By Tom Ayres , Senior Staff Writer
The Woodstock Village Development Review Board (VDRB) has granted a conditional use permit for a restaurant proposed for the site of a former garage and auto repair shop at 67 Pleasant Street in the East End of Woodstock.
Artist rendering of proposed Farmer and the Bell Cafe at 67 Pleasant Street in the East End of Woodstock Village. Artist’s Rendering Provided
In a public notice posted by Woodstock Director of Planning and Zoning Steven Bauer on Friday, May 31, the VDRB also responded favorably to a petition from the Pleasant Street property owner, Eva Douzinas, and nascent The Farmer and the Bell restauranteurs April and Ben Pauly, allowing a reduction in the number of parking spaces at the restaurant site required by town zoning regulations. The board vote on both matters was 4-0, with VDRB members Jane Soule, Randy Mayhew, Keri Cole, and Wendy Spector okaying the Pleasant Garage, LLC permit application. A fifth VDRB member, Mary Anne Flynn, was absent for the early-May public hearing on the permit request and subsequently did not vote on it during a closed, deliberative session held by the quasi-judicial board.
At a May 8 public hearing before the VDRB regarding The Farmer and the Bell restaurant proposal, Anthony J. LaRosa, a Burlington-based attorney representing R.L. Vallee, Inc., the owner of the Maplefields gas station and convenience store chain, voiced strong opposition to the proposed restaurant on two fronts, one not the purview of the VDRB and the other related to the Woodstock permitting regulations.
In a letter to Douzinas and the Paulys dated May 7, LaRosa raised a “serious concern” about the proposed development at 67 Pleasant Street, contending that the permit application “appears to violate a covenant recorded in the land records limiting the use of this property.” R.L. Vallee, Inc., which owns and operates 44 stores across Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, contends it conveyed the Pleasant Garage, LLC lot to Maitland Burke, the former gas station and repair shop operator, in 1997 with a deed covenant stating that as long as Maplefields operates its Woodstock facility directly across the street from the proposed restaurant site, the 67 Pleasant Street location cannot be used for “a convenience store.” LaRosa argued that The Farmer and the Bell will function as a convenience store because Douzinas and the Paulys noted in their permit application that “the primary product will be the sale of take-away, to-go items, and ready-made food.” LaRosa added that, “It is unclear exactly what this means or entails, but as phrased [it] strongly suggests that this is a convenience store use.”
LaRosa also drafted a five-page letter to the VDRB that was admitted into testimony at the May 8 public hearing, arguing that Maplefields, as an abutting property owner, had concerns about traffic, parking, and public safety issues at the busy corner where Pleasant Street veers almost 90 degrees left to continue as State Route 12 towards Quechee — and especially because the parking waiver sought by Douzinas and the Paulys would allow for only 19 parking spaces on the 67 Pleasant Street site, roughly 30% of the parking required by Woodstock zoning regulations, the Vallee organization called for the denial of permits for The Farmer and the Bell project.
The VDRB did not agree.
The board stated in its decision notice that “the proposed restaurant conforms to the conditional use criteria and does not cause an undue adverse effect on the traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.” The board also okayed the reduction in parking spaces on the restaurant site itself, stating that “the applicant proposes to operate a restaurant with a combined capacity of 96 seats and 8 staff, [which would require] the restaurant to provide 40 9’x18’ parking spaces. 40 parking spaces require 10,000 square feet of surface area to comply. This would result in approximately 70% of the lot’s surface area being covered by parking. We find that to uphold such a requirement within the Village Center Designation would result in an absurd interpretation of the regulation.” Lastly, in announcing its decision, the VDRB reiterated its May 8 contention that “the board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of restrictive covenant violations.”
In a Monday morning email, Planning and Zoning Director Bauer noted that participants in the hearing and permit process have 30 days from a permit decision to file a notice of appeal with the Vermont Environmental Court. “If no notice of appeal is filed within that time, our office will issue a zoning permit on the 31st day,” Bauer added.
In a Monday evening voicemail message, Maplefields’ attorney LaRosa said, “I haven’t even had a chance to look at the decision. I know it came out on Friday. I’m sure I will speak to my client about it, but I don’t have an answer for you right now,” referring to both the likelihood of an appeal and the possibility of civil action related to the alleged deed covenant.