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, 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.
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.”
For more on this, please see our Dec. 18 edition of the Vermont Standard.
