By STEVEN JUPITER
SUDBURY—With fewer than 600 residents, Sudbury is one of those Vermont towns that are barely more than names on a map. It’s possible to pass through without even realizing you’d been there. Summer may bring vacationers and second-home owners to the town’s scenic lakes—Lake Hortonia, especially—but for most of the year, Sudbury is dead quiet.
And a lot of people in town like it that way.
However, for the past year or two, a group of Sudbury residents have been brainstorming ways to revitalize the town, which does not have any operating stores, schools, or even a post office. Their stated hope is to create more of a village center, restore some lost amenities, and improve community cohesion. These efforts have been met with both praise and objection from other Sudbury citizens, leading to heated exchanges at municipal meetings and pointed accusations of impropriety on the part of some town officials.
The town’s approval last week of a conditional-use permit for a coffee shop in an historic house in the village center has brought the conflict to a head. At last week’s packed Planning Commission meeting, at which the permit was granted in a split vote, concerned residents made their continued objections clear and promised sustained opposition.
The Cook farm
Much of the revitalization effort, including the coffee shop, has focused on a historic property known as the Cook farm that surrounds both the town’s iconic 19th-century meetinghouse and its modern town office at the intersection of Route 30 and Huff Pond Road, a spot that’s the closest thing to a village center as Sudbury has to offer.
The Cook family had operated a dairy farm on the 60+ acres for generations. The property included pastures, woods, barns, and a large house that was built in the late 1700s, making it one of the oldest structures in the area.
The house sits mere yards from Route 30 and just a half-minute’s walk from the town-owned meetinghouse and town office. Though it had been a family home for the Cooks, it has been unoccupied for several years now and is in need of preservation itself.
The property had been on the open market for some time when a group of investors purchased the entire farm from the Cooks through an LLC called Deep Soil Pastures (DSP) in 2023. One of the principals in DSP is Harvey Blake, who had had a career in finance and moved from New Jersey to Warren, Vt. in 2022 to pursue his interest in regenerative agriculture, an approach that restores degraded, overused farmland. According to Blake, DSP’s purchase of the Cook property stemmed from an interest in bringing it back to life as a working farm.
“I had been working with a soil biologist, just going around to farms for sale in Vermont, and drove past the Cook farm on my way back from another property in Orwell,” said Blake in a recent phone conversation. “I saw it was for sale and it seemed like a good fit for what we were trying to do.”
DSP’s plan, according to Blake, was to rehabilitate the Cook farm to raise beef cattle. However, he said that the pastures turned out to be unsuitable for that purpose, requiring DSP to shift focus away from its original plans.
“The world worked against us,” said Blake, noting that his purchase agreement with the Cooks did not stipulate any particular use for the land despite claims that the Cooks had sold the land with the expectation it would remain agricultural. “We need to roll with the punches.”
DSP ended up subdividing the original farm into three separate parcels: a 2-acre lot with the house and barns, an 18-acre lot consisting of open pasture, and a parcel with the remaining acreage, which is mostly wooded.
The 2-acre lot with the house was put up for sale in 2024.
“The house needs a life of its own,” said Blake.
Community interest in the Cook farm
Once the house came back on the market without the farmland, it drew the interest of non-municipal community groups that had been working on revitalization projects. These groups, the Sudbury Community Club (SCC) and the Lake Hortonia Community Trust (LHCT), had come together to form what came to be known as SudHub, whose stated purpose was to coordinate those efforts at revitalization.
“SudHub” is a combination of Sudbury and Hubbardton, as part of Lake Hortonia extends from Sudbury into the neighboring town of Hubbardton. While SCC is a 501c3 nonprofit and LHCT is working toward that status, SudHub is described by its members as “an initiative” that has no legal status on its own.
SCC and LHCT had formed SudHub in the fall of 2024 in response to their failed joint application for a Village Trust Initiative grant (VTI) from the Preservation Trust of Vermont (PTV), the Vermont Council on Rural Development (VCRD), and the Vermont Community Foundation (VCF).
