Committee: Water, sewer rules and costs are chief barriers to Richmond housing growth

Richmond’s Housing Committee spent the bulk of its Nov. 14 meeting examining how the town’s water and sewer district rules and infrastructure costs limit housing development and what the committee could recommend to change that.

Andrew, a committee presenter, told members the district appears to have substantial unused allocation and that the sewage treatment facility is operating well below its rated capacity — he summarized usage as roughly 30–40% and said the district is under 60% overall. He cautioned, however, that district bylaws and expansion practices, not purely treatment capacity, are the primary barrier to connecting new neighborhoods.

According to Andrew, expansion proposals first face a vote of current district users; if existing users oppose an extension, the proposal typically fails. If it passes that initial vote, a second joint vote with new users follows. He said the effect is to place the capital burden on the area seeking extension, which can make hookup costs prohibitive. He gave a rough, participant-sourced illustration that infrastructure and related road work can amount to the equivalent of many tens of thousands of dollars per new household — figures discussed in the meeting included $150,000 to $250,000 per home over time depending on financing assumptions.

Committee members described other constraints that raise the cost of extending lines, including local topography (wetlands, river plains, steep terrain) and parcels that are impractical to serve. Andrew also highlighted an aging stock of on-site septic systems — many property systems are decades old — and noted localized seasonal water shortages in parts of town, arguing that clusters of failed systems or groundwater shortages can strengthen applications for federal funding to extend municipal sewer or water.

Several members asked why the 1992 allocation ordinance — which the committee discussed as the rule that puts cost responsibility on future users — remains in effect and whether the town could support expansions through bonds, reserves or other revenue measures. Committee members suggested approaches including bonus-density hookup fees, targeted developer contributions, and forming packaged proposals where a housing nonprofit or developer ties a concrete affordable-housing plan to the requested infrastructure investment to persuade voters.

Members also identified specific geographic targets for future work, notably the Gateway corridor and parcels near Jericho Road and the mobile home park. The group discussed a private school line with a suspected but unproven leak that has kept the town, the school district and adjacent property owners in a stalemate because no party has funded conclusive testing.

Outcome: The committee asked Andrew to flesh out the draft strategy language on “Water and Sewer regulations/policy revisions” into an outline or recommendation that lists tangible next steps (bylaw review, financing options, and packaged development scenarios) the committee can send to the selectboard and the planning commission. The committee also agreed to gather existing housing data and to address town-plan language for housing in the coming months.

The committee set its next meeting for Dec. 12 at 5:30 p.m.