This story by Phil Dodd first published At the Bridge on October 29th.

Has a new, expanded growth center been approved in Montpelier? Not for long. A city move to ease the path for more housing was sidetracked this week. On Oct. 28, the state’s Community Investment Board voted unanimously to rescind the board’s final conditional approval of Montpelier’s growth center expansion application. The city will need to submit a more complete application if it wants to continue pursuing the expansion; This is a very time-consuming process and the city may choose not to pursue it.

The Community Investment Board decision, which stemmed from a conflict between the state statute and the board’s internal policy that local resident Stephen Whitaker pointed out, as well as deficiencies in the application, poses a setback to efforts to develop housing on Montpelier’s Country Club Road site. It was purchased in 2022.

City Manager Bill Fraser said the board’s decision “is not what we expected, and given the importance the provincial government places on housing, it’s truly disappointing.” He said the cancellation “could cost us a full year before we start construction, but I don’t want to raise alarm before we decide what to do now.”

Local man instigates cancellation

Whitaker, who supports the idea of ​​housing on the land but opposes the city’s handling of the project, attended the investment board’s first hearing on the growth center application on Sept. 23 and later made a motion for that project. Reconsideration questioning whether the Montpelier application was consistent with the growth center charter.

In an Oct. 21 memo posted on the board’s website, Jacob Hemmerick, director of planning and policy for the Department of Housing and Community Affairs, wrote: “In anticipation of a possible reconsideration, staff provided additional review of the Growth Center Amendment application requirements. “This review identifies potential deficiencies in the application based on the required findings of the Five-Year Review Process Amendment Policy and additional potential deficiencies when applying the full scope of the statute.”

The memo said staff withdrew its recommendation to approve Montpelier’s application and instead recommended the board “rescind the growth center’s September 23, 2024 boundary change approval.”

Fraser told the board the city’s amendment application was designed to meet the state’s demands. “Massively changing the rule and canceling the border adjustment in the middle of the game was something he said he had never seen before” and I’ve been in government for a long time, he said.

Board Chairman Alex Farrell said that in light of the issues raised in the personnel review, rescinding the leave was “the most responsible way forward so that we can make sure that everyone is truly doing their due diligence” and that the decision is needed to maintain the “credibility” of the Board. He also said he and the board support the city’s vision for more housing.

Growth centers help with housing

Growth centers aim to stimulate development in already established areas. Development in growth centers is exempt from Act 250 review and receives priority consideration for government grants, among other things. The growth center designation also makes it easier to apply for state approval for a Tax Increment Financing district, which helps municipalities repay bonds used to build infrastructure for new projects.

Montpelier currently has a growth center that covers a significant portion of the city; this includes Sabin Meadow, which was added in 2019 and now appears to be a flawed state process. The city had recently filed to expand the growth center to include more properties on the city’s east side, including the Country Club Road property.

At the Oct. 15 board meeting, Hemmerick recommended Montpelier complete its ongoing master plan update before the growth center expansion approval is finalized. The board put the entire application on hold and requested further information. Staff reviewed the situation that led to the recommendation to revoke the initial amendment approval.

Whitaker had argued that Montpelier should have submitted a more fully developed application that included maps, infrastructure design and a capital budget, not the abbreviated application the state initially allowed in 2012 under a policy covering five-year growth center reviews.
Whitaker argued that this policy conflicts with the growth center charter, which says requests for amendments must be handled “in accordance with the procedures applicable in the case of the original application.” Staff on the board apparently agree with Whitaker that a longer application for changes is needed.

The statement also states that the application does not meet the reduced standards set out in the 2012 policy: “There is no evidence that a capital program and budget have been adopted that identify investments to implement ‘feasible (concept) plans’ for the Country Club area.” It later stated that Hemmerick had not submitted a capital plan. He said that its absence was something he only realized upon subsequent inspection.

It’s easier to apply for a Tax Increment Financing district, where the city wants to help pay for infrastructure bonds on Country Club Road, with a growth center designation, but it’s not required. Planning Director Mike Miller said implementing Tax Increment Financing without the growth center designation would be more work and more expensive.

Following the board’s decision to rescind, Fraser said city staff should “come together” and meet with the state to decide next steps. But Miller said filing a full application for a growth center boundary change would be a “huge boost” and might not be worth the effort, especially given that growth centers are slated to eventually disappear under Bill 181, a land use reform bill passed earlier this year. . Miller said the biggest advantage of expanding the growth center would be the ability to avoid Act 250 scrutiny. If the city wants to re-apply for an expanded growth center, the application must be submitted by August or September 2025, according to the notice.

If the city chooses not to re-apply for a growth center expansion, “the city may work with the regional planning commission to implement the municipal plan and development objectives within the modernized framework established by Act 181, which provides a pathway for growth center expansion,” the memorandum says. streamlined assignment benefits and Act 250 exemption. Fraser noted that some of the changes to Bill 181 would not come into force for several years.

Whitaker’s criticism and Fraser’s objection

Whitaker’s involvement in the investment board process is not the only time he criticized the city for its approach to the Country Club Road property. Most recently, at the Oct. 23 city council meeting, he said he thought the city was “looking for a developer” for the County Club Road project without proper testing, research and planning.

Whitaker, who frequently criticizes the city government, said that “necessary care was not taken in terms of engineering… What are the main agricultural lands? What are the geological issues? What are the water/stream/flood problems? “The cost of new roads or bridges?”

“If you complete due diligence and show the public what it would cost to get this ready for development, we may still have to sell it,” he said. “But my point is that we are off track on what we need to do to answer these questions.”

City Manager Bill Fraser responded to Whitaker’s comments at the meeting, saying his staff was negotiating final details regarding contracts to do design work on the property; These are contracts that may come before the council at the next meeting.

“So that’s how it works,” he said. “That’s designing the entire water, the sewer line, the storm, the road — all of that — to regulate that. So we know how much it costs. And it’s not just going to be estimated, it’s actually going to be designed.”

Fraser told The Bridge that design work would include roading, sewer and water lines running closer to the former Elks Lodge, but not to the rest of the property. A second design phase will look at the rest of the property after the city and developers reach agreement on what should be built and where, the official said. The city will seek grants that it hopes will pay for some or all of the phase one infrastructure work, the official said.

If a TIF district covering the property is created, the city would seek bond approval from voters for infrastructure work not paid for by grants in phases one and two, hoping to see enough development over time that the bond could be paid for through property taxes and water and sewer fees resulting from the new project.

The city’s “workable master plan” for the Country Club Road project includes a $3 plan plus $15.3 million for new roads, sidewalks, a second access road, water and sewer lines, a new traffic signal and pump station. Contains a preliminary estimate. million purchase price and $500,000 for “due diligence.”