It came as no surprise last night that Village Trustees granted a noise variance to the Woodstock Inn for its last remaining back lawn wedding band of the season. They had, except for Trustee Bob Pear, expressed their intention to do so at a meeting earlier this month. The variance allows an extra half hour for the band to play until 10:30pm as opposed to the ordinance cut-off time of 10:00pm.
Several nearby residents came out to the support The Woodstock Inn and its wedding activities. They said they enjoyed hearing the music from the Inn up on High Street and did not think it was too much to allow the music to go a little later. Repeating his appeal from an earlier Trustees meeting, The Woodstock Inn’s Werner Graef said it’s important to be flexible if one wants to grow business in town. The Woodstock Chamber of Commerce’s Beth Finlayson said weddings are a key way to bring business to town. And, in one of the more humorous (albeit deadly serious) “threats”, Graef told Trustees if the opportunity of bringing weddings — and young people — to Woodstock is squandered, the Village will end up with The Woodstock Inn being “an old age house.” “If that’s what you want…fine.”
Ann Marie-Boyd, of High Street, said of the wedding bands playing into the evening , “I think they’re great! I don’t understand what this is all about. You live in the Village: Deal with It!” Cindy Metzler, also of High Street, said she loves the music and seconded the appeal not to shut down the bands early.
Rep. Alison Clarkson who also lives in a neighborhood close to the Inn said the wedding business is “invaluable” for the town and that even a 10:30 “lights-out” for the music is early. Repeating Graef’s appeal she said Villagers need to be “flexible” since weddings provide so much “bang for the buck.”
Finlayson who says she puts up with plenty of noise in Barnard and appealed to Woodstock residents to do the same, echoed the need for people “to understand” that the only way to keep the economy going is for weddings to continue unobstructed. (Woodstock Early Bird notes here the well-known adage which we believe is applicable to the economy: Beware of putting all your eggs in one basket).
All of this followed a veritable inquisition by Trustee Bob Pear of the Woodstock Inn’s Werner Graef. Pear began the meeting with a series of precise questions, delivered in a rapid-fire manner, concerning the Woodstock Inn’s already avowed (at previous meetings) “misdeeds” of not following noise ordinances to the letter of the law with timing or decibel level. Graef noted there would not be any more issues this summer season because the Inn does not have any more plans for back lawn wedding music. (Some 4 to 5 weddings out of the 40 scheduled asked for back lawn music).
However, the discussion about the one specific variance did open up the question of the rather murky, imprecise language of existing noise ordinances — with words undefined such as “normal” and “disturb”.
The Trustees decided they will put an overall look at Village noise ordinances on a future agenda when the Board is fully present (Chair Candace Coburn was not at last night’s meeting).
However, Interim Chair Eric Nesbitt did open up the discussion for public comment. Mountain Avenue’s Mimi Baird says she has noticed a marked “escalation of noise above normal” over the past few years. She said Villagers deserve some consideration for what they contribute to the community: paying taxes, keeping up lawns and generally making neighborhoods like hers places that welcome visitors who like to walk around town. She added, “Everyday is becoming arduous” with noise from lawn care operations, “This noise is invasive.” She stated, “We live here. We help tourism.”
Gay Travers, who also resides in the River Street/Mountain Avenue neighborhood, asked that Trustees take the opportunity to look at the noise ordinances overall as a way to create awareness among citizens. She says there are health and “quality of life” issues including the constant idling of cars and trucks, leaf-blowing and pesticide control spraying at all hours of the day and evening. Trustee Eric Nesbitt countered that “Life can be noisy.”
Finally, when Trustee Trish Compton asked for specifics on how noise ordinances might be changed, Woodstock Early Bird (yours truly) appealed for some changes to weekend noise of all kinds, suggesting it would be a good thing for visitors, too; moving the current 7am start time for noise to 9am, with a Saturday and Sunday end time of 5pm. On that particular point, High Street resident Ann Marie Boyd said that just wouldn’t be possible because, for various reasons, her family does its lawn-mowing after supper on weekend nights.
Woodstock Early Bird hopes that, in the spirit of community, we become aware that sometimes our activities affect others negatively and to — at the least — consider modifying them with or without concrete regulation. We are not free from becoming more aware ourselves and note that a lawn service we engage often contributes to the current din of daily life.
We must say that even we did change our minds just a bit about weekend music due to the enthusiasm of some of our neighbors.
Julia Carlisle
Woodstock Early Bird 
Posted by Margaret (Peggy) Kannenstine on June 27, 2012 at 09:36
Anyone think about encouraging residents and lawn services alike to use less noisy machines? Perhaps the pollution of our air from the one stroke engines should be a consideration too?
LikeLike
Posted by Jon Estey on June 27, 2012 at 11:28
How about a tax credit for every resident who buys a sheep to mow their lawn? However, sheep can be noisy too. Is there a breed of mute sheep perhaps?
