Carla Occaso
By Carla Occaso
A city employee, two citizens, and a city councilor had rough words for one another July 9, but in the end, the city plan passed in a 5-to-1 vote.
The Montpelier City Council held its final public hearing to discuss the plan, which has been in the works since 2017, but brewing tensions boiled over before the final vote. First, Peter Kelman, a citizen who lives on Mountain View Street, spoke as he has done during multiple meetings on this topic. “I have spent more time on this plan than any of you,” he said to the councilors. He went on to accuse Planning Director Mike Miller of “blowing off” his suggestions for the city plan, which he claims is embarrassing because of the plan’s multiple inconsistencies and errors. Kelman suggested calling in a copy editor and a proofreader to fix it. He also suggested dating the maps.
Next, Stephen Whitaker, a citizen and longtime city council critic, accused Miller of using the plan in a “cynical attempt” to gain growth center status. Being designated a growth center allows a municipality to “align public infrastructure” with private building investments, according to the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development. Whitaker further attacked the city plan as defective while disparaging the public hearing process, pointing to a three-minute time limit on public input.
Miller took his turn to “push back” on criticisms, which he characterized as obstructionism by a small group of people he said were causing delays in getting the plan approved. He took aim at Kelman’s “endless complaints,” which he said could never be satisfied. Miller also accused Whitaker of trying to stop the process, embarrass the city, and embarrass Miller personally. Miller said Whitaker speaks definitively, and thereby confuses people “who don’t know better.” Miller also criticized the input of resident Thomas Weiss, an engineer, which Miller said contributed to causing delays.
Councilor Jim Sheridan then spoke to defend Kelman and Weiss. He rebuked Miller for saying what he considered insulting things about the two men, saying, “You are an employee of the city. … You don’t go insulting the people who pay your salary.” Sheridan also took issue with what he called Miller mischaracterizing Sheridan’s own support of the city plan to the Central Vermont Planning Commission.
But others spoke of the plan in a positive light, including Christian Meyer, the executive director of the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, who did not appear to take sides but said the commission’s subcommittee had recommended it to the full board for conditional approval “based on the city adopting” it. And, responding to Mayor Jack McCullough’s question of whether the plan would be disqualified if it were presented in a digital version, Meyer said he was unaware of anything in statute that an online version of the plan would be disqualifying (one of the critiques of the plan was that it is primarily in digital form). Also, Timothy Sinnott, a member of the Montpelier Planning Commission, said Mike Miller is a “great teammate” and the “plan is good.”
Councilor Ben Doyle said he would support adopting the plan on the spot as did Councilor Cary Brown. Doyle said they could cooperatively work out any concerns as they go along. Councilor Sal Alfano worried aloud about offending the regional planning commission by adopting the plan without first incorporating the commission’s suggestions.
When it came time to vote, the city plan passed by 5 to 1, with Sheridan voting against it. He said afterward he would have supported it had Miller apologised before the vote.
The City Plan has 12 numbered chapters, which are linked to more detailed pages under the chapter headings. The chapters are Land Use, Housing, Utilities and Facilities, Economic Development, Resilience, Historic Resources, Energy, Arts and Culture, Transportation, Natural Resources, Public Safety and Community Justice, and Community Services.
A city plan is used to “guide development and serve as evidence in Act 250 and Section 248 hearings,” according to the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission. It is not required by state law, but only municipalities with plans approved by the regional planning commission and adopted by the city council are eligible for municipal planning grants. Also, state agencies proposing projects in a particular city or town must consider their adopted plan before proceeding. Montpelier city councilors have been holding hearings and discussions about the most current city plan since the beginning of the year.
Council Adopts Interim Zoning Changes
Miller presented some interim zoning changes to facilitate housing development, which he said surfaced during public hearings for the city plan. The following changes were suggested per the agenda cover sheet: to strike the minimum height requirement to facilitate childcare expansion, establish a minimum disturbance amount for slopes, limit major site plans to only those residential developments with greater than six units, to create a minor subdivision process for smaller projects, to eliminate sketch plan review for subdivisions, and to update definitions to replace those with statutory references.
Councilor Adrienne Gil asked what was the aim of the changes. Miller said to “streamline the appeal process for developers” and make Montpelier more developer friendly by reducing the amount of time it takes to get project approval. “If we have a goal of 75 units, this will help us get there,” Doyle said.
McCullough suggested delaying action on an additional suggestion made by Montpelier property owner Vincent Illuzzi to remove a prohibition against first floor residential units in the flood zone.
“I urge the Montpelier Planning Commission to include an amendment to the interim zoning regulations that explicitly allows first-floor residential housing units in both conforming and nonconforming structures, contingent upon strict adherence to and enforcement of all practical and economically viable flood resilience building standards,” Illuzzi wrote to the Montpelier Planning Commission in a letter dated June 23.
Miller said prohibiting first floor residential units protects people’s lives from flooding, and “we’d have to have a lot of conversations about putting people at risk” by allowing residential units to be built in areas that knowingly would be flooded.
The city council unanimously approved the interim zoning changes except for Illuzzi’s suggestion.
Resolution Honoring Fraser Amended
McCullough said he wanted to offer a resolution honoring recently outgoing City Manager Bill Fraser, who led the city for 30 years. Fraser’s contract was terminated in February. McCullough said it is very important to get it on the agenda, because it is “the right thing to do for the city to make a formal statement to honor Bill’s 30 years of service. It is a really big deal. Not that many people stay 30 years at a job these days.” Calling the way Fraser ended his career as contentious and controversial, McCullough said it is important to take action in a positive way and that is not acrimonious and moves forward.
The resolution states that Fraser dedicated “an extraordinary 30 years of service and commitment to the city of Montpelier,” and demonstrated dedication, efforts, and expertise that significantly contributed to “countless initiatives, projects, and the overall well-being and progress of the city of Montpelier,” and that the city council extends appreciation and gratitude for his efforts. Further, the resolution seeks to name the manager’s conference room in city hall the “Fraser Conference Room.”
Sheridan amended the resolution by taking out the part about the Fraser Conference Room and replacing it with having the mayor give Fraser a ceremonial key to the city and a plaque to honor his long service. Sheridan further said they should leave the rest of the resolution intact.
Doyle said the council should be magnanimous and show generosity of spirit and move on. He said he would vote against the amendment and would support naming the room after Fraser. Councilor Cary Brown said naming a room after Fraser was a great way to demonstrate a legacy and does not cost the city anything. Councilor Pelin Kohn said she supported the amendment because naming a place in the building should be given to someone who did a lot without expecting anything in return. But she did say she wanted to show appreciation to Fraser for his 30 years of service. Alfano said he supported the amendment. McCullough said a key to the city is not enough to express the appropriate amount of gratitude, but naming a room would be an appropriate memorial to Fraser’s contributions.
When it came time to vote, Sheridan’s amendment passed 4 to 2 with Doyle and Brown voting “no,” against the “yes” of Kohn, Alfano, Gil, and Sheridan. But all six members approved the overall resolution with Sheridan’s amendment.
