Several Woodstock historians and preservationists attended the Village Development Review Board on Monday evening to voice opposition to the proposed demolition of two historic village homes.
Nonetheless, at the conclusion of the meeting, the board voted 3-2 to approve the demolition of the two historic houses near the Woodstock Inn.
The vote came after the board went behind closed doors to consider the application on the two South Street homes.
The Historic Village properties, 14 South Street and 16 South Street, which have been owned by the Woodstock Inn & Resort for the past twenty years, were petitioned to be demolished. Woodstock Inn spokesperson Benjamin Pauly said they were deemed, “No longer economically viable for commercial use.”
The Inn petitioned to be granted the ability to demolish the homes and convert the area into green space with a plan to plant a few trees.
“We are under no obligation to provide future plans for the land,” Pauly added at the meeting.
The demolition request was met with resistance by local residents in attendance, with Wendy Wright Marrinan of the Village Historic Preservation Commission helping spearhead the conversation.
“I feel let down by The Inn,” Marrinan told the Village DRB on Monday night. “As I went through the history of these properties, I found that no adequate work has been done to maintain the integrity of these homes — which is a requirement in order for their application to be approved by this board,” she said.
Marrinan noted that, in addition to aesthetic neglect, the homes have obvious infrastructural issues, including missing slates on the roof, disrepair to the boiler and furnace in each respective property, and cracks to walls and floorboards. “I am seeing a disconcerting lack of interest on the part of the Woodstock Inn & Resort to protect what we value as a Historic Village. The more we take away, the less we have that belongs to the history of this town,” she said.
Marrinan added, “The Inn has fallen short in meeting the standards necessary to grant demolition.” She said, “The Village Historic Preservation Commission’s conclusion is that all the conditions have not been met by this application.”
Several other residents spoke out against the demolition, including Woodstock residents Zach Benz, Isabelle Bradley, and Robert Pear.
The meeting this week was the second time the Village DRB had considered the request. Concerns were also raised when it first came to the board in September.
A second meeting was planned for last week, but the Vermont Standard alerted the village the day before that the session had not been properly warned to the public as required by the Vermont Open Meeting Law.
Municipal manager Eric Duffy later took exception to the headline in the Vermont Standard that said “Village Violates Open Meeting Law” with a subheadline that said the meeting had to be canceled.
In emails to the Standard this week, Duffy said the meeting was called off, so he contends there was no violation of the Vermont Open Meeting Law. He said it was just a “technical issue” that the required public notice did not appear on the municipal website as required by law. He also wrote that “the Town would have violated open meeting law if the meeting happened, but since it did not, no violation occurred.”
After the Woodstock Corporation’s application request was heard in full, board member Wendy Spector made a motion to deliberate in a closed session on the application — and two other cases heard that night.
In the end, all three were approved, including applications for Bonin Architect’s property at 19 Central Street and Freddie Bisceglia’s property at 2 High Street — the latter two by unanimous votes.
After the decision was released, village zoning administrator Emily Collins told the Standard, “The board found that the proposed demolition met the criteria set forth in the zoning regulations. We have 45 days from the close of hearing to issue a written decision, which is then mailed to the applicant and any interested parties.”
“There is a 15-day appeal period from the date the decision is issued. Interested persons, as defined by 24 V.S.A. § 4465, can appeal, and they’re filed with the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior Court. If an appeal is filed, the permit is stayed until the court resolves the matter. If no appeal is filed, the VDRB’s decision is final and binding, and the Zoning Administrator can issue the zoning permit,” Collins concluded.
For our full story on this, please see our October 30 edition of the Vermont Standard
