Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Height And Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate height, flood resilience and waiver process after contested curb‑cut hearing
Summary
Commissioners and staff discussed whether to increase downtown height limits or create more flexible waiver routes to support flood-resilient development; staff cited a recent Development Review Board curb‑cut waiver that required a unanimous vote and was denied as an example of process friction.
Montpelier planning commissioners spent part of the meeting debating building heights, flood resilience and how developers should obtain exceptions when projects need relief from dimensional standards.
Staff and commissioners said the downtown currently has a 60-foot height limit and noted that flood risk and the need to elevate ground floors for resiliency could justify additional height or streamlined waiver paths. Staff described one administrative option: codify modest additional height or allow a larger administrative waiver while reserving more substantial increases for a discretionary DRB hearing.
Staff recounted a recent DRB hearing on Town Hill where a request for a curb-cut waiver (the code requires a minimum spacing of 45 feet between curb cuts) became a lengthy, hour-plus hearing with a four-member quorum. Because the four-member quorum required unanimity, the waiver was denied. Staff and commissioners used that example to argue that repeated DRB waiver hearings can delay otherwise routine improvements and suggested writing clearer administrative paths in the code where possible.
Technical constraints and building-code notes: staff noted construction economics and building codes influence feasible height choices — for example, developers often use a 1+5 building approach (concrete/steel ground story with up to five wood-frame stories above) because it is cost-effective; taller buildings require different structural systems and higher construction costs. Commissioners discussed modest increases (for example raising a district limit from 60 to 72 feet) or allowing larger waivers for low-lying riverfront parcels so developers can place parking or flood-tolerant uses on ground floors.
Why it matters: commissioners said increasing administrative approval where appropriate could accelerate infill housing while retaining public review for larger or more visible deviations from the code.
Next steps: staff proposed to identify where administrative approvals can be expanded, consider modest height adjustments for high‑risk flood areas, and bring draft language back to commissioners for review.
