[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6173232,"mediaKeyId","5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660","parentId",5383455,"title","City council adopted city plan; regional approval and future land use map still pending","audioSeconds",91,"startMs",429000,"endMs",520000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660&start=429&end=520","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660/thumbnail_429000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6173232/Montpelier-City/Washington-County/Vermont/City-council-adopted-city-plan-regional-approval-and-future-land-use-map-still-pending","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173232-3b0ce882b9787adb20f47e49a141d103/orig.mp4?Expires=1775285128&Signature=bRr1vrZe3GZD6991dJ-1EFiq-jmW9nDOlnAal5YHxIz9u1QwclPMmZv8cVvJPha5JtAwBWDdKkr22trcSbcH8P3zJ5jIM41J0M8ZrrLJ9-3Le4HLKhbq15MLVqWkAPYM~H4dIS55wPiCAkvnIyFIYpPKGpgipACk30K3p~oFcaDtvLVDhS53~~4KN6zQVwvpkCyyyBqYSFHhm~W3Y~-yfaES7saQ16SbSrzGlkvNF9cLZ3ThVt-D8Bmdjxb-gvFg8OtuChGZ4dnfkVFA2~rqpGsnmf~cg61xSgeLrvsv4fFcAuq3pDky-E063tJW-QhXgm2YsPYr38c~0iRQRuwqAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montpelier City, VT","date","2025-07-15T10:24:30Z","article","The city plan was adopted by city council, but regional approval is still pending, Planning Commission members heard. Mike, a planning staff member, told commissioners: “the city plan was adopted by city council on Wednesday, so that step is complete. The regional approval is, still pending.”

Why it matters: the Regional Planning Commission intends to meet with municipal councils and planning commissions to explain how a new future land use map is being drafted and what input municipalities can provide. That map is separate from the locally adopted city plan but could affect future development mapping and coordination across jurisdictions.

At the meeting, Mike said the RPC is trying to schedule a joint session so the RPC can explain “what is it? Kind of the basics. What is it? Why is it important?” and to give municipalities a chance to comment. He said municipalities often handle this with a joint meeting of city council and planning commission, and that the RPC ‘‘wants to meet with city council and planning commission to discuss the future land use map.’’

Commissioners discussed how to handle attendance and open‑meeting requirements if several commissioners attend a council session. Mike clarified that if fewer than a quorum of planning commissioners attend a council meeting and do not deliberate together, ‘‘it wouldn't have any bearings’’ on planning commission action, but the session should be warned if four or more commissioners will be present to avoid open‑meeting-law problems.

Mike told the commission the RPC meeting should likely take place in early August and that he was working with city council to target a date; commissioners noted Aug. 13 as a possible date to hear the RPC presentation. He also said the RPC’s outreach is happening for multiple municipalities and ‘‘this happens to coincide’’ with the local plan adoption, meaning the RPC’s future land use map work is a separate, broader process.

Next steps: staff will share the RPC meeting date when confirmed and will arrange a debrief for commissioners who cannot attend, so the commission can provide additional input if desired.

(Ending) The commission agreed to track the RPC meeting and consider whether to host the RPC presentation during a council meeting or to schedule a separate planning commission item when the RPC date is set.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Montpelier Planning Commission - Jul 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The city plan was adopted by city council, but regional approval is still pending, Planning Commission members heard.","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},6173219,"Three commissioners’ terms expire in September; commission to consider next chair",101,2834000,2935000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660&start=2834&end=2935","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660/thumbnail_2834000.jpg","/articles/6173219/Montpelier-City/Washington-County/Vermont/Three-commissioners-terms-expire-in-September-commission-to-consider-next-chair","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173219-e4b07ef5b1b0b7b407b9fa0a0a68e15a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775285128&Signature=nY6-rOwYdUVSm55MKXffRfIbilQ5S9WWTrzX5s-CZTRtE1Wslate31go5tOGTTBvI5JKfnJbxXmLAPN4qlUadMLheNHkOcEqOkFqQk41dRwaQH96ELnj0lwCTerHTHI6vMbx6~IbTAZ5urF4VN5zeGxgzzFKUUdiTCX-czrAjwL3BH0KXHC6DTuYKl4eMcBtfW2yhftNe56o~i5rQDwqtfj~yQzD17BiXsVV6q7JeNKGYncVoIzL6StomoF0F3gVmEzrCJ~nWCtStk08yo5vS6NuoxG9ne2wGv92bb9pzxTro0Q3K5w4-pa1mxyIbC3yXYUAPueIXT1zHR27ZJZIFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A planning commissioner announced that three planning commission terms expire in September and said they do not plan to reapply. The speaker reported: “Arianne and Aaron and myself, we all have terms that expire, in September.”

