tourist- and event-venue hotel could be viable with less than about 100 rooms.

"To me,​ ​​with 60 rooms, you can't make money," he said. "The college is proposing a building that is too small -- 60 rooms will not satisfy the needs," said Faulkner. "We found that in order to get conventions you need at least 100 rooms. Also, I think the college is thinking they are the sole generator of rooms. They are not. They are a substantial generator of rooms, but hopefully most the rooms will come from tourists driving through the area."

If Williams builds only 60 rooms, Faulkner believes the facility will be a perpetual money loser, subsidized by Williams. ​"In my opinion, 100-120 rooms is the most profitable size for an inn," said Faulkner. "Above that size you need more staff and under that size you still need the same staff that a 100-room inn would need. Also, in order to attract regional conferences, reunions, antique-auto groups and other conventions, you need over 100 rooms."​

In a "Q&A on the Williams Inn Project" release last week by Williams, spokesman James Kolesar asserts that putting a hotel at the intersection of two major roads -- as would be the case at Waubeeka or at the current Williams Inn site -- may have been a good place "before the invention of the Internet." However, Kolesar wrote:"Few travelers any more head out without knowing where they intend to stay."

Faulkner commented during an interview last week with GreylockNews.com, which sought figures from him about tax payments by the Williams Inn. He co-owned the Williams Inn with his wife, Marilyn, for more than ​35​ years, ground leasing six acres of land from Williams. Faulkner says he supports Williams College's effort to build a new Williams Inn, but not at a Spring Street location.

"I'm in favor of a New Inn, he said. I'm just not in favor of Spring Street . . . personally, I think the Waubeeka site is a better site for a hotel than where the college wants to build," said Faulkner. "It is a more traveled road. There is precedent for it, where the Idlewild was and that was in the area of 100 to 120 rooms. The college-chosen site is a poor one." In the interview, Faulkner made the following points:

• ​​No matter which location, Faulkner cautioned about hotel over building in Berkshire County. He said three new inns are open or under construction this year in Lenox or Pittsfield, ad a time when hundreds of SABIC workers in Pittsfield are losing jobs or relocating to Texas. Two new inns -- the Redwood and the Greylock Mill -- are in building or planning stages in North Adams.
  
  
• ​An inn at the end of Spring Street can be expect​ed​ to generate "a minimum of s​everal​ tractor-trailer trucks weekdays making deliveries." In addition, multiple intercity buses​ and Berkshire Regional Transit Authority buses​ stop daily at The Williams Inn, Faulkner said. These buses will have to either find another stop or negotiate the bottom of Spring Street.
• The mix of retail on Spring Street -- many restaurants and few "browsable shops" was of diminishing interest to Williams Inn lodgers and the college may be exacerbating that by adding public dining at The Log and in a proposed new bookstore building. The short walk to Spring Street from the Williams Inn wa​s​ not a detere​nt, Faulkner said.
  
  
• ​​Faulkner ​discounted Kolesar's assertion that​ the current Williams Inn building is not "very energy inefficient". ​ To the contrary, Faulkner said. Five or six years ago, it received the government's best Energy Star efficiency rating in New England he said. Also, the Inn's $3-million, 24-room addition completed in 2001 was completed to the then-latest energy standards, he said. In 2012, Yankee Magazine named the hotel "New England inn of the year.
  
  
• Speculating about options other than a Spring Street location, Faulkner said he believes there ​may be enough space on the current Williams Inn site to build a new inn while keeping the current building in operation. In a worst-case scenario, the current inn could be razed and a new one built on a fast-development schedule. The 2001 addition was completed in nine months, he said. Asked if the town could get buy without the Williams Inn for nine months, Fa​u​lkner replied: "I'd ave to say yes."
  
  
• Asked if the current site could fit both a new inn building and a new Williams College Museum of Art, Faulkner ​he had no knowledge of the art museum's site requirements. Faulkner said that at the time the college was concluding its relationship with them as operators, he was told the college was thinking of using the inn building as a temporary dormitory. However, the college now says it will tear down the building if a new inn is build and "greenfield" the land until a new use is determined.

The Faulkners are experienced innkeepers with decades of experience​. ​After working in accounting and management in Boston hotels, the Faulkner's in 1968 gradually acquiried or managed hotels in Plymouth, Mass., Rochester, N.Y. ,​ ​​ Southbury, Conn., ​​and Williamstown, ​ranging in size between 104 and 200 rooms. ​​In Williamstown, their business relied upon a collaborative relationship with Williams College. ​ ​ ​In 2013, as Faulkner tells the story, Williams abru​ptly acquired the building mortgage from Faulkner's bank, then told the couple ​Williams was taking over the hotel with new management, ​easing their May 1, 2014, r​etirement. Faulkner now calls himself a "fruit farmer" and says he has  ​​not ​entered the hotel in months.​ ​​ "All this is not my problem," he said. "I'm retired."

RELATED LINKS:

• Document archive
• Earlier blog posts