OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Lenox, Massachusetts/Selectboard & Town Boards
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Lenox Historical Commission Public Hearing on Spring Lawn Mansion Demolition Delay - October 27, 2026

Selectboard & Town Boards — Tuesday, October 27, 2026
BodyLenox, Massachusetts
SessionSelectboard & Town Boards
DateTuesday, October 27, 2026
StatusNEW · FILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:26:51

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

0:00

Historical Commission has previously determined that the Spring Lawn Mansion and the other structures proposed for demolition are significant buildings under the demolition delay bylaw.

Unassigned speaker

0:12

The

Speaker 1

0:13

purpose of the public hearing is to receive information and public comment and to determine whether the buildings should be designated preferably preserved.

0:23

A determination that a building is preferably preserved would subject the proposed demolition to a 12-month demolition delay provided for under the bylaw.

Unassigned speaker

0:39

Where's the

Speaker 2

0:40

page down on this?

Speaker 1

0:47

This will be our agenda.

0:51

And we'll start momentarily with a moment to open the public hearing.

0:59

We'll read the ground rules in a minute.

1:02

We'll review the demolition delay by law.

1:05

We'll have a presentation by the applicant, the spring lawn investors.

1:10

There seems to be some feedback or something.

1:25

So this is the one that's active?

Speaker 3

1:27

Yes.

1:27

Okay.

Speaker 1

1:33

So there'll be a presentation by the applicant, Spring Lawn investors.

1:40

There'll also be questions from historical commission members to the applicant.

1:49

There'll also be question there be a presentation by the applicant, Spring Lawn investors.

1:56

There'll be questions from Historical Commission members to the applicant.

2:02

Then we'll open the meeting for public comment.

2:05

There will be an applicant response to the public comment.

2:09

Final questions from LHC members.

2:14

Then a motion vote from the LHC to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing.

2:20

A motion vote from the commission to decide if structures are preferably preferably preserved and authorize the chair to write the decision or to schedule a special meeting so to do within 14 days.

2:34

Finally, there'll be a motion vote to close the public hearing.

2:38

So that's our agenda.

2:42

Some ground rules for tonight's public hearing when we get to the public commentary.

3:00

Please bear this question in mind when speaking.

3:04

Three, the commission has already determined that the spring lawn estate is historically significant.

3:10

Therefore, there will be no debate nor question and answers other than questions directed to the commission.

3:18

The first speaker when we open open this up will be represent the petitioner, Spring Lawn Investors, and as petitioners, they will have ample time to present their case.

3:30

When we move to comments from the public in order to hear from everyone, please limit your remarks to no more than three minutes.

Unassigned speaker

3:47

When

Speaker 1

3:47

you are called upon to speak, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.

3:56

Finally, please remember that your remarks will be recorded and may be used at future hearings and meetings.

4:12

So at this moment I'd like to make a motion to open

Speaker 4

4:14

the public

Speaker 2

4:15

hearing.

4:16

Second.

Unassigned speaker

4:18

All

Speaker 1

4:19

in favor?

4:21

Aye.

4:22

Okay, the meeting is now open.

4:25

I want to introduce the before we get to the remarks of the applicant or any public remarks.

4:34

I just want to do a brief tutorial on the demolition delay by law that was adopted by the town in 2019.

Unassigned speaker

4:45

It was enacted for the purpose of preserving and protecting significant buildings, streetscapes, and neighborhoods within Linux, which constitute or reflect distinctive features of the architectural, cultural, economic, political, or social history of the town, and to limit the detrimental effect of the demolition on the character of the town.

Speaker 1

5:09

The procedure for determining preferably preserved status starts when the owner of a building applies to the building commissioner to demolish the structure.

5:22

If the building is more than 75 years old, the building commissioner refers the matter to the historical commission.

5:30

If the historical commission determines the building is significant, a public hearing is held within 30 days to consider whether the building should be preferably preserved.

5:42

After the public hearing or within 14 days, the historical commission determines whether the building is preferably preserved.

5:50

That's where we are tonight.

5:54

What happens if a building is determined as designated as preferably preserved?

6:03

Well,

Unassigned speaker

6:04

a

Speaker 1

6:04

12-month demolition delay is invoked.

6:08

During that time, the owners are expected to make continuing and bona fide reasonable efforts to locate a purchaser who will preserve and rehabilitate the building.

6:34

Finally, if no buyer appears or no realistic offer is made after 12 months, the matter returns to the building commissioner, and a demolition may proceed.

6:49

How we got here is that Spring Lawn investors submitted a demolition pretention demolition petition to the building commissioner on September 14th.

7:04

That started the process.

