DRB declines to approve Town Hill curb cut amid neighbor flood, drainage and safety concerns

The Montpelier Development Review Board on Sept. 15 declined to approve a proposed curb cut and grading plan for 0 Town Hill Road after residents described recurrent erosion, flooding and safety problems on the hill and asked for more engineering detail. The board’s roll‑call vote on a motion to approve the application failed (three board members voted no), leaving the application unresolved and prompting board members to request additional information and closer coordination with the Department of Public Works.

James Moore, the applicant, told the board the current filing and review request concerns only a curb cut and associated grading and is not an approval for housing: “this permit tonight is not about any housing development. It’s just the curb cut focused on the curb cut,” he said. Moore said he had worked with the Department of Public Works on locating the driveway and that his engineering firm, Grenier Engineering, prepared site grading and stormwater information. Meredith Crandall, planning staff, explained that the application must go to the board because the proposed curb cut falls within the city’s 45‑foot driveway‑spacing threshold and thus cannot be approved administratively.

Several neighbors described repeated flooding on Town Hill Road and direct impacts to their properties. Joe Doer, a neighbor, said the slope “is so steep that it is like a river, really,” and said water running off the road and filled areas has repeatedly washed material into his and other properties. Robert Pesci, a homeowner at 169 Town Hill Road, said his basement flooded during a major storm and that a 10‑foot access strip recorded in his title documents is not shown on the applicant’s plan; staff cautioned that private boundary and access disputes are not within the board’s zoning authority. Jessica Ball, who lives uphill, raised sight‑line and child‑safety concerns about the driveway meeting the road near a large oak tree and asked that traffic visibility be considered.

Public works coordination and short‑term traffic and erosion controls were a recurring theme: Meredith Crandall told the board that DPW and the applicant exchanged emails and plan details and that an email from Zach Blodgett (DPW) proposed installing a drain structure uphill from the proposed driveway to intercept washouts. Moore read that email into the record and said he had agreed to the uphill drainage structure. Staff also noted the site contains an existing sewer main that crosses the parcel and that municipal water would need to be connected from the far side of Town Hill Road.

Board members expressed concern that the packet did not include enough site‑specific hydraulic or geotechnical detail for the board to be confident the proposed curb cut and grading would not worsen flooding to downhill properties. Alex (board member) said she was “very skeptical” and preferred the applicant provide additional hydraulic analysis and clearer engineering documentation. Brian Jones suggested the applicant and staff “connect the dots” by providing documentation showing how DPW and the applicant will construct temporary and permanent drainage measures that protect neighbors during and after installation.

Procedurally, a motion to approve the application as presented was made and seconded; the board conducted a roll‑call vote and the motion failed (the board did not reach the votes required for approval). The board discussed continuing the hearing to a later date to allow the applicant to provide additional engineering information and to allow DPW to respond with specifics about the proposed drain structure and any temporary protections while the road repaving and curb work proceeds. Several board members recommended that the applicant work with Grenier Engineering and DPW to return with a more detailed stormwater/hydrology plan showing how runoff will be captured, conveyed and maintained, and to specify erosion‑control and staging measures to protect neighbors during construction.

No final permit for the curb cut was issued at the meeting. The board and staff indicated next steps could include a continuance to a specific date to allow preparation of the requested details, or a future application with supplemental engineering documentation; if the applicant withdraws, the city’s DPW and the applicant would need to resolve interim public‑works issues related to the current pavement and curb configuration.