Richmond panel rewrites flood‑hazard rules to let playground and restroom be moved within Volunteers Green

At its Aug. 21 meeting the Town of Richmond Planning Commission reviewed a draft amendment to the Flood Hazard Overlay District intended to let the town relocate play equipment and the park restroom within Volunteers Green while limiting any increase to flood risk.

Gary, the commission presenter, said the draft treats the entire park as a "pre-existing non-conforming structure or use" and removes references that tied overlay nonconformities to the ordinance's general non-conforming rules (sections 4.7 and 4.8). "We have isolated the Flood Hazard Overlay District and its requirements about non-conforming uses and structures so that we could utilize that language to do what we needed to do to move the playground and the restroom," he said.

Why it matters: commissioners said the change would let the Design Review Board (DRB) consider requests to relocate existing park structures within the flood area without triggering wider revisions to the zoning ordinance or unintentionally altering rights of other property owners in the floodplain.

Commissioners discussed several specific edits. The draft consolidates definitions by combining 'non-conforming structure' and 'non-conforming use' into a single "non-conforming structure or use" definition and removes the separate "minor accessory structure" category. The commission would also remove the entry for "recreation areas without structures" from the use table because Volunteers Green includes built play equipment.

The draft clarifies that the DRB may approve replacement, restoration, reconstruction or relocation of an existing non‑conforming structure or use within the overlay "provided that the degree of nonconformity is not increased and there is no expansion or enlargement of the structure or use." Gary said the intent is to allow moving structures to a higher base elevation within the floodway when possible but not to permit enlargements that would raise flood hazard.

Several commissioners pressed for clearer distinctions between the floodway and the larger floodplain and asked whether the proposal could inadvertently remove a pathway (for example, enlargement via conditional use) that property owners historically relied on. Bob cautioned that taking "enlargement" out of the DRB's authority could limit options for owners in the floodplain; the group discussed whether variances or explicit floodway/floodplain language should remain to preserve landowner rights.

Commissioners also debated how small, "de minimis" items should be handled. Some favored explicit thresholds so the zoning administrator can treat picnic tables, posts or temporary fixtures administratively rather than requiring conditional-use review. Mark said, "I would interpret that striking that line ... as removing any regulatory oversight over recreation areas without structures, which I'm in favor of obviously," while others warned that removing oversight entirely could limit future, low-impact public uses.

Technical and cost questions arose about relocating the restroom: the draft's development standards include requirements that "substantial improvements" and additions meet structural and floodproofing standards (plans certified by a registered engineer or architect may be needed), meaning moving or altering the restroom could trigger design and utility work. Commissioners noted that lifting a restroom above base flood elevation could require ramps and additional fill and that such infrastructure work can be costly.

Next steps: the commission agreed to clean up ambiguous language (distinguishing floodway vs. floodplain, clarifying what counts as enlargement, and creating a workable threshold for minor items), consult the zoning administrator about interpretations, and return a revised draft at the next meeting in early September. No formal vote on the ordinance changes was taken; the commission directed staff to prepare a redraft for further review.

The Planning Commission adjourned after beginning the second agenda item on Jolina Court zoning.

Ending: The commission said it will consult with the zoning administrator and return with a clarified draft at its next meeting in early September.