[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6259449,"mediaKeyId","3141197-0d13128c94f7c85b000a7c63f32d86a6","parentId",3141197,"title","Planning commission discusses alleged open-meeting violation; counsel advised denial by default","audioSeconds",710,"startMs",1346000,"endMs",2056000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3141197-0d13128c94f7c85b000a7c63f32d86a6&start=1346&end=2056","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3141197-0d13128c94f7c85b000a7c63f32d86a6/thumbnail_1346000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6259449/Montpelier-City/Washington-County/Vermont/Planning-commission-discusses-alleged-open-meeting-violation-counsel-advised-denial-by-default","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6259449-991740d1110f51a176e528ab1b68bb0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176448&Signature=B2uwqyiVHoQLdzq78uMOAgGxWxvJG1192zjwbqQwA9hJ-XCyPce7LBGtnfQLrJfid8META4QCZw-OESqkl1mOAmplRiPFAr1VOuH-QeLq3lgzutobdzqQ4lpDeAfxDlrvLuclwX6UW3y9SUj0PNOl05OdQSuh-3w4jPIIP2HuJCOygZHnWJkmt4dzSq-wpOVOPuAEf9opY~kKBOf3SvUEPNSX2PaljbJRtA7sIAMqM6hIdLW~-Kx8hqBpuAU7pF86ml~bqhFgmhqHXGiTfZpu0q4jxXTMzgT0iryEx68EUSOnjRLWU3YSmf2nVJY0Fj~PUXV23UZ2fc8Jo68wQF6BA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montpelier City, VT","date","2025-04-29T00:51:54.733Z","article","MONTPELIER — The Montpelier City Planning Commission discussed a public complaint that a member of the public was denied access to a previous meeting after doors were locked.

Steve Whitaker, a resident who said he tried to rejoin the meeting, said he was “denied access to hear what was going on” after leaving and attempting to return. Whitaker said staff did not encourage meeting within the 10‑day cure period and criticized the commission’s response.

Planning staff said they had consulted the city attorney. “So the fact that it wasn’t responded to within 10 days, by definition, by default, makes it a denied allegation,” planning staff member Mike said, summarizing counsel’s advice. He and other commissioners said the relevant legal sections give the commission the option to deny a violation when the procedural steps were not followed.

Commissioners also discussed operational changes to prevent reoccurrence. Mike said door timers have been reset so doors will remain unlocked until the scheduled end time of meetings. “The cure for that violation going forward … is to ensure that the doors stay unlocked throughout the duration of the meeting,” he said.

Commissioners and Whitaker disagreed about whether the denial properly addressed the complainant’s access concerns. Whitaker said he had attempted to rejoin and that the denial did not acknowledge the denial of access; other commissioners said they were “personally sorry” he could not re-enter but that they were following counsel’s interpretation of the statute.

The commission did not take further remedial action at the meeting. Mike said counsel advised there was nothing additional required at that time. Commissioners agreed to handle any further questions about the matter with the city attorney as needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Montpelier Planning Commission - Apr 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A resident said they were locked out of a recent meeting and alleged an open-meeting violation. Planning staff consulted the city attorney and the commission was advised that because the complainant did not pursue the 10‑day meeting option, the allegation is denied by default; staff said door timers have been adjusted.","taxTitle","Montpelier City, Washington County, Vermont","taxId",68799,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6259454,"Planning commission hears calls to simplify zoning to speed housing development",5036,2074000,7110000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3141197-0d13128c94f7c85b000a7c63f32d86a6&start=2074&end=7110","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3141197-0d13128c94f7c85b000a7c63f32d86a6/thumbnail_2074000.jpg","/articles/6259454/Montpelier-City/Washington-County/Vermont/Planning-commission-hears-calls-to-simplify-zoning-to-speed-housing-development","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6259454-b6e701c0dcd2feaa96cec3780e4b1ca4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176448&Signature=J3gnKMROkC7tQhAvW5dP5zMPN3kUKLm5XIE8t9mYpEmuPMawpPQ1LG~G5gOKmA-JGj6bGpybn4MCv1q5EkdVHvUElxkvrQhZH2PRNIScmgOmj4Pq~nUwCa~wgLCXY6VBpmffWQRwRgnBt5GHWqcuOKGw~h6YqLAfKPATDNNch7YMXKJtj~MXkgRz2oUyuAzX95exO9SNrbnekP6kwmVs~w18GPUUBwh37XlKETIC2YfrbZo0mtQLXXVDvXK4axdj2MmRg29kPJKzfb0yFzRvYIA83TbNd3g3qdU0hKsEEpHlwdt9IesRiLBQjd5NN3bFd3p2DzBf7XCD4bvEbNf0gQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","MONTPELIER — Members of the Montpelier City Planning Commission heard more than an hour of public comment urging changes to the city’s zoning and permitting rules intended to speed housing development and reduce upfront costs.