VCRD’s website states that “the Village Trust Initiative launched in 2024 offering expertise and funding to help 20 small towns create or bolster a local community trust organization and take on a transformational revitalization project in their village. These projects could be the revitalization of a general store, the creation of a community center, the renovation of a large historic home into village-scale housing and more. All community-minded ideas that meet a critical community need are welcome.”
According to Eli Fox of SCC, the Sudbury groups “narrowly missed” being included in the first cohort of grantees. Steve Lohrenz, a member of SCC and the chair of the Sudbury Planning Commission, added that the Sudbury groups were told by PTV and VCRD that their re-application for a VTI grant would be boosted by the formation of a coordinated initiative like SudHub.
In preparation for their original VTI application, members of SCC and LHCT had compiled a list of “underutilized community assets” that could be the focus of the grant. The list included the Cook house, the Lake Hortonia Country Store (closed), the old Selleck store on Route 73 (closed), the historic Hill School (inactive), and the Sudbury Country School (used for special education by Otter Valley Unified Union School District but said to be soon returned to the town of Sudbury).
According to Mx. Fox, when the Cook house hit the market again in 2024, members of SCC and LHCT approached Mr. Blake “to see if he would support the idea of selling the Cook house ahead of the first round of the VTI application.”
The full Sudbury Selectboard and Harvey Blake offered letters of support for the groups’ VTI application, but when the grant was not awarded SCC and LHCT did not pursue the purchase of the Cook house for lack of funds.
However, the new SudHub initiative sent out a community survey and began a series of community events designed to solicit ideas and feedback from town residents as to what resources, assets, and amenities they would like to see in Sudbury. Some of these events took place at the Cook house itself.
SudHub eventually published the community feedback, which included suggestions for amenities such as apartments, senior housing, a general store, and a coffee shop, among many other things.
The Coffee Shop proposal
Sudbury resident Jason McNolty is a contractor (All Points Construction) who has purchased and rehabbed a number of houses for conversion to rentals around Rutland County. He’s also a member of the Lake Hortonia Community Trust. When the VTI grant didn’t materialize, he decided to move forward with a proposal of his own.
“I’m all about community,” he said in a recent conversation at the Cook house. “There’s nowhere to connect in Sudbury right now. We don’t have anything where you can just bump into a neighbor, not even a post office. The Meetinghouse is great, but it’s for scheduled events. It’s not a place you can just pop in for a coffee and a conversation.”
McNolty proposed opening a coffee shop on the first floor of the Cook house. He’d lease the house from Mr. Blake for a year, with an option to buy, and do the restoration work himself.
“I’ve always loved the building,” he said. “I thought it would be a great spot for a coffee shop or a store.”
Mr. McNolty added that the cost of restoring the entire house would exceed $1 million if done by a retail client to maintain it as a single-family residence. As a contractor, he would be able to keep material and labor costs down. And he would phase the restoration, starting with the first-floor coffee shop. He stated that he would not seek any money from the town for the project.
“I make my living through construction,” said. “About 60% of my business is restoration of old houses. If I don’t do this, who’s going to? I’ve saved several buildings over the years. I’d hate to see the Cook house fall in like Hyde Manor.” [Editor’s note: Hyde Manor is a once-grand 19th-century summer hotel on Route 30 in Sudbury that is now in a notorious state of collapse.]
McNolty applied to the Sudbury Planning Commission (SPC) for a conditional-use permit to allow him to convert what had been a residential building to commercial use. Last week, the SPC granted the permit in a 4-2-1 vote, with Commission members Jay Lanza and Corey Czarnecki voting nay. Commission member Shelly Pottorf had recused herself from the discussion and vote because she often does business with Mr. McNolty’s construction firm in her work as an architect.
After the vote, permit in hand, Mr. McNolty said he would begin the process of rehabbing the house just as he would any other restoration project.
Community pushback
Not all Sudbury residents are pleased by these developments. In fact, a sizable number of them have been vocal and fierce in their opposition. The criticisms range from accusations of outright deception on the part of some town officials to practical considerations of safety and environmental impact.