7:25

Preferably preserved.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Historic Preservation█████████████████████████████████████████████73%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████9%
Public Engagement██████9%
Procedural███5%
Pending Litigation█2%
Zoning And Land Use█2%
Summary of Proceedings

Lenox Historical Commission Public Hearing on Spring Lawn Mansion Demolition Delay (October 27, 2026)

On October 27, 2026, the Lenox Historical Commission (LHC) held a public hearing to consider whether Spring Lawn Mansion and associated structures at 10 Kemble Street should be designated “preferably preserved” under the town’s demolition delay bylaw. The commissioners previously found the buildings historically significant; a preferably-preserved designation would trigger a 12-month demolition delay. The applicant team proposed to demolish the mansion and two outbuildings, reconstruct the mansion as a contemporary recreation, and build 14 residential units, while rehabilitating the carriage house. After presentations, commission questions, and public comment, the LHC postponed its decision to a special meeting within 14 days.

Background & Procedure

  • The demolition delay bylaw, adopted by the town in 2019, protects significant buildings, streetscapes, and neighborhoods that reflect Lenox’s architectural, cultural, economic, political, or social history.
  • When an owner applies to demolish a building more than 75 years old, the building commissioner refers it to the Historical Commission; if the building is significant, a public hearing is held within 30 days.
  • Spring Lawn Investors submitted a demolition petition to the building commissioner on September 14. The Commission must make and deliver its written decision by November 10.
  • The Commission previously found Spring Lawn significant for its architecture by Guy Lowell, its integration with designed landscape, and its importance as an example of Lenox’s Gilded Age estate era.
  • Chair Dave Dyer set ground rules: public comments were limited to three minutes, and speakers had to state name and address for the record.

Applicant Presentation

  • Attorney Jeff Lynch introduced the applicant team: owners/developers Hillary Rocket and Robert Coakley, engineer Larry Beals, architect Michael Wang, and landscape architect Rob Ackroyd.
  • Rocket said the property was first put under agreement in January 2024 with a renovation plan, but after six months of study the team concluded rehabilitation was not feasible; the property was put under agreement again in September 2025 with a new plan.
  • Beals described an approximately 30-acre site with frontage on Kemble Street and Old Stockbridge Road, a mansion at the high point, and wetlands, pond, and river on the lower portion. The plan includes 14 single-family cluster units, rehabilitation of the carriage house, and trails with educational signage, with public and private portions.
  • Wang cited a conditional approval letter from DCR dated June 2026, noting the Massachusetts Historical Commission determined rehabilitation of the mansion is not feasible due to abandonment and neglect, and that reconstruction is the only path forward while remaining consistent with the historic preservation restriction. He cited a Solumi Construction letter from August 2025 documenting water infiltration, structural damage, abatement needs, and code deficiencies.
  • The applicant stated that the proposed reconstruction would recreate the exterior proportions, roof forms, overhangs, dormers, and architectural details of the original mansion, but would be clearly identifiable as a contemporary recreation. The carriage house would be repaired and rehabilitated.
  • The applicant’s position: it began wanting rehabilitation; the mansion is beyond reasonable repair; reconstruction is the best way to preserve the character of the site and Lenox; the carriage house rehabilitation demonstrates its preservation commitment.

Commission Questions

  • In response to Commissioner Rick’s questions, the team said the reconstructed building’s interior would contain 10 condominiums; an underground garage would be placed in the existing full-basement footprint, with the entrance accessed through the slope so it is not visible from the Kemble Street frontage; and some historic wood paneling, fireplace surrounds, and mantels could be integrated into public spaces, with the team open to discussion.
  • Asked whether seeking demolition before zoning approval was premature, the applicant said it would not demolish the building until all permits, including ZBA and conservation commission approvals, were in place.
  • Asked about the two deteriorated outbuildings, Coakley said they were part of a school and used as dormitories, and were included in the application because they needed to be removed.
  • Asked about the Great Estates bylaw, the applicant said it is not proceeding under the Section 8.10 Great Estates designation, and that its draft zoning application does not claim that status. It noted that a prior owner’s approved proposal was much larger — over 50 homes plus a hotel and restaurant — whereas this proposal is 14 residential units.
  • Asked about Planning Board review, the applicant said the zoning bylaw allows it to proceed solely before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Jim Brooke (73 Main St.) opposed demolition, citing the successful restorations of The Mount and Ventford Hall; he predicted strong local opposition, urged a Plan B, and recommended an independent structural analysis.
  • Tom Delasco (12 Hillside Drive), chair of the Planning Board, read a letter from the Planning Board urging the Commission to follow Section 8.10, the Estate Preservation Area bylaw. Spring Lawn is one of only eight qualifying properties, and development of an estate preservation area is premised on preservation and protection of qualifying buildings, open space, and settings.
  • A co-author of Houses of the Berkshires (who identified Jim Brooke as her brother) encouraged a demolition delay and an independent architectural study by a firm experienced with historic buildings; she also urged finding a new owner if necessary.
  • A resident of the Spring Lawn gardener’s cottage and Fellow of the American Institute of Architects said his own building was restored through adaptive reuse; he criticized the renderings and said vaulted ceilings, wood paneling, and other interior features were not addressed. He expressed sadness that Lenox was not doing better and offered to help.
  • Wendy Healy, executive director of Ventford Hall, said Ventford Hall was in dire condition in 1994 but was preserved rather than demolished. She recounted a Massachusetts Historical Commission official telling her that demolition by neglect or any other means is not an option, and asked what precedent this case would set.
  • Charles Bonetti (235 Walker St.), former chair of the Williamstown Historical Commission, said preservation typically protects exteriors; he asked for an independent assessment focused on preserving as much of the original facade and material as possible to avoid a fake.
  • Leslie Curtis (235 Walker St.) supported the other speakers, asked for an independent, non-developer feasibility assessment, and suggested there had been circumvention of local authority.
  • Kim Duvall (41 Tucker St.), an architectural designer, strongly opposed the proposal. She called the presentation cherry-picked and said the renderings would not be built as shown. She questioned whether “highest and best use” should mean greatest financial return or what best serves Lenox and preserves its irreplaceable history.
  • Susan Foles, who said she had sent a letter to the Commission, asked how the mansion had been allowed to fall into such disrepair and raised the issue of demolition by neglect.

