DRB approves 3‑lot subdivision at 9 Heaton Street with easement and recording conditions

The Montpelier Development Review Board voted June 2 to approve a three‑lot subdivision at 9 Heaton Street, finding the proposed lots meet district standards for lot area, setbacks and developability. The board approved the subdivision with conditions that the access, water and sewer easements be recorded to the benefiting private parcels (not the City), that the corrected final survey plat be recorded within the decision period, and that any expansion of the approved shared‑parking easement beyond two standard spaces would require further board review.

The board’s approval follows a formal hearing after a prior sketch‑plan review. Applicants told the board the roughly 2.3‑acre parcel will be divided to create two small residential lots of about 8,200 square feet (about 0.19 acres) each on the northern portion of the site; the existing Washington County mental‑health office building and large parking areas remain on the remainder parcel. Each new lot will be served by municipal water and sewer, with a shared 16‑foot‑wide accessway from Heaton Street and recorded easements for ingress and egress and parking.

Chris Austin, the project engineer for the applicant, described the layout and utility routing; he said, in response to questions, that the applicant had reached agreement with Public Works on a sewer route that does not require neighboring easements. Austin also said the design “meets the minimum district setbacks to the front, side, and rear” and that the parcel is flat and “there are no steep slopes. There are no, wildlife habitats known, wetlands, or anything like that.”

Steven (representing Downstreet) gave a development timetable that neighbors had asked about, saying the team had aimed ‘‘to have it done by the end of the year’’ and that they were “hoping at this point to be able to do site work this year and hopefully build the home next year and be complete by next summer.” The board and applicants also discussed utilities: Meredith Crandall, planning staff, summarized recent Department of Public Works guidance that the city will not take ownership of private service lines located on private property; instead, the city will accept ownership of mains and any new service lines that are located in the public right‑of‑way. Crandall said the final mylar will be revised to reflect that the sewer service line on private land will remain private and any easement language will specify that the city will only own mains in the street.

Neighbors raised concerns about potential tree removal, screening and parking light spillover. Several speakers asked whether the project would be subject to design‑review or more detailed site‑plan review; staff explained that because the conceptual development shown so far depicts no more than two dwelling units on each new parcel, subsequent permits would be administratively issued unless a proposed development later seeks three or more dwelling units on a single parcel, which would trigger DRB site‑plan review. The board discussed landscaping and screening standards that apply under the site‑plan chapter and noted those standards are typically applied when a project reaches site‑plan review. Board members encouraged the applicants and neighbors to work on a voluntary fence and landscaping solution and noted that the subdivision approval includes recorded easements and a shared‑parking agreement to memorialize rights and responsibilities.

The board’s motion approved the subdivision and the shared parking agreement with three conditions read into the record: (1) access and water/sewer easements to be incorporated into the final plat and conveyed to the relevant parcel/building owners (not the city), (2) corrected final survey plat to be recorded within the required period (as specified in the staff report and regulations), and (3) expansion of the parking easement beyond two standard parking spaces shall require further board approval. The board recorded a yes majority vote and the chair indicated the written decision and findings would be posted after the meeting; staff said the zoning permit may be issued once the written decision is signed and any appeal periods run.