---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill Densmore 
Date: Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:57 PM
Subject: Working on a Waubeeka blog post -- some questions about size, viaiblity, intention and public use; provision for cooking in "guest units"
To: Stan Parese , Mike Deep 

Stan/Mike:
(cc: Selectmen and Planning Board) 

I have read over the three "Citizen Petition" proposed amendments on the town's Google Drive website and am planning to write a wrap-up blog post about their differences later today.

Here are my questions: 

1. SIZE LIMITATION METHOD

When we were all leaving Thursday's Planning Board meeting I asked Stan if you would be open to the idea of a square-footage footprint metric to define the size of the project.  Stan said that was something that you would have to consider.

Have you considered it and what is your feeling?  The two options on the table seem to be:

1. A square-footage limitation (figures from 50,000 to 75,000 have been broached) 
2. An acreage-limitation (10 acres)

Is either approach acceptable, and if so, at what numerical value -- and recognizing this is a political calculus as well as a planning and development one?

2. SIZE REQUIRED FOR VIABILITY 

Another question I have is raised by my interview with Carl Faulkner:   Do you agree that a hotel of at least approximately 100 rooms is necessary for sustainability?  If not, what is the smallest number of rooms you think would work and are you willing to agree to that limitation? Answering this implies something about the TYPE of hotel you want to run there. Can you talk about that a bit? 

This, BTW, is where it becomes hard that you don't have a specific developer or proposal on the table.  It leaves both you, and the town meeting, flying blind as to what is reasonable -- sustainable and fundable. Wouldn't it make sense to line up a developer, who builds a proposal that is CONTINGENT of quick town-meeting approval of a compatible zoning overlay?  Is it the case that a smaller facility would be more fundable if it were done as fractionals?  If that's the case, why not pitch that alternative?  I'm not clear whether neighbors are concerned more about size or type of ownership. Are you? 

3.  INTENT OF THE ZONING CHANGE 

Another question:  Are you amenable to the following statement of intent for a zoning overlay warrant article:

"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." 

4. HOLDER OF THE CONSERVATION RESTRICTION

Are you OK with this language:  "Lot 30 shall be restricted from development via a conservation restriction held by the town or a qualified conservation organization (either by transfer to such entity or by restriction recorded in the Northern Berkshire County Registry of Deeds"?    If not, why not? 

5. USE OF CONSERVED LAND 

I believe it is fairly typical for land with a legal conservation restriction to be open to regulated public use.   However, two of the Planning Board drafts contain this language: "The CR shall not grant to the public any right to enter up the CR lot."   Do you require that language and if so, why? 

6. PROVISION FOR EATING IN GUEST UNITS 

All three draft amendment proposals contain this language: "guest units without kitchens."  Do you require this language?  It seems unclear. What is a kitchen? What is a guest unit?  A guest unit implies the possibility of multiple rooms ("suites" or "apartments").  And a room may have kitchen appliances without being called a kitchen.  What about the following language instead:  "guest units without kitchens or kitchen-like appliances and without independently connected or metered utilities."   Wouldn't that broadly permit a New England country inn?

-- bill 

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bill Densmore 
Williamstown Mass. USA
cell: 617-448-6600
wpdensmore@gmail.com