LikeLike
Posted by Beth on June 27, 2012 at 13:45
While I was at the meeting last night, I believe I was misquoted. Weddings are a great way to get younger adults to visit and experience the hospitality of Woodstock. Not the only way. Weddings fill rooms at B&B’s, restaurant seats and our shops. They may be the first time a person has visited the area and hopefully will have such a positive experience that they will return. They are good business for the Woodstock area!
And yes, the EB has it correct- I do not live in Woodstock but am here everyday and have worked to enhance this community in many capacities for almost 25 years.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on June 27, 2012 at 13:59
It is entirely relevant for a representative of the Woodstock Chamber of Commerce to come out in support of one of its members The Woodstock Inn and Resort. You may have been misunderstood but not misquoted. You made it very clear that the only way to salvation for Woodstock’s economy is WEDDINGS. You repeated this twice if not three times. This point of view indicates an extreme lack of imagination. However we are happy to issue your clarification so that your points are shared with others.
On the broader topic of noise limits, it is the height of hypocrisy to live outside of the Village, leaving every night and returning in the morning, to make any comment whatsoever about what people who live here NIGHT and DAY should and should not tolerate. It is entirely relevant. for WEB to mention that you do not share the same experience that others do notwithstanding your daytime service to the community.
LikeLike
Posted by Joanne Boyle on June 27, 2012 at 13:45
There is always this quieter option: http://www.foodnotlawns.com/
LikeLike
Posted by Corwin Sharp on June 27, 2012 at 15:17
Perhaps a small sign should be placed above the doorway to the Town Hall Meeting room which simply says, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
LikeLike
Posted by Clay Gillette on June 27, 2012 at 16:10
I’m afraid that I had to be out of town last night and missed the meeting, but could someone post the facts that have been obtained to evaluate whether the Inn currently hosts the “optimal” number of weddings or is losing business because of noise restrictions? Forty weddings sounds like a pretty good number that suggests that the Inn is having substantial success in attracting such events, but I have no baseline against which to assess it. Is that down from 50 weddings in the recent past? Or up from 30? How many couples inform the Inn that their wedding will occur elsewhere because of noise restrictions or request a variance? Of those that go elsewhere because of noise restrictions, how many are replaced by other weddings on the same date, so that the loss of the former is not necessarily material? Perhaps those questions were answered during the deliberations last evening (and, of course, the answers are complicated by the fact that one would have to rely on the Inn itself to provide some of the relevant information), and it would be nice to know the answers in order to determine the effects of the noise restrictions. If those kinds of questions were not asked, however, then it is unclear to me how one determines the relationship between noise restrictions and the number of wedding events, even if one believes that weddings are the lifeblood of the local economy.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on June 27, 2012 at 16:24
Clay, this is an excellent point that has not come up in any way except the Inn has said restrictions on times before 1O30 are “non-starters” for getting business.
No one has asked for actual proof and none has been presented that Early Bird has observed at many meetings to back up the idea that noise restrictions ultimately end with net losses of wedding business to the Inn.
Framed in the right way WEB believes a degree of “peace and quiet” can be an asset, a marketing tool and an economic, er, engine for the Village of Woodstock.
LikeLike
Posted by Bob Pear on June 27, 2012 at 17:16
Actually, during my “inquisition”, this is precisely what I was trying to ascertain. Since the Inn did not lose any bookings over the time issue, I decided that extending the time to 10:30 PM did not have the great impact on the bookings that was represented. “Good cause” must be shown in order for the Board of Village Trustees to grant a variance from the established law. I felt “good cause” was not shown to necessitate the extension of time beyond what the present ordinance allows, 10PM.
LikeLike
Posted by Pat & Dave Crocker on June 27, 2012 at 19:20
As usual, we have a bruhaha as a result of a request for special exceptions to established regulations, and notably an exception for the Woodstock Inn. Several establishments and Inns might also like to increase their wedding business, but have been restricted through the permit process because of their proximity to residential zones and current noise regulations and have accepted those limits. If those establishments now feel they are entitled to the same exceptions provided to the Woodstock Inn they would be justified.
I would seriously doubt that any of those concerned aobut noise want to turn the Inn or the Village into a “old peoples house” and they shouldn’t have their legitimate concerns mocked or dismissed with “you live in the Village get over it.” Noise is a quality of life concern for more than just a handful of residents of Hiigh Street.
There needs to be a broad and civil discussion about noise among the Village residents, as well as the owners of other Inns and establishments. If the trustees want to propose new regulations, they might consider doing it in a way that will engage more residents in the discussion. They could go beyond the strictly legal requirements for a establishing a new regulation, so that everyone concerned can weigh in on this very important issue and help to guide the trustees in crafting new ones that will be fair and reasonable across the board.
LikeLike
Posted by Nna on June 28, 2012 at 08:06
I guess I don’t get it ??? I do not live in town but is it really so noisy the quality of life of some individuals is disrupted? How about life in the city.. i.e. noise , pollution. Living outside of the town limits and more in “the country” noise isn’t an issue. I hope the future doesn’t hold so many restrictions people will stop wanting to visit our beautiful town / State. Alumni day watching a wedding party in front of the Inn enjoy our annual and unique parade while taking wedding photos was a pleasant site. They didn’t seem to be disturbed by the extra noise created by the parade. Just saying… we can’t have it both ways .
