By Emma Stanton, Staff Writer
In the wake of the recent Woodstock Village Development Review Board (VDRB) meeting at which three of the five board members voted to approve the Woodstock Inn & Resort’s application to demolish two historic homes — some may have asked, why? Why did this board vote in favor of demolition? Which factors were taken into consideration? And why was the board’s discussion not held in public?
To answer these questions, the Standard spoke to the members of the VDRB. Board member Wendy Spector, who voted to approve the Inn’s application, told the Standard, “There are five criteria we had to consider, and I believe the Inn satisfied them all. That is what we ruled on. There was a lot of concern about [the Woodstock Inn’s] adherence to the Act 250 requirements, but that is not our jurisdiction. We know that the application must be approved by various entities and governing bodies. From the perspective of the VDRB, I felt that they had satisfied the criteria.”
The five criteria that Spector referenced are stated in the Village of Woodstock Zoning Regulations and outline the parameters required for demolition. They are listed as:
- The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property.
- The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure.
- The structure cannot be reasonably moved to another site within the historic district.
- The demolition proposal mitigates impact to the character of the neighborhood.
- The historical integrity and architectural character of the area will not be compromised or diminished due to demolition.
On the issue of proper maintenance, Spector said, “Without going into a home inspection, it’s very difficult to make a judgment about whether [the Inn maintained the property] or not. It was not our position to question their testimony. We are not an architectural engineering firm; that is not what we do, so we had to rely on the Inn’s testimony. Their testimony was that the fundamental structure of the home was not easily or economically able to be fixed to meet the standards of their business. We took them at their word.”
Fellow board member Keri Cole, who also serves as a Woodstock Village Trustee, also voted in favor of the Inn’s application. She told the Standard, “I think that the Inn maintained the property in accordance with the particular Act 250 criteria. They did not do any improvements, but the houses, from my perspective, did not deteriorate further during their stewardship. I think they did what was necessary to keep the homes from deteriorating further, and to me, that satisfied the maintenance requirement.”
Cole added, “It is always a tricky balance of trying to preserve historic homes and allow for necessary development. I think that what people tend to forget is that every decision we make is one based on the evidence presented in the application. Approving the Inn’s permit request doesn’t necessarily mean that the board sees value in demolishing historic homes. Far from it. It was just that in this particular instance, we’re looking at the area that the homes are in, which is very commercial. The Inn’s plan for developing the parcels right now is just to turn them into green space, and that’s an acceptable proposal to us. If the Inn wants to do something else with those properties in the future, then they must submit a permit application to do so. They cannot just suddenly build another spa building or an administrative building. There are safeguards in place to protect and respect the land of this town.”
Spector also spoke to the board’s decision to convene in private about the approval of the Inn’s application, telling the Standard, “The board was advised by the State’s guidelines and our town administrators to always go into closed session when deliberating. Our group has not traditionally done so, but I felt that this session was an appropriate time to begin that practice. I am not the chair, but I did recommend to the chair that this be the practice moving forward. As a quasi-judicial body, we are exempt from the open meeting laws, and to avoid the appearance of favoritism, the practice would apply to all applications.”
Lastly, Spector spoke to whether or not the VDRB considered a viable path forward for these properties to be sold to a third-party instead of being demolished by the Inn — a point raised by some who attended the Oct. 27 meeting. Spector said, “I did not personally look into the possibility of the Inn selling the properties. It’s not within our mandate to second-guess the decisions of a property owner on how to manage their property. There are many examples of properties within the village that I personally consider poorly managed, but we are not authorized to go in and examine their finances and interrogate their decisions. In this particular case, knowing that the parcels are within the Inn zoning district and are adjacent to the Inn, I would not be surprised if they would have to either sell at a loss or have difficulty in finding a buyer willing to spend that much money to renovate a property adjacent to the Woodstock Inn. Losing control over the parcel would not make strategic sense for the Inn.”
Spector continued, “Even if the Inn sold these properties, there is no guarantee that the buyer would choose to preserve or renovate. Renovation is usually much more expensive than new construction… Everyone must live within their means, and sometimes unpleasant choices have to be made. Our board should not be judging people’s motives or delving into finances and priorities; we have regulations to guide us and are limited to assessing applications based on their adherence to these regulations.”
Board member Maryanne Flynn, who also voted to approve the South Street demolition, was unavailable for comment.
VDRB chair, Jane Soule, who voted to deny the Inn’s application, told the Standard, “I have my own personal feelings about this issue and will not comment further as to why I voted in dissent.”
VDRB vice chair, Randy Mayhew, who also voted to deny the Inn’s application, chose not to comment on his reason for dissenting, but told the Standard, “For the record, I am not in favor of doing board deliberations routinely in executive sessions. I wish I had voiced that concern at the time, but I was just taken by surprise. I feel that public confidence and understanding is enhanced by open meetings and decision-making for local board deliberations.”