Lee Planning Board Public Hearing on 165 Housatonic Street Hotel, August 17, 2026

The Lee, Massachusetts Planning Board met on August 17, 2026, for a continued public hearing on a proposed Marriott-brand hotel at 165 Housatonic Street, the current Pilgrim Inn site. The board reviewed revised parking and architectural plans, heard substantial public testimony, and voted unanimously to continue the hearing to September 14, 2026 at 6:05 p.m. No final decision on the special permit or site plan was made.

Administrative Actions

• The board tabled approval of the prior meeting minutes until the next meeting.
• No correspondence was reported, and no early public comment was offered.

Applicant's Revised Plans

• The applicant presented a revised draft that increased parking from 80 to 90 spaces by converting parallel spaces to 90-degree spaces, removing some parking islands, pushing back a sidewalk, and adding spaces near the front and dumpster.
• The applicant acknowledged that the added parking increases impervious surface and proposed permeable pavers to help manage stormwater. A revised stormwater plan is still pending peer review.
• Architectural revisions included a fourth-floor mansard roof, additional brick trim, and clapboard-style siding intended to make the building fit better in Lee. The applicant described these as draft concepts.
• The applicant submitted parking research and a Marriott corporate letter asserting that 90 spaces are sufficient for a limited-service hotel with no restaurant, banquet, or conference space. The applicant said the project is expected to have about five employees per shift and that occupancy is concentrated on overnight guests.
• The applicant's attorney said the client wants to be cooperative and flexible. The developer said the investment would be north of about $20 million and agreed to explore a three-story, same-footprint option without a pool and with a possible room-count reduction.

Board Discussion and Positions

• Board members stated that the zoning bylaw does not base hotel parking on one space per room but on guest and employee capacity. Several members said 90 spaces are likely insufficient, with individual estimates ranging from about 95 to 110 spaces. They urged the applicant to use the adjacent southern parcel or reduce the room count.
• Board members said they would not accept 20-foot parking aisles under site plan review and would require at least 24-foot aisles, especially for fire apparatus access.
• The board questioned whether shared parking with the southern parcel is workable, calling it an unresolved wild card. Board members also wanted independent parking analysis rather than relying only on Marriott's opinion because of the applicant's economic interest.
• Board member Peter Bloom summarized the five findings required for a special permit. He said four stories is a large height increase over surrounding one- and two-story buildings, although the design revisions helped. He also raised concerns about the management company's independence, construction-completion risk, and the proposal to extend the CBC district into R20 for parking, which he said he was not inclined to approve because it was unnecessary and could create an awkward zoning boundary.
• Board members reviewed the prior balloon test; one member said the balloons were high but not as high as expected, while some neighbors strongly disagreed.

Public Comments & Testimony

• A nearby resident named Marilyn submitted photos of the balloon test from her backyard and said the height was appalling. She argued that the proposed 9-by-18.5-foot parking stalls and 20-foot aisles are too small for today's larger vehicles. She also contended that the proposed trash enclosure in the R20 parking expansion should be treated as a structure under Massachusetts law and therefore may not be permitted in a parking-only special permit area. She asked the board to require low wall-mounted lighting instead of 20-foot light poles.
• A public speaker named Sam questioned whether five employees per shift can operate a 75-room hotel, noted that other Berkshire County Marriott properties are three stories, and called for a traffic study or peer review of the Route 20/Housatonic Street corridor. Sam also raised concerns about stormwater maintenance, rooftop equipment, backup generators, roof-screen height, and pedestrian safety.
• A speaker identified as Mr. Nichols opposed the project. He cited existing health and safety violations and unpaid fines at the Pilgrim Inn, as well as a reported lawsuit involving the developer's Orchards Hotel in Williamstown. A board member responded that the article appeared to describe a complaint filed rather than a judgment. Mr. Nichols argued that the applicant should demonstrate responsibility and that the board should consider the long-term impact on neighbors and the community.
• Another public speaker asked about rooftop air-conditioning noise, the height of rooftop screening above the 50-foot building height, and the location and fuel source of any backup generator. The speaker appreciated the improved architectural design and supported an indoor pool.

Key Outcomes

• The board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to 6:05 p.m. on September 14, 2026.
• The applicant must submit revised digital plans, respond to board questions on parking and room count, consider the three-story/no-pool option and southern-parcel parking, and address the 24-foot aisle and stormwater concerns.
• No special permit or site plan approval was granted.
• The meeting adjourned after the continuation vote.