Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Vrn topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond Planning Commission forwards village‑residential zoning changes to select board, seeks state clarity on density rules
Summary
The commission voted unanimously to send proposed village residential neighborhood (VRN) zoning revisions to the select board to align town rules with state law, while several commissioners and residents warned ambiguous Act 181 language could permit much higher densities on small lots and pledged to seek legislative clarification.
The Richmond Planning Commission voted Nov. 6 to forward draft revisions to the town’s Village Residential Neighborhood North and South zoning districts to the select board, complying with state statutory changes that took effect June 17, 2024. Commissioners said they would also pursue clarification from state officials about inconsistent statutory language that could be read as allowing larger multifamily buildings on very small lots.
The changes were prepared to align local regulations with Act 181 (the codified edits to prior housing statutes, including previous Act 47 provisions). The presenter explained that current statutory language requires municipalities to allow duplexes wherever single‑family dwellings are permitted and to treat three‑ and four‑unit multifamily buildings as permitted in water‑and‑sewer districts "on the same size lot as a single family dwelling." That phrasing, several attendees said, creates an interpretation problem when paired with the statute’s separate mention of a minimum of five units per acre.
"That's exactly why I'm here tonight," Christy Whitters, a Richmond resident, said. "The language is not consistent…allowing four units on a 0.2‑acre lot could change neighborhoods into investment properties and make housing unaffordable for middle‑income residents." Whitters urged the commission to raise the issue with the legislature rather than immediately codify an ambiguous local response.
Commissioners discussed practical limits—lot coverage, setbacks and parking requirements—that would make some high‑density configurations difficult to construct even if the statute permitted them. The planner noted, however, that "if somebody came with an application you'd have to go by these guidelines; you would have to go by the state law," meaning the zoning office must administer applications in line with the statute.
Mark moved to forward the revised VRN language to the select board and to amend the draft’s elder care language so it does not reference age but instead lists Assisted Living residences, hospice and nursing homes; the amendment was seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Commissioners said they will send the draft to the select board for public hearing and continue outreach to Representative Janna Brown and state agencies for clarification.
Commissioners split on immediate codification: some favored following the select board’s directive and letting any public hearing outcomes—and potential political pressure—drive changes; others preferred delaying local amendments until state intent is clarified. The commission agreed to pursue both tracks: forward the draft as directed while investigating legislative relief or clearer statutory text.
The select board will hold the public hearing process on the forwarded draft; the Planning Commission expects to bring additional findings and public comment to that hearing after further outreach.
