On Monday, the District 3 Environmental Commission announced its decision to deny the Woodstock Resort Corporation’s application to demolish the historic 14 and 16 South Street properties.
At a public hearing held on Dec. 16, the Act 250 District 3 Environmental Commission heard from Benjamin Pauly, director of property operations and design at the Woodstock Inn & Resort, Phil Neuberg, chair of the now disbanded Woodstock Village Design Review Board, and several other interested parties from the town. After deliberations, the hearing was officially adjourned earlier this week on March 21, once all additional information and responses were considered. Two days later, the commission completed its deliberations and ruled against the resort.
After reviewing the resort’s application, the findings said that the commission determined that the resort’s request did not adhere to Act 250 Rule 34 (E), citing the key question in Rule 34 (E) is whether a condition was imposed in a previous permit to resolve an issue critical to the issuance of that permit.
The Standard spoke with Neuberg about the decision. “I was pleasantly surprised,” he said. “I think the commission’s decision to deny the demolition application was accurately based on the Woodstock Inn & Resort’s failure to meet the historic preservation requirements that were outlined way back in 2009.
In its decision, the commission stated, “We acknowledge that the Inn maintains a high standard of quality in its buildings and grounds, but we conclude that more affordable options likely exist to make beneficial use of the buildings. We also note that although we agree that the Applicant made the minimum repairs to the buildings since 2009, there was nothing stopping the Applicant from making other repairs that would have paid off with savings now had it simply elected to do so. Again, this is not intended to be a criticism. It is rather an acknowledgement that the Applicant’s own decisions since 2009 contributed to the increase in costs it may incur to rehabilitate the buildings now. Thus, we conclude that this factor weighs in favor of finality.”
Pauly replied to the Standard via email, saying, “While the news of the Act 250 decision is fresh and we are taking time to digest the district commission’s decision, we appreciated the opportunity to work with local and state officials and experts in our pursuits to move our business and community forward.”
