Monthly Archives: March 2026

Who Benefits?

More astute questions, as posed in a letter to the Stockbridge Selectboard from another Old Stockbridge Road resident with a long history of service on behalf of the community, Barney Edmonds:

I would like to share some thoughts and raise some questions about the new Elm Court proposal you are now reviewing.

1.  As you know, Beals Associates’ peer review called the proposal “excellent” and praised the “professionalism” of the team presenting it.  But that’s not why they were hired. They were tasked with deciding whether the old building permit should stand as is or would a new amended permit be required.  

After a thorough review of both the original and new proposals, Beals recommended that a new permit was necessary. 

The old permit was for a four-story hotel annexed to the mansion.  This new proposal calls for twelve separate lodges with four hotel rooms each along with 38 stand-alone condos.  The original proposal was for one structure; this new one calls for fifty.  Both propose to renovate a number of rooms in the mansion and provide a spa and restaurant.  The old proposal took full advantage of the current landscape; this new one wants to change it.  Beals reported that the new proposal would alter 40 acres of Olmstead’s landscape; the original one would disrupt only four acres … a ten-fold change.

2.  We may live at the northern edge of town but Stockbridge has been our only home for 28 years. My wife was on the Laurel Hill Association board for seven years and served on the Parks and Recreation Commission for a couple of years and I have been on the Housing Authority for fourteen years.  We feel part of Stockbridge and care about its future and worry about the loss of open space, a huge increase in transients, and the impact on the environment and the character of our neighborhood with a project of this scope and  size.

None of the Select board, nor the Town  Administrator, nor the town’s attorney lives near us on Old Stockbridge Road.  No one on the developer’s team, as far as can be determined, lives in Stockbridge.  Most of them don’t even live in the Berkshires.  Yet you all feel qualified to determine the future character of our neighborhood.  

3.  We went through the same situation more than a dozen years ago with Denver-based Amstar/Travaasa.  In Clarence Fanto’s recent article, he mentioned that the original developer “eventually abandoned the project following years of litigation and the Covid pandemic.”  That is not the whole truth.  Amstar was unable to attract investors and raise the necessary tens of millions of dollars to proceed.  They took a loss and sold the property to this new developer who estimates they’ll need 70 to 80 million dollars to proceed.  

What evidence is offered in their 730 page proposal that their company, an LLC, has the resources and/or the access to these tens of millions of dollars?  When Amstar bought Elm Court they already owned a 3.5 billion dollar real estate portfolio which included over a dozen resorts.  This developer, as far as can be known, owns and manages no other resorts or commercial real estate.  What if, after razing existing buildings and tearing up the landscape, they fail to raise the necessary money?

4.  While the development team has shown enormous respect and admiration for the historic role of Elm Court, they have already dropped its name.  It’s now Vanderbilt Berkshires Estates.  Although the team presents itself as deeply committed to being good shepherds and conservationists, they have done little in the years they’ve owned the property to repair/replace the front border stone wall which, in places, is falling apart.  They have also ignored many of the stumps around the mansion and the old maples which need an arborist’s attention.  And, like the previous owners, they have deferred maintenance on most of Elm Court’s outbuildings.  I have no idea regarding the condition of the interior and basement.

5.  Has the Select Board had an opportunity to ask Linda Law about Blantyre, her previous Berkshire resort?  I remember, in 2017, reading about her passion for revitalizing Blantyre which she had just bought for almost $7 million.  Then, in 2020, she won a special permit to add many hotel lodges and stand-alone condos to expand Blantyre.  In 2021, according to The Berkshire Eagle, she sold the property including the permit for about $15 million.  Some people might call that flipping, others might see it as smart dealing.  Either way, Blantyre hasn’t been open for the past two years and looks partially boarded up and abandoned.

As the Berkshires continues to promote itself as a tourist attraction, Blantyre and now Wheatleigh — two luxury resort properties built around beautiful “cottages” — are shuttered.  At the same time, the number of short-term rentals from companies like Airbnb are proliferating and attracting customers who previously went to these now-empty resorts.  What will happen when our economy enters another recession and disposable income drops? Is this proposed project exactly what our town needs?  Who will benefit? Prudence is called for, not greed.  

