By Emma Stanton, Staff Writer
On Tuesday morning, the District 3 Environmental Commission, part of the Land Use Review Board, reviewed the Woodstock Inn & Resort’s application to demolish two South Street homes. As stipulated at the start of the hearing, the commission would hear from both the Inn and community members and ultimately decide if the application for the demolition in question complies with each criterion for the commission to issue a Land Use Permit.
The Act 250 criterion deals with air and water pollution, water supply, erosion to soil, transportation, educational services, municipal services, and ecosystem protection, scenic beauty, and historic preservation.
After reading opening statements, the commission allowed those in the audience to apply for party status, meaning that they have a specific vested and prioritized interest in this matter and would be given the power to question and rebut the applicant’s testimony. This status was awarded to Jeffrey Kahn, Robert Pear, Philip Neuberg, Wendy Wright Marrinan, Wendy Spector, Melissa Tarlow, Michael Richie of the Norman Williams Public Library, and Jenna Lapachinski with the Vermont Preservation Trust. The main reason many asked to be given this rebuttal ability is that they felt strongly about the historic preservation, economic health and vitality, and potential pollution that could be caused by the demolition of the two South Street homes.
The hearing then commenced with Benjamin Pauly, director of property operations and design at the Inn, addressing the commission and laying out the entire timeline of the 14 and 16 South Street properties. In his presentation, Pauly explained, “The properties had been considered for renovation in the 1980s to be turned into guest housing, until a letter from Human Resources dated 1983 declared that employee housing was more important, and thus the homes were used as such, but never renovated. When the furnace in each respective home broke in the early 2000s, the Inn had no need for extra employee housing and decided it did not make sense financially to repair either home at the time.”
According to Pauly, a number of small repairs have been done over the years, according to Pauly, including painting clapboards, floor repairs, and fixing leaks in the roof. The larger renovations that would need to be completed in order to make the two homes habitable have not been completed, as both homes have sat cold and empty for over twenty years. “With price increases and inflation, each home would cost around $3M to renovate, as the process would require new roofs, a fixed furnace, new paint jobs, gutting the entire space to rid the homes of mold, and much more. It does not make financial sense for the Inn to renovate these homes when there is no use for them,” Pauly added.
Neuberg and Marrinan raised objections to this point, as they said adequate maintenance of the properties is a requirement to approve an application to demolish.
Tarlow, a parent and member of the Woodstock Elementary School PTO, also raised a question regarding whether or not the Inn considered moving the two homes to another place within the historic district, as opposed to demolishing them. To this, Pauly said, “We did our due diligence to see if these homes could be moved and found the result unlikely. We advertised for four weeks in the Vermont Standard and Valley News, putting the homes up for $1 to a potential buyer who had the means and ability to move the homes, but nothing came to fruition.”
To this, Neuberg said, “What if you had advertised for a year, what if you got the National Historic Preservation Commission involved, what if you explored the possibility of moving these homes or letting someone buy and renovate the homes for more than four weeks?”
“I think that the feasibility of somebody moving those homes in a close location really doesn’t make a difference whether you advertise nationally or locally. No adequate buyer came forward,” replied Pauly.
When asked how long it would take for the demolition to occur, should the Inn receive approval, Pauly said, “I’m giving us about a month to tear down the two buildings. [The process] probably could be done within a week, and then from there you have to break up the foundations and rehab the space.”
A discussion followed regarding the potential environmental impacts and pollutants a demolition would entail, as well as the ethics behind demolition of two historic homes. A number of residents spoke, advocating for the Inn to seek another solution.
After five hours, chair of the commission, Cheryl Harvey, addressed those in attendance, saying, “Thank you all for your participation. The commission will reflect on all the evidence and testimony presented today. Following this, the commission may issue a hearing recess that keeps the record open for a period of time.”
She explained that typically a hearing recess order asks the participants and sometimes other parties to submit supplemental information in response to the questions that have been raised and allows parties an opportunity to respond to these supplemental filings. “Once the process is complete, the commission will consider the record to be final once we have all the supplemental information that we need,” Harvey added. “We’ll deliberate and issue our decision as expediently as possible. I want to thank everyone that came here today; this entire room is clearly passionate about this issue. Thank you for your time and participation.”
According to Peter Gill, the executive director of the Land Use Review Board, District Commission deliberations vary in length of time. He said that often District Commissions request additional information from the parties through a hearing recess memo. After all information is received they begin their deliberative process. Under Land Use Review Board Rule 30, “the District Commission shall, within 20 days of the completion of deliberations on an application, issue a decision approving, conditionally approving, or denying the application.”