Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Velco topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses Velco easement terms; company to install fencing, signage and provide insurance binder
Summary
At a Richmond town committee meeting without a quorum, members reported Velco proposed a 25‑foot utility right‑of‑way, agreed to install two rows of split‑rail fencing and danger signs near a ravine, and said it would provide an insurance binder listing the town as additionally insured; no formal approvals were taken.
At a meeting of the committee overseeing the Town Forest (meeting lacked a quorum), members reported on a recent field meeting with Velco representatives in which the utility proposed a 25‑foot right‑of‑way centered on the existing utility road and outlined safety and legal protections for the town.
Committee members said Velco agreed to include deed language clarifying that parking near Route 2 would have precedence over routine contractor vehicular traffic in that narrow section, addressing committee concerns that a 25‑foot easement would encroach on critical parking. Members reported that Velco declined to remove several concrete waste blocks in a ravine but offered mitigation measures: two rows of split‑rail fencing (one immediately above the ravine and a second higher where it meets the Old VAST trail), posted danger signage, and an insurance binder naming the Town of Richmond as an additional insured for Town Forest matters related to usability.
The committee member reporting the site visit also relayed concerns about the scope of Velco’s historic easements. According to the account, deeds tied to the original Andrews family grant (dating to the 1920s) allow broad contractor access from public highways across the property; Velco representatives said contractors use ATVs and existing woods roads for access and were unwilling to categorically renounce such use. The committee noted that Velco said it would maintain roads when contractors used them, but said it would not accept regular road maintenance obligations.
A committee member alleged that Velco’s contractors had damaged a wetland on Maple last fall and that Velco had not apologized, instead consulting lawyers and not offering an immediate remedy. That allegation was described to the committee but was not resolved during the meeting.
Members reported discussing possible funding for trail and maintenance work—one member said Velco would not provide a direct grant to a partner group (VYCC) but signaled willingness to increase an existing payment by $2,500; the transcript did not specify the payment baseline or final total.
Because the meeting lacked a quorum, committee members did not vote on any motions. Members said they would draft a recommendation or motion for committee approval later so the matter could be forwarded to the Select Board for formal consideration.
The committee asked that the Velco negotiation, the proposed deed language protecting parking, and the company’s mitigation commitments be included in future minutes and brought back for a formal vote when a quorum is present.