Commenters said several existing rules raise project costs and add weeks or months to review timelines. “Cost is always the first thing that comes up,” said Sarah Hoffmeyer, a landscape designer who said she works regularly with developers and owns Ecolibrium. “Each barrier that we have that is expensive adds to that. And the second thing is time.”

Those concerns drove several specific recommendations that repeatedly surfaced during the public input session: raise the numerical threshold that triggers a major site-plan review, narrow or rewrite the design-review overlay and neighborhood-character provisions, and reduce professional-certification requirements for small projects so routine changes can be approved administratively.

“Right now, if you have more than two units, you’re required to do a major site plan,” said Meredith (last name not specified), the zoning administrator, explaining current rules. “To have it trigger major site plan, it needs to be more than two units and involve construction of a new principal building.” She added that converting an existing building often avoids major site-plan review if the project does not add more than 2,000 square feet or more than 10 parking spaces.

Several speakers urged changing that trigger. “You could change that to more than six,” said James Moore, a local developer, arguing that raising the threshold would keep many small infill projects from entering the more onerous major-review process. Moore said the change would remove months of delay and thousands of dollars in financing costs for small developers.

Other suggestions included removing the Vermont certified-horticulturist requirement for major site-plan submissions and allowing professionals with advanced training — landscape architects or land-use planners — to meet the standard. “I’d love to see someone with an advanced degree … landscape architecture, landscape design, or land-use planning” qualify for the review role, Hoffmeyer said.

Speakers also criticized the design-review overlay and neighborhood-character language in the zoning regulations as overly prescriptive and as sending the message “do not build here.” “Neighborhood-character descriptions are very important and are what the character of the neighborhood is judged against,” Moore said, but added the descriptions “reinforce that what we want is more of exactly what is there,” which he called a barrier to change.

Commission staff and members signaled openness to short-term, targeted fixes. Planning staff member Mike (last name not specified) said the commission will assemble an expedited list of edits that might be handled by interim amendment and a longer-term package for a full rewrite. “If we’re gonna try to make this quick, I’ll have to go through and make some administrative decisions of where I think the most appropriate places are for these emergency changes,” Mike said.

The commission also heard practical examples of cost and time impacts. Hoffmeyer said typical landscape-design reviews can run about five to 20 hours, with an average fee near $1,000 for a straightforward planting and site-consideration plan; a lighting engineer for a small multiunit project could cost several thousand dollars. Moore said the multiple professional reports and meetings required for a major site-plan review — architect, engineer, lighting specialist, landscape professional — multiply project expense and delay.

Several participants warned that the city plan’s schedule affects the ability to change zoning. Steve Whitaker, a commenter, urged caution around a growth-center application and noted the city plan’s timing could lock the current zoning rules if the plan is not adopted before the plan’s statutory expiration. Staff confirmed some interim remedies are possible and noted interim amendments may remain in effect for up to two years.

Commissioners closed the public-input session by setting a next step. Staff will compile comments and propose a short list of possible expedited zoning edits; the commission set a working meeting for Tuesday, May 13, to review that matrix and discuss next steps. Mike said staff will present an overview of the zoning rules and a recommended list of emergency versus longer-term changes at that meeting.

What happens next: The commission plans to present an expedited edits spreadsheet at its May 13 meeting and then will consider sending emergency amendments to the city council or pursuing a longer rewrite. Staff cautioned that council agendas and procedural deadlines will affect timing for any interim or permanent amendments.","At a planning commission meeting, designers, developers and residents urged the Montpelier City Planning Commission to simplify zoning and lower thresholds that trigger major site-plan review, arguing current rules increase cost and delay housing projects.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission discusses alleged open-meeting violation; counsel advised denial by default

Planning commission hears calls to simplify zoning to speed housing development