The claims of impropriety have zeroed in on the complex relationships among SCC, LHCT, SudHub, Mr. Blake, Mr. McNolty, the Planning Commission, and the Selectboard.
According to Larry Rowe, treasurer of SCC, Mr. Blake has donated a total of $8,800 to SCC. Mr. Rowe is also a member of the Planning Commission. Other members of the Planning Commission with ties to SCC are Chair Steve Lohrenz, Ted Russell, and Shelly Pottorf. Ms. Pottorf’s wife, Shannon Bryant, serves on the Selectboard and is a founding member of LHCT. Mr. McNolty is a member of LHCT.
Mr. Rowe stated in a recent phone conversation that Mr. Blake had donated $6,000 of the $8,800 of his own volition and the additional $2,800 at SCC’s request. The money will be put toward the town’s match for a Municipal Planning Grant (MPG) that the town of Sudbury was awarded in May by the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development.
The webpage announcing the 2025 grantees of the MPGs states that Sudbury will use its grant to “produce a plan to revitalize the village center. A strategic planner, an architect, and engineers will be hired to conduct public engagement and to assess the feasibility of civic, residential, and infrastructure projects.”
The MPG was in the amount of $30,000 with a 10% match from the town, meaning that the taxpayers of Sudbury would ordinarily be expected to contribute $3,000 toward this project. However, Mr. Rowe and Mr. Lohrenz have both stated that the money donated by Mr. Blake to SCC will be used to cover the town’s portion of the grant, relieving Sudbury taxpayers of the $3,000 obligation. Also, according to Mr. Rowe, SCC approached Mr. Blake for an additional $2,800 because the total cost of the projects intended to be covered by the MPG are estimated to be in excess of $39,000. Mr. Rowe said the cost estimates were prepared by Ms. Pottorf.
A particularly acute concern among critics has been the 18-acre parcel of pastureland that Mr. Blake subdivided from the Cook property. Suggestions that the parcel be developed as housing, first made by participants at SudHub events but repeated by some members of the Planning Commission at their public meetings, have led to accusations that Mr. Blake’s support of the Cook house project and the MPG was designed to persuade the Planning Commission to change the town’s zoning regulations in his favor, since several members of SCC are also members of the Planning Commission.
Currently, Sudbury’s zoning regulations allow only 1 house per 10 acres on the 18-acre parcel, though 1-acre parcels are permitted closer to Route 30. Critics have argued that Mr. Blake is attempting to persuade the town to change the zoning regulations to allow 1-acre parcels on the 18 acres. The Planning Commission has denied this and stated that the zoning regulations cannot be changed without public hearings and a vote by town residents.
Some residents argued at last week’s meeting, however, that if the town expands the village center designation to include Mr. Blake’s 18-acres, the zoning will automatically switch from 10 acres to 1 acre per dwelling. The Planning Commission said it was not aware of such a provision but would investigate the claim.
Some residents have also claimed that Mr. Blake’s donations to SCC were meant to persuade the Planning Commission to approve the conditional-use permit so that Mr. Blake could take advantage of state tax credits for the rehabilitation of the Cook house. Those credits are not available for single-family residences. Having a coffee shop in the house would render the property commercial and make Mr. Blake eligible for the credits, according to these residents.
Mr. Blake denied any attempts to sway the Planning Commission and Selectboard.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. He added, “But if the state and town want to put houses there, I won’t fight about it.” He also stated that he has not taken any active steps to further subdivide the land and can understand the concerns of residents.
“I’d have similar concerns if I lived locally,” he said. “I came at this with the best intentions. I’m open to suggestions from the community, which is why I hosted the SudHub event at the house last October. I’m open to what the community needs and wants. But if the town can’t come to a clear path forward, we’ll continue on the path we were on, which is agricultural.”
Planning Commission member Larry Rowe said in a phone conversation that discussions about housing development in Sudbury are in keeping with the state’s priorities, given Vermont’s housing shortage, but emphasized that no zoning changes could be made without community approval.
Other Sudbury residents voiced concerns that non-municipal groups such as SCC, LHCT, and SudHub have had improper influence over town policy, especially since the groups may include residents of Hubbardton and second-home owners who aren’t registered voters in Sudbury. And the involvement of members of those private community groups in town government also gave rise to concerns.
