Board hears informal Frog Hollow subdivision question: sewer line and frontage rules limit options

At an informal other‑business discussion, a Montpelier resident/developer described plans for subdividing a long L‑shaped parcel off Frog Hollow that includes a small buildable area away from Town Hill Road. The Development Review Board discussed a municipal sewer line that crosses the parcel, the city's minimum frontage requirement, and whether a shared driveway or flag‑lot configuration could allow development.

The applicant said the parcel is just shy of an acre and that a municipal sewer line runs through the corner of the lot and continues along the loop of Grandview/Town Hill, which would constrain where new buildings and driveways could be placed. “So it kind of goes across. So the lot is… just shy of an acre,” the applicant said while showing parcel maps.

The applicant asked whether the DRB could allow a shared‑driveway frontage solution or effectively waive the frontage requirement so a new lot could obtain access to Town Hill via a driveway agreement. “Would you be allowed to grant a variance on the frontage piece?” the applicant asked.

Planning staff said she would need to check the regulations before committing. “I certainly wouldn't wanna speak to that without checking my regulations,” Meredith Crandall said. Board and staff discussed relevant definitions: under city rules a driveway is a vehicle way that serves up to two parcels, while the city’s frontage requirement generally requires a minimum of 20 feet of frontage on a public street for new parcels.

Board members noted possible alternatives and tradeoffs. Creating a narrow 20‑foot “flag” access strip to Town Hill is technically possible but would produce an awkward lot configuration. A shared driveway that grants access to Town Hill would keep parcel lines simpler but would only meet the city definition if it served two or fewer parcels; that constraint affects how many parcels or units could rely on a single driveway. As staff summarized, “driveways are defined as those vehicle ways that are for accessing 2 or fewer parcels.”

The board also discussed development options that might avoid subdivision entirely. Staff noted that two triplexes on a single parcel could provide up to six dwelling units without requiring the same subdivision layout, and that City Res. 9000 includes building footprint and height limitations (2,500 square feet minimum footprint per building reference and a 35‑foot height limit) that any multi‑unit building would still need to meet.

Board members urged the applicant to consult Public Works about utility connections and to consider whether proposed unit mixes (duplex, triplex, quadplex) are better accomplished through a single parcel site plan than by subdividing. The discussion was informal; no variance request was filed and no vote was taken.