LikeLike
Posted by Peter Saman on June 28, 2012 at 08:30
It appears there are many pieces to this conversation. While it is true the Inn is an asset to portions of the Village population, it is also true that the Village is an asset to the very image and credibility of the “Woodstock” Inn. Good faith dealings would appear to be in the best interests of all concerned. Walking the line of co-existence, melding the primary objectives of each into a working relationship seems to be a murky, opaque and difficult to understand matter at this point. My notion is to open up the conversation by publicly examining the objectives, responsibilities and expectations of all concerned, elevating and broadening the conversation beyond politics, rights and influence, to problem solving.
LikeLike
Posted by A. E. Norton on June 28, 2012 at 08:31
I have read all the comments. I made one earlier in which I noted that, though we do not live right next to the Inn, the noise does indeed float up Linden Hill. But I think I now agree with Alison Clarkson, who says that even 10:30 doesn’t seem that late, in this day and age (words to that effect). It seems to me that for a few nights of the year (and these could be publicized in advance, as a courtesy, possibly through the good offices of the Early Bird, or some similar vehicle) we could tolerate a little band music late into the night. It isn’t the snort of 18-wheelers downshifting and using Jake Brakes, for example — it’s music, though certainly not to everyone’s taste. I think part of the “heartburn” here is when we overhear someone else having a good time at an event at which we are not included, a sort of psychological “grinchiness” arises in all of us. Bottom line is, Mr. Graef is right: if young folks don’t schedule weddings at the Inn (and only a few will request outside music) the place will, slowly but surely, become an “old folks’ home.” That may be a bit of hyperbole, but I think I know what he means. We — the town, the area — need to stay current and make places like the Inn — which is a huge asset — attractive to young, dynamic people. My new neighbor is Courtney Lowe, who is Director of Marketing. He states firmly that weddings are a key and vital element in the Inn’s survival, particularly now that a certain Mr. L. Rockefeller isn’t around to write out checks at will (call me if I have misquoted you, Courtney!). Many Vermont towns teeter on the edge of being forgotten little hamlets. Woodstock is not one of these. Let’s keep it this way, and keep up with the 21st century.
LikeLike
Posted by William Boardman on June 28, 2012 at 14:27
Always good to see Alison Clarkson defending the powerful against the weak.
This issue arose first because the Inn broke the law with impunity, then was compounded by the Trustees acting without regard for the law.
Off course the Inn was community-spirited in the aftermath of Irene, charging people only $5 to take a shower.
People who decide what should — or should not — be tolerable for their neighbors should work on their empathy.
Nice to see Julia get a little edgy.
LikeLike
Posted by Larry Perry on June 28, 2012 at 17:06
I invite everyone to experience the most flagrant violation of the noise ordinace. Stop by Woodstock Home & Hardware any morning at 11:59:59 am — on the south side of the building next to the Emergency Service Building is most optimal — and listen to the “Noon Whistle” — which was put into service without ANY public input or permitting, ironically, the same week the Noise Ordinance went into effect. I was at Spring Brook Farm in Reading several months ago at noontime and could even hear the whistle down there, nearly ten miles away.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on June 28, 2012 at 17:19
Oh Larry! We are pretty sure you LOVE to “whistle while you work”…right?
Actually the noon whistle makes us thinks of the “fake” off-key chimes that ring daily (or more) often in a pretty manner but often in a rather endless and tortuous manner careening from one “tune” to another from at least one Village church.
Separation of Church and State means the Village People have no say on that one…Or do they?
But noon blasts, faux chimes all contribute to the delightful charm of our little hamlet…So..to paraphrase another:We Must All Deal With It!
LikeLike
Posted by Bob Pear on June 30, 2012 at 10:59
We must all deal with it, but that does not mean we have to accept it. One person hears noise, another hears music. I happen to like the chimes, (since the volume was reduced), and the noon whistle- it takes me back to my childhood in Hammondsport with the church chimes at various times of the day the factory whistle at 7AM, 12, 12:45 and 4PM and the 10PM curfew siren. What I like, other people don’t like. The question is, does one person or even a majority of persons have the right to impose their likes on another person and dismiss those person’s concerns with little or no regard? Shouldn’t we all strive to consider how we might be affecting our neighbors and have some empathy and discourse, rather than telling someone to just deal with it?
If we are to change the noise ordinance, we should seek input from the greatest number of the public possible and have an open and civil discourse without the anger, dismissive attitudes and negative comments I have witnessed so far. This type of atmosphere does nothing to promote discussion, solves no problems, and does not achieve anything other than pitting neighbor against neighbor.
LikeLike
Posted by Peter Saman on June 30, 2012 at 18:45
A principal focus of the Orton Family Foundation, located in Middlebury Vt. is to assist towns and villages in their identifying the “Heart and Soul” of their communities. Speaking as a 40+ year veteran of Planning and Land Use in Vermont, I recommend a visit to their website… http://www.orton.org .
LikeLike