Montpelier council pauses on approving Country Club Road ‘Concept A,’ directs staff to refine plan and continue grant work

Montpelier planning staff told the City Council on March 12 that the city’s Country Club Road parcel could support a large housing-plus-recreation project but that the council must give clearer direction before staff asks funders to commit money. Planning Director Mike Miller summarized the project’s history, recent technical work and the grants and financing paths the city is pursuing, then asked the council to approve the project’s “actionable plan” and the preferred site layout labeled Concept A so staff could pursue infrastructure grants and next-step design work.

The council did not approve that motion. After lengthy public and council debate about building scale, the location of recreation fields, flood resilience and tax increment financing (TIF) risks, a motion to adopt the actionable plan was made and then withdrawn so staff can work with councilors to produce a revised concept plan and timeline. Councilors asked staff to return with a clearer, shorter process to refine the concept and to make explicit decision points the council can vote on.

Why it matters: the Country Club Road parcel is the largest city-owned developable property inside Montpelier and staff and consultants say it could deliver large new housing inventory (hundreds of units in full buildouts described in planning documents), new public recreation space and a path to pay for roads and utilities through a TIF financing model and state/federal grants. Staff said the parcel’s conceptual plan, environmental constraints (floodplain and “priming” soils), utility extensions and permit pathway must be better documented before private developers will commit.

What staff presented and the technical steps. Miller said the city bought the property in July 2022 and completed a consultant-led concept planning process in June 2023, shortly before the July flood that displaced planning staff and refocused city work. Consulting teams White & Burke and BHB prepared the concept and initial engineering work; BHB’s current contract is funding road and utility designs up to roughly 90% so the project will be “shovel ready” for grant competitions. Miller outlined three parallel tracks staff must pursue: (1) growth-center designation (a prerequisite for TIF), (2) a TIF application to capture future tax increment to repay infrastructure bonds, and (3) design work and permitting (including Act 250/Act 250-exemption strategies and wetlands/stream setbacks). He said the council previously authorized $150,000 for due diligence; about $110,000 has been spent on BHB.

Concept A summary and developer input. The planning study’s Concept A clusters larger multifamily buildings (presented as 3–5 stories, with example upper-range totals cited in the consultant work) on the lower, flatter portion of the property near Route 2 and places smaller townhouse-style units on the higher, sloping parcel. Miller and Josh Jerome (community and economic development specialist) said that housing partners and private developers they have informally contacted see potential but have raised questions about scale, affordable-housing partners’ capacity and site-specific constraints (soils and stream setbacks). Staff emphasized the plan is illustrative, not a final site plan, and any procurement would be phased: utilities and roads first, then a developer selection process (an RFP) for building-phase proposals.

Financing and grants. Staff listed several funding avenues they are pursuing: a RAISE/BUILD-type federal grant (a slow process, staff said), a Northern Borders-type grant, disaster-recovery funding tied to the flood response, and a TIF structure to finance infrastructure once growth-center designation and preliminary project economics are in place. Miller said the plan’s back-of-envelope modeling suggested development could generate sufficient new tax base to cover infrastructure in the concept scenarios staff have modeled, but he also warned that affordable-housing providers pay less property tax and that any TIF model must be stress-tested for that reality. Miller also said a federal planning grant could help define a road alignment across the adjoining pasture and that staff will continue pursuing multiple grants; he cautioned that grant programs and federal priorities can change.

Councillors’ concerns and decision to revisit. Councilors raised repeated concerns: whether Concept A put taller buildings on the flattest public-facing fields (many preferred locating recreation fields in the most accessible, flat areas), whether the planning process had adequate iterations and alternatives, the cost and risks of TIF for the city, and whether the city should wait for private-sector approaches. Several council members asked for a clearer, narrower series of decisions (formal “off ramps” and points at which the council would explicitly approve or pause). After discussion the council declined to adopt Concept A as the final, binding plan; instead the council asked staff to (a) contact the consultants about producing a refined concept that addresses those concerns, (b) return with a specific, limited timeline for the next review, and (c) continue grant applications and engineering design work so momentum is not lost.

Public comment and outside stakeholders. Dozens of public speakers and representatives of local partners addressed the council. Supporters included residents urging more housing and employers who said lack of housing is a recruitment barrier. Representatives of nonprofit housing groups, Down Street Housing, EverNorth and other potential partners had preliminary conversations with staff; the recreation hub and Turtle Island (early childhood program) both expressed interest in program space on the site but noted timing and space needs would need to be resolved. Several residents emphasized preserving recreation fields and asked the council to avoid locating high-density housing on the main flat fields.

What happens next. Staff will contact White & Burke and BHB to scope a short, focused set of concept alternatives that respond to council concerns (site layout alternatives that prioritize recreation placement, mixed housing types and stronger flood-resilience language). The council asked for a quick turnaround: staff said they would report options and a recommended process for a final decision in the next few meetings, and staff will continue to apply for grants and advance water/sewer/pump-station design work that is already underway.

Ending note. Councilors and staff acknowledged the tensions between acting fast to pursue grant cycles and the need for more community design work. The council left open the ability to approve a concept after a short additional review cycle, rather than rejecting the project outright.