Why it matters: commissioners whose terms expire can affect quorum and the commission’s leadership. The speaker asked the group to consider who might serve as the next chair and suggested adding that item to a future agenda.

Commission response: commissioners agreed to ‘‘think about it’’ and to place the chair succession discussion on the next meeting agenda if people feel ready to nominate or vote. No formal nominations or votes occurred at the meeting.

(Ending) Staff will include a discussion item on chair succession at the next meeting for commissioners to consider and, if desired, make a change then.","Commissioners were reminded that three seats — including Aaron and Arianne and the speaker who reported it — expire in September. The outgoing commissioner said they will not reapply; the commission agreed to discuss chair succession at the next meeting.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6173224,"Planning Commission to tackle zoning updates chapter‑by‑chapter, starting with Part 1 at next meeting",514,2011000,2525000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660&start=2011&end=2525","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660/thumbnail_2011000.jpg","/articles/6173224/Montpelier-City/Washington-County/Vermont/Planning-Commission-to-tackle-zoning-updates-chapterbychapter-starting-with-Part-1-at-next-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173224-b22d05500d8f4dd818c4d40aedd29e91/orig.mp4?Expires=1775285128&Signature=grr36tLpPvNb4Xf7OWf9BT~xLU5yYf14v8GcJmbuyz9MC7iTdZTmFQgl0Qqsyvwv51VJwZj6wPESAjAmClYVpRi-LTCYqTley4oqSnaeGyUu2Fv~PHbBTMBbkJqgE2WZyPfUGtq6FCw6sNDaXGxuQSna1v0wjaXLw6OYwXHDn2A2fCIylgtJAtmcbbNsDokONlNMWxmUas23pZAq5kI6dPePc--dcaFpCC7cF3BoqSAPKnoHCJaP3BgIyqdy6wGWlNcwfS~HQG3~iRziABlMOh0JnWvZoYGaw66597DURgMdCJ2aGXH8IV3m-1FgovhDpvseLia5G0yzKihZvM7jwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission agreed to begin a structured review of the zoning regulations using a chapter‑by‑chapter (or part‑by‑part) approach and to start with Part 1 at the next regular meeting. Mike, the planning staff member, proposed breaking the zoning document into manageable pieces so commissioners and the public could learn the structure and provide informed feedback.

Staff outlined a possible cadence: one meeting could focus on zoning and the other on the city plan; alternatively, the commission could dedicate one meeting to a chapter or a part and the second meeting to follow‑up and public input. Mike said going chapter by chapter would help ‘‘take the mystery and fog out of zoning’’ and allow staff to explain what each chapter contains and why.

Commissioners supported using the previously compiled matrix of public comments as a running reference. Maria, a planning commissioner, said: “I agree. I like this idea of going chapter by chapter… I would like to reference back to matrix of comments that we received… make sure that as we review a chapter that we're also considering those comments.” Aaron Kosicki (commissioner) also identified himself and participated in the discussion about process and scheduling.

Staff proposed involving design‑review staff (Meredith) for the design review section and said some large parts would be split across meetings. The commission agreed to ‘‘front load’’ zoning work and to invite stakeholders and committees back into the process as chapters are reviewed.

