By Emma Stanton, Staff Writer
In the wake of the Woodstock Village Design Review Board’s recent mass resignation, the Standard spoke with individuals involved to find out more about how the decision came about.
Former chair of the Village Design Review Board Phil Neuberg spoke to the Standard about the board’s last meeting before it was designated as an “optional” aspect of the zoning application process. He said, “The Design Review Board met on Wednesday, Oct. 1, to hear the application of the Woodstock Inn & Resort seeking to demolish the 14 and 16 South Street homes. We met and rejected the application, as had been our right and purview for years.”
Neuberg said he wanted to ensure that the Development Review Board (which makes the ultimate decision on applications submitted) received the Design Review Board’s rejection before they heard the Inn’s demolition request. He told the Standard, “It was the [Design Review Board’s] belief that some of our decisions were not always being forwarded to the Development Review Board, so we took extra steps of making certain that we informed the review board members and trustees at the beginning of October that we had rejected the application.”
During the Development Review Board’s Oct. 27 meeting, two other applications were heard that had not been reviewed by the Design Review Board. Neuberg told the Standard, “I noticed on the agenda that there were two [zoning applications] on which we had not taken action. I pointed this out to [Village Zoning Administrator] Emily Collins and said, ‘I don’t think we have seen these two items, and I would caution you to revise the agenda until we have a chance to review all applications.’ Up until this point, it was common practice for the Design Review Board to hear all applications before they appeared before the Development Review Board. Emily Collins’ response was that it is ‘optional’ to appear before the Design Review Board. This was the first time we, as a board, had heard our role was now optional.”
In explaining the state statute that addresses this, Neuberg said, “It says the municipality ‘may’ convene or establish advisory boards. It does not say anywhere that it is optional for an applicant to appear before boards or committees that are established by the municipality. I would have expected somebody to have consulted with an attorney, or at the very least have the courtesy to convene a special meeting or send an email informing us all of this change, yet no such thing happened.”
Following up on Neuberg’s point, the Standard asked Town of Woodstock Chief of Staff Stephanie Appelfeller to clarify whether or not such a meeting occurred. She told the Standard, “On Monday, Sept. 8, municipal manager Eric Duffy and I sent a Zoom invite to all the chairs of the various zoning committees. Every chair from the six zoning boards were in attendance. No attorneys were present, but three members of TRORC were there to explain their interpretation of the state legislation surrounding this issue. This meeting was just to make sure each [board] understood their role in zoning, and to answer the question, ‘how does each board and commission fit into the bigger picture?’ The chair’s job was then to report back to their constituents and to the members of their respective boards.”
There are no official minutes for this meeting. Appelfeller said, “This was not a warned meeting. It was just an in-house-type meeting here at town hall.” However, Neuberg shared with the Standard his own minutes from that meeting, which Appelfeller approved of in an email exchange dated Sept. 10.
Neuberg’s minutes read, “While, legally the Town and its various boards have no authority to require applicants to come before the advisory boards with their projects, TRORC highly recommends that the Advisory Boards develop their own standards which can be used with applicants in the review process. Such standards lend consistency and definition to the review and recommendations that are provided to applicants…For the foreseeable future, the present setup of two boards will continue.”
TRORC members mentioned as being at this meeting were Bryan Kovalick, Harry Falconer, and Kevin Geiger.
The Standard spoke with Falconer last week about what TRORC advised the town regarding the role of the Design Review Board. He said, “The thread that may be of issue is the village’s decision to handle the design review procedure right now differently than they have in the past. The Planning Commission and TRORC certainly have no authority to tell the Development Review Board or the Design Review Board how to handle their business outside of drafting policy, which is what the Planning Commission does. The changes to zoning bylaws that have been drafted are not responsible for the changes in the Design Review Board’s role. The town handles those procedures, and any change would be at the directive of the town manager, the town staff, and the Village Trustees.”
“The Development Review Board makes binding decisions,” Falconer continued. “They give approvals for design review, conditional use, things like that, whereas advisory committees are mainly meant to serve as sort of expert witness for that quasi-judicial process that the Development Review Board does. The new process we are in the midst of drafting reflects that when a complete application is received, the Development Review Board hearing is warned. During the warning period, the Design Review Board has the right to comment and issue a recommendation and weigh in at the hearing. This is how we have interpreted Vermont Statutes moving forward. The village has decided to, now, in practice, not have applicants required to meet with the Design Review Board. That was not our decision.”
Duffy told the Standard in an interview several weeks ago, “For a number of years, we have forced applicants to go to the Design Review Board. We now believe that process is illegal, and so we are trying to mend the situation we have created.”
Regarding the issue of “legality” surrounding this decision, Falconer clarified, “We [TRORC] do not give official legal opinions. We help towns write bylaws according to the best planning practices and our understanding of Vermont Statute.”
Asked about this point, Appelfeller told the Standard, “When we notice something in state statute that is different than the process in our bylaws, we have to go by how the state tells us to do things. We noticed an inconsistency between what the state says and what our bylaws say, and we’re just trying to clean it up.”
Appelfeller added, “[This Design Review Board] issue has been pointed out before. I have worked here for three years, and the prior zoning administrator three years ago was trying to make this change.”
When asked why the change was enacted now, Appelfeller said, “I guess it’s just that we noticed something that is inconsistent with the state’s rules. So, we’re just trying to come into compliance with the state. It doesn’t feel responsible to ignore that. If we notice something isn’t accurate, we need to come into compliance. Nothing specific about [it] timeline-wise, nothing urgently made us do this change. We just chose to start this now.”
Neuberg concluded, “The state, in its use of the word ‘may,’ has left it up to the historic town of Woodstock to deem it necessary or unnecessary to require applicants for zoning permits to go before the Design Review Board. The question, therefore, that begs to be asked is Why? Why would the officials and administrators of a historic town such as Woodstock deem it unnecessary or optional for applicants to go before the Design Review Board? This is a historic town worthy of being preserved. As stewards of this town, it was our responsibility to maintain the historic integrity for the people who have chosen to call Woodstock home and for the thousands of tourists who flock here. If it has become satisfactory to Woodstock residents to have no design professionals be a part of their decision-making process, and no town official will take ownership of ensuring this town’s history be preserved, then this is indeed a sad, sad day.”