Montpelier council holds public hearing on web-based City Plan 2025 as housing targets and maps draw debate

Montpelier City Council opened a public hearing on May 21 to review the draft Montpelier City Plan 2025, a web‑based planning document the city says replaces the older “master plan” format and will guide city policy and implementation for the coming eight years.

Planning Director Mike Miller summarized the plan and its format, telling the council and the public that “this plan is different from previous plans in that it is a web based plan. There is not a paper plan officially,” and walked listeners through the site’s 12 chapters, interactive story maps and 20 implementation boards.

The hearing drew sustained public comment focused on housing goals, whether the plan favors rental housing, how the plan treats specific development parcels, and how the plan will be maintained and used.

Why it matters: The city plan provides the policy basis for future zoning amendments, grant applications, tax increment financing (TIF) projects and the growth center process. Changes to the plan can affect whether and how the city pursues infrastructure extensions, TIF funding and growth‑center designation. The plan also includes maps and “greenprint” designations that some landowners and residents said risk being misread as conservation requirements.

Supporters and critics

Anthony Irapino, appearing for landowner Alan Goldman, told the council that the draft’s attention to downtown development and zoning changes is positive but urged clearer treatment of specific parcels and private‑land protections. “The draft plan must take additional care not to foster the perception…that areas depicted on those maps are already conserved for public use,” Irapino said, arguing that the plan’s maps and certain regulatory provisions could be read as mandatory rather than voluntary for private landowners.

Sandra Bittstume, a resident of Loomis Street, asked the council to remove a clause she said pressures rental development: “Montpelier has a goal of creating 600 housing units over the next 8 years, most of which would be rental units,” she said, urging the council to truncate the sentence to avoid steering projects toward rentals without later evidence.

Other speakers raised different concerns. Thomas Weiss delivered a long list of what he called statutory omissions and argued the draft lacked required analyses for a city plan. Peter Kellman and Steve Whitaker criticized public engagement and urged a more inclusive, community‑driven process. Tim Sinnott, a recent Planning Commission member, urged adoption and highlighted the plan’s longer aspiration of 1,500 units over 20 years.

Staff response and process details

Mike Miller and other staff said the draft plan is intentionally web‑first to be more usable and to host interactive maps. Miller said the site uses Esri ArcGIS story maps and that the city retained SE Group to help build the product. He also said the plan is written to be legally conservative: the web content is “interactive at this point, but it's not dynamic” for the official adopted text, and that a downloadable PDF is available as an archival copy.

Miller described the development process: the planning commission worked with topic committees and commissions to build chapter content and the implementation boards. He said the plan will be effective for eight years but can be amended in the interim, and that amendments go back to the planning commission for review as required by statute. Miller also noted a parallel regional review: the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission (CBRPC) is reviewing the plan to determine whether it meets state statutory criteria.

Key factual points raised in public comment and staff answers

- Housing targets: The draft includes a stated target of “600 housing units over the next 8 years,” language that some residents criticized as prescriptive; other presenters pointed to a longer aspiration of 1,500 units over 20 years. Miller said the 600‑unit figure emerged from commission discussion and a regional housing needs assessment that has identified a broader regional need.

- Benchmarks: Planning commissioners debated whether to include quantitative benchmarks now or add them after the council adopts general goals. The commission deferred many numerical benchmarks to a later phase to avoid spending commission time on targets before the council endorsed the goals.

- Sabin’s/Savings Pasture and Country Club Road: Developer and landowner concerns were raised about imbalance in attention between Country Club Road (frequently cited in the draft) and Sabin’s/Savings Pasture (mentioned less often). Anthony Irapino for Alan Goldman urged the city to coordinate infrastructure extensions (sewer/water) and capital planning for Savings Pasture as it does for other sites.

- Maps and private property: Irapino urged clearer language that private‑land inclusion on the greenprint is not a requirement to conserve or dedicate land; he asked that mandatory (“shall”) language about trail connections be softened to encouragement where maintenance and cost responsibilities would be a burden on private developers.

- Legal/statutory completeness: Thomas Weiss urged returning the draft to the planning commission, saying the plan lacks required analysis (population, projected housing need by income groups, sequencing of infrastructure and growth center justification). Miller and others noted the CBRPC regional review and invited formal written comments for consideration.

Next steps and how to comment

Miller reminded the public that the city scheduled at least two required public hearings (May 21 and May 28) and that comments may be sent at any time while the public hearing period is open. He provided contact information for the Planning Department: (802) 223‑9506, planning@montpeliervt.org; and staff contacts eprimm@montpelier‑vt.org and mmiller@montpelier‑vt.org. He said if the council makes changes those changes will be returned to the planning commission for review and that the council will ultimately vote to adopt or deny the plan.

The council did not vote on the plan at the May 21 hearing and left the record open for comments and a subsequent hearing.

Ending

Councilors and members of the public indicated they expect more meetings and additional time to review and refine the draft. Several speakers urged improved public engagement — including printed, accessible materials and public forums — before the council considers final adoption.