Next steps: staff will present Part 1 at the commission’s next meeting (noted in the meeting as July 28) and will maintain a master list of proposed amendments derived from the comment matrix and commissioner submissions. Commissioners were told they can send items to staff to add to the master list.

(Ending) The commission set a process and a start date for zoning updates and asked staff to prepare a Part 1 presentation for the next meeting.","Commissioners agreed to use a chapter/part approach to review zoning regulations, using the public comment matrix and two meetings per month. Staff proposed starting with Part 1 at the next scheduled meeting (July 28) and to involve stakeholders and committees as chapters are discussed.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6173228,"Resident warns city plan is not ADA accessible and raises capital budget and growth center concerns",406,1288000,1694000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660&start=1288&end=1694","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5383455-64eac22feb7165eeb32da0faf2c16660/thumbnail_1288000.jpg","/articles/6173228/Montpelier-City/Washington-County/Vermont/Resident-warns-city-plan-is-not-ADA-accessible-and-raises-capital-budget-and-growth-center-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173228-461f28d282be5b782d6bd8f804faf9a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775285128&Signature=FsMCysnYjIH37JN4TJSyed9tO0A7etmHjoLBzv3MXmsl1F1kWSq1CiczhV2j768J2ROdY-fu46uXsb2x5ZNlVR770fjkpBBUG0cfNqWg8qJDf3Db6rwXEb-VCPLjSczzGegRts~P7K3ovdJpRVXBVFUMT7z36VarLEvNpnGPdYZXweZClG-hufdBtmMXZVnEeLB3a-pVx9yhcobpOxR3i4h3pgRN6QbU4rlOaYcuPc2x90EHsNhyE5KaR8KitmtORcdRAn36subfnUTkolUGWZgxarh-OA6q3SfymnJyuRWH5AVPNti7QMLvZC8pSLFkW0jZWqZcdaoqF5z~P6OR~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Steve Whitaker, a member of the public, told the Planning Commission that the StoryMap (ArcGIS/Esri) and the PDF version of the city plan do not meet accessibility standards and that procedural errors in how the plan was delivered may affect eligibility for outside funding. Whitaker said: “neither the storyboard, ArcGIS version of the plan, nor the PDF version of the plan are ADA compatible,” and added the StoryMap «fails to meet ADA requirements under code of federal regulation 35 1 60, And the PDF fails to meet basic accessibility standards under WCAG 2.1, double a.»

Wh itaker also raised a related procedural issue about the capital budget and the growth center application. He said no legal provision allows the city council to “take a task, a duty of the planning commission, and hand it to another committee,” and warned that the capital improvement program (CIP) is a prerequisite for a growth center application. Whitaker described the CIP requirement as a five‑year capital budget and program that “has to include every capital investment, water, sewer, sidewalks, bus stops, community centers, with a price in priority order with the source of funds 5 years out.”

How staff responded: Mike, the planning staff member, said he had not seen Whitaker’s email and offered to have legal counsel review any accessibility or procedural questions. He told commissioners that “any quest anything that comes up that's legal in this nature is 1 that we would be forwarding to an attorney to make that evaluation.” He also agreed to circulate Whitaker’s email to the planning commission.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioners were asked to review Whitaker’s points. Staff agreed to forward the email to counsel for legal review and to distribute the complaint and findings to the commission. No formal action or vote on the complaint was taken at the meeting.

(Ending) The commission requested staff follow up with legal review of the ADA and procedural concerns and to keep the commission informed of any implications for the growth center application.","Steve Whitaker told the Planning Commission the city plan’s online StoryMap and PDF are not ADA compatible and argued procedural defects in plan distribution could jeopardize a future growth center application that requires an adopted five‑year capital budget and program.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City council adopted city plan; regional approval and future land use map still pending

Three commissioners’ terms expire in September; commission to consider next chair

Planning Commission to tackle zoning updates chapter‑by‑chapter, starting with Part 1 at next meeting

Resident warns city plan is not ADA accessible and raises capital budget and growth center concerns