A proposal of such magnitude, with potentially negative consequences for both the environment and the neighborhood, requires a thorough review that provides answers to all of the above questions.

˜˜˜˜˜˜

Refuting a False Statement

In a report published by the Berkshire Eagle on January 26, 2026, the attorney for the developers, Jonathan Silverstein, is quoted as follows:

“The clear intent of project opponents, who continue to urge the Board to require a ‘new’ special permit, is to defeat the project by making the review process prohibitively expensive and lengthy,”

That statement is categorically false.

Below, a letter from one near-abutter to Elm Court, who has advocated for the preservation of Stockbridge’s historic & environmental resources across several decades. As submitted to the Board of Selectmen on January 31, her letter provides accurate background for where we find ourselves today:

My husband and I are full time Stockbridge residents who have lived on Old Stockbridge Road near the Elm Court estate since 1998. We have watched the estate transition from an abandoned, vandalized mansion to a family home – and now to a proposed massive resort hotel.

Twenty years ago, Robert Berle, the great-great grandson of the original owner, and his wife, Sonya, asked the town to change the bylaw to permit a 18-room boutique hotel. We, along with most others, voted at Town Meeting to allow this use. We were thankful that the Berles were renovating the mansion, and we enjoyed some of the events that they graciously hosted.

Unfortunately, they couldn’t make a go of it. In 2012 Amstar, AKA Front Yard, the new owner, met with the Stockbridge selectboard to write an amendment to the existing Cottage Era Estate bylaw that would allow for a larger resort hotel. 

This proposal included an Annex and Spa connected to the mansion by a corridor thereby increasing the total size of the hotel to 110,000 square feet. No other buildings were proposed.  Most people thought the plan would entail just the one building. At Town Meeting, when I asked the developer’s lawyer, if negotiation to reduce the scope of their project is possible, he promised that there would be “plenty of time” to address the size and scale.  Sadly, there was never an opportunity for that discussion.

The amendment passed but a special permit was still required. There was plenty of vocal and written opposition. A letter objecting to the size of the project and its impact on our residential neighborhood, and signed by 110 residents, was submitted. After three hearings, the Stockbridge selectboard voted for the proposal. Next came special hearings in Lenox town boards. The proposal passed the by one vote. But a group of abutters and neighbors, incensed by the lack of communication between them and the town boards, brought a lawsuit to Land Court. The suit was dismissed. But the developers, unable to secure financing, never broke ground. 

Fast forward to 2025. The current owners have proposed a plan actually much larger than the original. Instead of disturbing 10 acres under the old plan, 40 acres would be disrupted under the new. Instead of a single structure they propose building 12 hotel buildings and 38 individual houses – 50 separate structures requiring hundreds of feet of extra roads and driveways.

Before 2002, the Elm Court 89-acre property was subject to four-acre zoning which meant only 17 new houses would have been permitted. The purpose of 4-acre zoning was, and is, to help preserve the rural character of the town while conserving open space. Similarly, the purpose of the Bylaw was to preserve the historic architecture and landscape of our great estates by allowing for adaptive reuse. The loss of habitat required to build 50 buildings is immense. It is ironic that the new owners claim to be conserving nature (mostly wetlands) while in fact aiding its destruction by earmarking for development 25 acres of currently pristine land.

This oversized development might be appropriate in a suburban setting, but it will not enhance the landscape; and it will most certainly change the rural character of our town. 

It is now over 11 years since the special permit was passed. A lot has changed. This new proposal needs to be carefully discussed by town residents and neighbors as well as reviewed by our town boards and commissions.  

Julie Edmonds

Obviously, it is in the public interest that such a massive development proposal situated in such an environmentally sensitive location, while also being surrounded by established residential neighborhoods, receive maximum attention, with careful, thorough review by all qualified boards and commissions, including the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Rushing half-baked plans past a small number of individuals who simply do not have the expertise nor experience to evaluate them would represent willful & capricious indifference to everyone except the developers.

That is their “clear intent”!

And that is NOT in the public interest.

 

˜˜˜˜˜˜