Changes to Mather House Project Draw Neighbors' Ire
 Neighbors of the newly relocated Mather House were surprised when balconies were installed. |
Vincent Guntlow, who last fall rescued Mather House from the wrecking ball and moved it to 65 North St., was back before the ZBA to get its approval of changes to his original development plan: the addition of balconies for the second- and third-floor apartments and a garage door on the lower level.
The lower level, which was constructed at the site and on which the historic 1840 house now sits, is going to house a business at the property, part of the town's Planned Business District.
The site where Guntlow placed Mather House is at the corner of North Street and Lee Terrace, a dead-end residential street. In the fall, residents of Lee Terrace challenged Guntlow's application for a special permit to develop the property with driveways onto both roads.
Many of those same neighbors were back for the recent meeting, televised on the town's community access television station, Willinet.
And the neighbors were not the only ones taken aback by some of the changes to development since the original plan was submitted last year.
"I can't speak for the whole board ... but when we were asked to do a development plan review based on the submittals, we took the submittals to be what we were going to get," ZBA Chairman Andrew Hoar said. "We had extensive conversations regarding the impact of this building to Lee Terrace and the minimal impact of the one or two parking spaces as it was originally submitted.
"We were working off the plot and the architecturals [Guntlow] provided us. I sense those architecturals, as you just stated, were based on the building as it existed on Stetson Court, so they don't show the balconies. They don't show the overhead door, either. And there was nothing in the submittal about either of those items."
Guntlow pointed out that the balconies, while not on the original drawings, are set back between 23 and 24 feet from the nearest abutter — more than the 20-foot required setback on the property.
He also said the overhead garage door always part of his plan and that he mentioned it in his presentation to the board in the fall.
The residents who attended last week's meeting expressed concerns about both features to the development: the balconies look down on a neighbor's back yard, and the garage door suggests a loading zone for frequent pick-ups and deliveries through the driveway on the Lee Terrace side of the lot.
"The question was asked of Mr. Guntlow in September about storage because I saw a big basement [in the plans]," Lee Terrace resident Stephen Majetich said. "Mr. Guntlow represented that it was commercial office space. It wasn't going to be storage.
"Now, I hear it's going to be storage. We, speaking for my wife and I, never knew there was going to be a garage door. I was under the impression those spaces [off Lee Terrace] were supposed to be handicapped parking."
Patty Carter of Lee Terrace agreed.
"Last September I attended both meetings about the special permit for the driveway," Carter said. "I didn't speak at those meetings because I wanted to trust the process. I don't feel that way anymore.
"The September plans did not show balconies, but four balconies have been built, two of which stare down at our neighbor's windows. ... In September, we were assured the only access from Lee Terrace would be two parking spaces — one handicapped — and there wouldn't be increased commercial traffic on Lee Terrace. This parking area now includes an industrial garage door, built without permission, which appears to be a loading zone for commercial trucks.
"An increase in commercial traffic impacts the safety of our kids, pedestrians and residential drivers."
Stephen Majetich also used the June 4 meeting as an opportunity to air grievances about the disruption to the neighborhood caused by the construction at the 65 North St. address. He said he routinely picks up trash, nails and other hardware in the street, and workers associated with the site drive on lawns in the neighborhood.
Guntlow acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the construction project but said work on the site would be wrapping up in a month.
Laureen Majetich said that the fall, winter and spring have been the worst time she and her family have had since moving to Williamstown four and a half years ago.
"My husband works at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center," she said. "When we moved here, we were being persuaded to take up residence up in Manchester [Vt.]. We said, 'No, we've heard a lot of good things about the Berkshires.' People dissuaded us from coming to Williamstown. They said, 'It's a tough town if you don't have an affiliation with the college. You will not have a voice.'
"I feel tonight we don't have a voice, and I'd like the board to disprove that."
Guntlow pointed out that instead of asking the ZBA for a special permit to have two driveways — one on North Street and one on Lee Terrace — he could have chosen to route all of the property's traffic from Lee Terrace and avoided the board altogether.
"I think having most of the traffic on North Street is the way it should work," he said. "That's the only reason I came to you in the beginning."
The town's zoning enforcement officer, who staffs the ZBA, confirmed that assertion.
"The Planning Board would still have to approve the site plan, but Mr. Guntlow is correct," Andrew Groff said. "The Planning Board does have the right to review architectural designs and access and create limited conditions, but they don't have as much authority as this board under a special permit."
The board attempted to mediate some compromises between Guntlow and the residents of Lee Terrace.
Guntlow was amenable to conditions on the permit that require him to plant and maintain additional vegetative screening on the west side of the property to help ensure the privacy of the abutter. And he said he could live with a requirement that the site receive no more than two deliveries per week from "heavy commercial vehicles."
In addition, the ZBA limited the storage space on the bottom floor to 400 square feet, although storage is a by-right accessory use for business space under the town code.
"The chairman is not thrilled about any of this, but hopefully with the stipulations in place we can make this better," Hoar said. "Our other options are not any better."
Tags: historic buildings, ZBA,
