On Wednesday, Nov. 3, all five members of the Woodstock Village Design Review Board tendered their resignations. In a letter penned to Woodstock officials and the Village Board of Trustees, the design review board members expressed their disappointment after a change was implemented by the village that no longer requires zoning applicants to consult or appear before the design review board.
Chair of the board, Phil Neuberg, told the Standard earlier this week, “I have been a part of this board for six years, and in that entire time, in accordance with the published bylaws created by the planning commission, the design review board has always been a part of the zoning process. We are a board comprised of experts in this subject; we live in a historic district. It was always very clear that the design review board was the first stop for an applicant in the design district of the Woodstock Village.”
He continued, “The town is currently governed by a zoning ordinance that was adopted in 2023. Woodstock is now in the process of trying to update the bylaws of this zoning ordinance, but at this point, nothing has been finalized; there has only been discussion. Section four of the governing ordinance clearly states that folks must first stop at the design review board, which then, in its advisory capacity, will inform the village development review board. For some reason, the TRORC (Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission) has reinterpreted the law and convinced the staff at town hall that coming to the design review board is purely optional for applicants.”
The TRORC is an association of thirty municipalities in east-central Vermont governed by a board of representatives. According to its website, the organization provides professional planning, mapping, facilitation, grant writing, and project management services to Woodstock and other towns.
“If TRORC and the village makes coming to the design review board optional, that makes the work we are doing and our efficacy as a board obsolete. Thus, we felt it was necessary to resign from this position,” Neuberg said.
Neuberg referenced a section in state statutes that he said reads: “The advisory commission or individual members of the commission may meet with the applicant, interested parties, or both, conduct site visits, and perform other fact-finding that will enable the preparation of recommendations.”
Neuberg told the Standard, “The key word in the state language is ‘may,’ which authorizes municipalities to establish advisory boards/committees, like ours, to aid the zoning board in its decision making. Nowhere does set [state] law indicate that permit applicant participation is ‘optional’ as the town staff is claiming.”
When asked about the issue, Woodstock Municipal Manager Eric Duffy told the Standard, “The way we, [the TRORC], and a municipal attorney have interpreted state statute is that the town cannot compel or force an applicant to go through the design review board. They can recommend or ask them to, but they cannot force them. 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.”
Woodstock chief of staff Stephanie Appelfeller told the Standard, “The design review board was created to make recommendations to the village development review board. When there’s an application in that district, it has historically been used as a mandatory part of the zoning process. Every application in that district was going in front of this advisory board, and then their recommendation would go on to the village development review board. As TRORC has recently pointed out, that process cannot happen. We’re not allowed to force applicants to go in front of a village advisory board, as specially spelled out in state statute. We are currently working with the planning commission to rewrite the village bylaws. That process is what triggered this change in regard to village zoning issues.”
Both Duffy and Appelfeller maintained there’s a need for a design review board, but it is unclear in what capacity the board would serve. Duffy told the Standard, “We plan to begin the process of appointing new board members, which will occur publicly during scheduled trustee meetings.”
In the meantime, Harry Falconer, energy coordinator for TRORC, spoke at the Monday evening Woodstock Village Board of Trustees’ meeting about the new planning commission zoning bylaws. He told the board, “The current standards of design review are very discretionary and pretty vague. With these updated bylaws, we hope to make this a more objective process, closer to checking a box when it comes to design review. For instance, we will have a list of materials that conform to architecture, building shapes, architectural details, that will be checked off in accordance with design regulations.”
“What is so frustrating,” Neuberg told the Standard, “is that most of this board was very established professionally in the field. We were a board comprised of designers, architects, architectural historians, and preservationists. To turn this design review board into a pick-what-you-wish checklist is contrary to the history of Woodstock. If it is satisfactory to Woodstock residents to have no design professionals be a part of their decision-making process, then I have essentially been wasting my time.”
Former vice chair of the design review board, Beverley Humpstone, told the Standard, “The only thing I will say is that if they drop the need for a design review board — if we no longer have a say — the village needs to combine the design and development review boards. We must have people with some architectural design background making decisions; otherwise, the town will lose all historic charm.”
Full resignation letter
Woodstock Staff and Village Trustees:
We, the members of the Woodstock Village Design Review Board, hereby submit our collective resignation effective immediately.
Our decision comes with regret, as we have all served with a shared commitment to preserving the architectural and historic integrity of Woodstock. However, recent developments have left us feeling both marginalized and unable to fulfill that mission.
First, the Town’s recent determination that meetings with the Design Review Board are no longer a required part of the permitting process was made and implemented without prior communication to the board itself. We learned of this change indirectly and after it had already been conveyed to applicants. The lack of transparency and collaboration in such a significant procedural shift is frustrating.
Second, by removing the requirement for applicants to engage with the Design Review Board, the Town has effectively stripped this board of any meaningful role. The Development Review Board now bears sole responsibility for interpreting design standards, despite the fact that its members are not required to have specialized expertise in historic preservation, architecture, or design. The result is a process that places one of Vermont’s most architecturally significant villages at risk of incremental erosion of its historic character.
We recognize that state law limits the authority of advisory boards, but we also believe that local discretion and local expertise remain vital to protecting Woodstock’s unique sense of place. Many Vermont towns, particularly those with historic districts recognized under state and federal preservation programs, continue to engage advisory design boards meaningfully within those limits. Woodstock should do no less.
We hope that our resignation serves as a catalyst for the Town to re-examine how best to balance legal compliance with the need for informed design guidance. The preservation of Woodstock’s historic identity deserves a process that values the expertise of those committed to it.
Sincerely,
Phil Neuberg, FAIA, Chair
Bev Humpstone, Interior Designer, Vice-Chair
Jack Rossi, Landscape Architect
Ellen Phillips Soroka, RA, FAAR ‘02
Larry Zeitlin, Ph.D.