“I just want to see a clear, clean Zoning Board and Planning Commission that we elected at Town Meeting,” said Sudbury resident David Crane. “I don’t want private clubs doing this.”
A petition was circulated and submitted to the Sudbury town clerk demanding the resignation of the Planning Commission. Since seats on the Planning Commission are elected positions in Sudbury, the petition had no legal effect and was merely symbolic of residents’ frustration. A letter of support signed by Sudbury residents in favor of the coffee shop was also submitted to the town.
Several residents stated at last week’s Planning Commission meeting that they would like to see a new Planning Commission voted in, angered by the Commission’s refusal to entertain additional public comment despite the exceptional turnout last week. The Commission stated that the public discussion of the permit had taken place in July and that portion of the process was now closed.
Some residents had also requested that Commission members who were involved in SCC and SudHub recuse themselves from the vote. However, Commission Chair Steve Lohrenz read from the state’s ethics regulations and stated that no conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict existed and no further recusals were needed because the non-recused members did not stand to gain from the permit more than any other resident, a point that was supported by some residents in attendance.
As the meeting drew to a close, some attendees criticized what they saw as disrespect from some members of the Commission. Mr. Lohrenz, for his part, acknowledged on social media after the meeting that when under stress his autism can sometimes cause him to behave in ways that might seem off-putting to neurotypical people. Mr. Lohrenz also said after the meeting that he would initiate “office hours” to make himself available to members of the community who want to ask questions, discuss issues, or provide feedback on the Planning Commission’s activities.
Safety and environmental impact
Other residents oppose the proposals for the Cook property because of the perceived impact that a commercial enterprise would have on the safety of the surrounding neighborhood and on the area’s natural resources.
Mr. McNolty acknowledged at last week’s Planning Commission meeting that he had not done any studies to determine the impact that the proposed coffee shop might have on traffic in the area. Neighboring residents expressed concern that an increased flow of cars in and out of the driveway would pose a safety hazard, though Commission member Ted Russell noted that heavily attended events at the Meetinghouse did not seem to create any additional risks. Moreover, a neighboring resident who does not oppose the coffee shop posted to the Sudbury Facebook group official statistics from the Vermont Agency of Transportation that show only 12 recorded accidents within a half-mile of the Cook house over the last 10 years.
Residents also voiced concerns that development in the village center would place a burden on first responders and law enforcement, because Sudbury relies on either state agencies or neighboring towns’ services.
There is also fear that increased activity in the area would overtax the available groundwater. Sudbury residents all rely on individual wells and septic. The town does not provide water or sewer services.
New visions vs. cherished ways
Proponents of development in Sudbury as well as its opponents have publicly professed their love for the town they live in. They have, however, openly disagreed about its future.
While proponents of development see value in growth and change, and even argue that they’re trying to reestablish amenities that the town has lost, other residents see value in maintaining the quiet, rural character of the town. The volume of change and development seemingly desired by proponents of development appears to critics to threaten the very thing for which they choose to make their homes in Sudbury.
While some of the proponents of development have moved to Sudbury relatively recently, others have deep roots in town, countering claims by critics that the changes are desired only by newcomers.
“I am of this place. I am for this place,” said Selectboard member Shannon Bryant, who is married to Planning Commission member Shelly Pottorf and who grew up in Brandon, spending summers in her grandparents’ camp on Lake Hortonia that she now shares with her wife.
“As a kid I remember all the interactions at the store,” said Planning Commission member Larry Rowe, whose grandparents ran Selleck’s store, which now sits derelict on Route 73. “We don’t have that anymore. That’s why I got involved. I miss that. We’re trying to bring back that sense of community.”
Yet, many Sudbury residents want to preserve the foremost quality that makes Sudbury special in their eyes: the ability to live a quiet life. The thought of a more developed village center unsettles what they cherish most.
As put by longtime resident David Crane, “I live in Sudbury for what it doesn’t have, not for what it does have.”
