Fiery debate over the future of accessory on-farm restaurants in Woodstock has prompted the resignation of the town’s planning commission chair.
In a public hearing Friday morning on a petitioned amendment to Woodstock’s zoning rules that would allow certain on-farm restaurants, the chair, Sally Miller, said she felt slighted that residents had not opted to raise their proposal with the Woodstock Planning Commission and instead signed a petition.
“I was disappointed because this went right to petition,” Miller said during the hearing. “It is a very defensive position for myself personally.”
She resigned after the hearing, she confirmed to VTDigger in an email.
“Some members of the community and the Select Board, in particular, have shown a lack of respect for the work that the planning commission does,” she wrote. “Their refusal to follow the recommendations of the planning commission indicate that they have no confidence in the Commission, and, as the Chair, I believe that it sends the message that the Commission needs new leadership.”
The debate brewing for more than a year stems from a proposed on-farm, farm-to-table restaurant located on Pomfret Road in a rural, residential part of town. A decision released by the town of Woodstock on Monday means the operators of Peace Field Farm may finally be getting the permits they need to continue their plans — though the fury around Peace Field, and potential other operations like it, has continued in the days since.
The agreement released by Woodstock officials on Monday indicates the town would support the owners of Peace Field Farm in its appeal for an Act 250 permit. The state’s District 3 Environmental Commission initially denied Peace Field’s request in October, citing non-compliance with Woodstock’s town plan.
Meanwhile, the Woodstock Selectboard held public hearings this week on a petition to amend the town’s zoning rules to allow for similar accessory on-farm restaurants to exist in rural, residential areas, in an effort to make the process easier for proposed on-farm restaurants in the future.
The petitioned amendment focuses on highlighting a portion of Act 143, a law that created the designation of “accessory on-farm business.” While one section of Act 143 says an accessory on-farm businesses must sell 50% or more products “principally produced” on the farm, another section of the law says they meet the threshold if they serve “meals featuring qualifying products,” without necessitating a percentage quota.
Petitioners argue that their proposal would serve two goals in Woodstock’s town plan: to encourage “the establishment of new agripreneurial” — as in entrepreneurial agriculture — activity, and to encourage “the establishment of new farm operations.”
But the planning commission recommended the selectboard reject the petitioners’ amendment, worrying that new retail establishments could mar the rural character of the town, and that a restaurant may be disruptive to neighbors.
The selectboard ultimately voted down the proposed amendment. Rather than defer to the planning commission, who board members feared would take too long to redraft a proposal, they chose instead to have Steven Bauer, the town’s interim zoning administrator, draft a new version in an effort to expedite the process.
But the decision was preceded by more than an hour of debate on Friday, in which town residents did not hold back in their adamant, emotional outpourings both for and against the proposed amendment.
And even as Peace Field Farm was not named in the petitioners’ amendment, everyone, it seemed, knew the restaurant was at the center of the debate.
“If you haven’t noticed, Woodstock is dying,” Mallory Bennett told the selectboard, referencing a new dearth of restaurants that had long served to attract tourists. “We’re attracting people here, and we’re saying ‘fend for yourself.’”
“People are moving here to retire. What I’m not seeing is an economy,” said Nicholas Seldon, a planning commission member. “What a fantastic way to market ourselves: giving people a taste of Woodstock, here in Vermont.”
Todd Heyman, an agritourism business owner from Windsor who helped draft the amendment, urged the selectboard to vote on the petition rather than send the amendment to the planning commission for further consideration.
“Vote it down if you don’t like it. Write your own afterwards,” Heyman said. “But it is incredibly disrespectful not to vote on something so many citizens put so much time and effort into.”
Another person, Al Alessi, quickly argued that since Heyman lives outside Woodstock, “he should not even be allowed to speak.” Alessi, whose property abuts Peace Field Farm, has been a vocal opponent of the project, voicing concern about the restaurant’s size, lighting and late operating hours. He requested for the record to show his objection to the amendment.
Mary Margaret Sloan, a member of the planning commission, asked for patience.
“If we’re making a change that’s this significant, I think we should take the time we need to take,” she said.
Yet an outspoken group at Friday’s hearing suggested that due to its past actions, the planning commission was not the appropriate body to decide the future of on-farm restaurants in Woodstock.
Jenna Barker accused the commission of bias in its past dealings with Peace Field Farm. Consulting the commission, she contended, would be a dead end.
Donna Lombard, who is married to Peace Field Farm chef and operations manager Matt Lombard, advocated for Woodstock’s citizens’ right to change the town’s zoning.
“The process of opening a restaurant on our farm has been going on for a long time,” Lombard said. “We actually had to take the fight into our own hands, so here we are.”
Correction: A previous version of this article misstated what the petitioned amendment would change.
