Heather Koontz
Community feedback has been released for the Country Club Road (CCR) property development project, the next step in the path to a city council recommendation.
Following a March 12 community listening session, the CCR subcommittee solicited feedback via an anonymous survey with the goal of learning more about what Montpelier residents hope to see out of the development.
Each respondent answered a series of questions about the four development proposals, including what they find exciting about each proposal, what is concerning, and what questions they may have for the development team.
Nearly half of survey respondents reported a household size of two, with households of three and four making up the next largest percentages, respectively. Most responses (approximately 25%) came from the age bracket of 65 to 74, followed by 75+ and 45 to 54. No responses were recorded from residents under the age of 24.
Overall findings from the 83 survey responses are consolidated below, in alphabetical order by developer name.
Chinburg
Respondents reported positive sentiment surrounding the:
- Company’s experience with property management.
- Architectural renderings and footprint.
- Large number of units, with availability in the relatively near future.
- Proposed retail space.
Overall, the areas of concern were:
- The majority (80%) of units being rentals versus owned.
- The large parking area.
- An urban look not matching the character of central Vermont.
- Removal of the eastern recreation area and sledding hill.
Another common concern was the location of the developer, which is headquartered in New Hampshire.
“This proposal benefits Chinburg, but I don’t see a real benefit for the citizens of Montpelier here,” one commenter said. “They plan to develop rental units and a handful of owned homes, but rentals will go to them (not a local company) and local Vermonters will be stuck with rentals, not ownership.”
DEW
Respondents reported positive sentiment surrounding the:
- Company’s ties to Vermont.
- Preservation of the recreational field.
- Partnership with Downstreet for rental units.
“DEW’s partnership with Downstreet is a huge asset,” one commenter said. “Downstreet has a great proven track record of developing affordable housing in central Vermont.”
Overall, the areas of concern were the:
- Cookie-cutter design, which may not fit New England.
- Low (10) percentage of owner-occupied units.
- Large, blocky designs that suggest a suburban area.
Execusuite
Respondents reported positive sentiment surrounding the:
- High percentage of owned homes versus rental units.
- Farm, geothermal energy, and local amenities.
- Utilization of Huntington Homes and other local companies.
- Variety of housing types.
“This proposal is the most creative, thoughtful, and responsive to long-standing unmet desires of so many to enter the housing ownership market without incurring crushing debt,” one commenter said. “It just feels more like a Vermont solution!”
Overall, the areas of concern were the:
- Accuracy of the cost estimate and affordability.
- Lack of planned parking.
Additionally, many respondents expressed concern about the developer’s capabilities. “There’s little indication in their proposal that they have the experience needed to implement this exciting plan,” one commenter said.
Pennrose
Respondents reported positive sentiment surrounding the:
- Preservation of the recreation space.
- Company’s professional experience.
- National scale and reliability.
Overall, the areas of concern were the:
- Amount of rental units with management out-of-state.
- Lengthy construction period.
- Lack of understanding of Vermont aesthetics and values.
One commenter proposed the following question to the Pennrose developers: “What specific aspects of the Country Club Road site and Montpelier community have shaped this particular proposal and how would you ensure your approach is genuinely tailored to this community rather than replicating a standard template from your other projects?”
Next Steps
Regardless of which developer is ultimately chosen to execute the CCR development, the survey results surfaced many common themes. Among them is a concern over tax implications and the assumption that Montpelier would bear full responsibility for the project’s infrastructure up front.
Respondents also asked the development team to strike a balance between the need for both parking and recreational areas to promote outdoor activities. Another major area of consideration for residents is the protection of Turtle Island Children’s Center, which is currently located on the CCR site. Respondents asked the subcommittee to pay close attention to any proposed buildings that may affect the center’s nature-based programming.
Though the number of respondents represents a limited sample size of Montpelier residents, the general sentiment reflects an overwhelming preference for proposals with more owner-occupied units and less one-size-fits-all renderings. A vast majority of respondents also prioritize developers with ties to Vermont who can keep the project’s money and jobs local.
Overall, the results are clear: residents believe the CCR project is about more than building a neighborhood in Montpelier — it’s about building a neighborhood for Montpelier.
Visit Montpelier-vt.org for additional information.