Applicant Response to Public Comment

  • Attorney Lynch said there was no continuity of ownership: his clients bought the property in 2025, and Robert Coakley was a consultant to the prior owner, not an owner. He argued the Historical Commission had not acted over the years to address the deterioration and asked the Commission to allow the project to proceed before the building collapses.
  • Coakley said an earlier hotel/club proposal by a prior group failed when financing collapsed before COVID; he said he and Hillary Rocket had their own money at risk and had concluded the building could not be safely rehabilitated.
  • Deb Cody referenced 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals minutes listing Robert Coakley as a principal of Lennox Spring Lawn GP LLC. Coakley responded that he was brought in as a consultant for the membership club component, not as an owner.

Key Outcomes

  • The Commission opened the public hearing by unanimous voice vote and later voted to close the evidentiary/public-comment portion of the hearing.
  • The Commission did not make a final preferably-preserved determination at this meeting. A motion to postpone the decision to a special meeting within 14 days was seconded and approved by voice vote; the regular meeting would have been 16 days away, so a special meeting will be scheduled.
  • The statutory deadline for the written decision is November 10, and a positive determination would trigger a 12-month demolition delay.

Meeting Transcript

Historical Commission has previously determined that the Spring Lawn Mansion and the other structures proposed for demolition are significant buildings under the demolition delay bylaw. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive information and public comment and to determine whether the buildings should be designated preferably preserved. A determination that a building is preferably preserved would subject the proposed demolition to a 12-month demolition delay provided for under the bylaw. Where's the page down on this? This will be our agenda. And we'll start momentarily with a moment to open the public hearing. We'll read the ground rules in a minute. We'll review the demolition delay by law. We'll have a presentation by the applicant, the spring lawn investors. There seems to be some feedback or something. So this is the one that's active? Yes. Okay. So there'll be a presentation by the applicant, Spring Lawn investors. There'll also be questions from historical commission members to the applicant. There'll also be question there be a presentation by the applicant, Spring Lawn investors. There'll be questions from Historical Commission members to the applicant. Then we'll open the meeting for public comment. There will be an applicant response to the public comment. Final questions from LHC members. Then a motion vote from the LHC to close the evidentiary portion of the hearing. A motion vote from the commission to decide if structures are preferably preferably preserved and authorize the chair to write the decision or to schedule a special meeting so to do within 14 days. Finally, there'll be a motion vote to close the public hearing. So that's our agenda. Some ground rules for tonight's public hearing when we get to the public commentary. Please bear this question in mind when speaking. Three, the commission has already determined that the spring lawn estate is historically significant. Therefore, there will be no debate nor question and answers other than questions directed to the commission. The first speaker when we open open this up will be represent the petitioner, Spring Lawn Investors, and as petitioners, they will have ample time to present their case. When we move to comments from the public in order to hear from everyone, please limit your remarks to no more than three minutes. When you are called upon to speak, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Finally, please remember that your remarks will be recorded and may be used at future hearings and meetings. So at this moment I'd like to make a motion to open the public hearing. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, the meeting is now open. I want to introduce the before we get to the remarks of the applicant or any public remarks. I just want to do a brief tutorial on the demolition delay by law that was adopted by the town in 2019. It was enacted for the purpose of preserving and protecting significant buildings, streetscapes, and neighborhoods within Linux, which constitute or reflect distinctive features of the architectural, cultural, economic, political, or social history of the town, and to limit the detrimental effect of the demolition on the character of the town. The procedure for determining preferably preserved status starts when the owner of a building applies to the building commissioner to demolish the structure. If the building is more than 75 years old, the building commissioner refers the matter to the historical commission. If the historical commission determines the building is significant, a public hearing is held within 30 days to consider whether the building should be preferably preserved. After the public hearing or within 14 days, the historical commission determines whether the building is preferably preserved.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com