Richmond board denies neighborhood appeal of 1330 Jericho Road house permit

The Richmond Development Review Board on appeal upheld the zoning administrator’s approval of permit 2024-67 for a single-family home at 1330 Jericho Road, denying an appeal from neighbors Chelsea and Trevor Brooks.

The appeal centered on whether the home-site approval complied with Richmond’s zoning standards for slope, wetland protections and the town’s 5-foot no-build zone. Chelsea Brooks, an appellant, told the board she used the ANR online maps and other publicly available resources to calculate slopes and said the submitted plans and the site’s as-built condition show areas that exceed developable slopes: “the building site itself where the building is that has been determined to be over 35%,” she said, adding concerns about possible wetland impacts and a utility easement not shown on the home-site plan.

The zoning administrator, Tyler, explained that two separate permits are relevant: 2024-02 for the driveway and 2024-67 for the house site. He told the board he had not issued a certificate of occupancy for either permit and that, as a practical matter, he would not issue a CO for the house until the driveway’s as-built condition matched the driveway permit: “I have not granted a CO for any of them,” he said. Tyler also said he relied on a licensed engineer’s on-site elevations rather than the ANR web tools for final determinations.

Brian Curryer, an engineer with Burke Associates speaking for the landowner (J. McCormic), said the ground topo survey prepared for the wastewater application measured the two closest elevation points across the house site at about 19.5%, which—he said—supports the applicant’s contention that the immediate house footprint is below the 20% threshold that would trigger additional development constraints: “the two closest points … were measured at 19.5%.” Curryer also reported that a delineation contractor found a very small wetland feature that the state and federal reviewers did not consider jurisdictional.

Appellants stressed that an EPSC (erosion and sedimentation control) plan was submitted with the home-site permit and that limits of disturbance on that plan appear to encroach on the five-foot no-build zone; they argued the EPSC content and a mismatch between driveway plans and actual construction made the house permit approval premature. The zoning administrator said the EPSC was considered for erosion-control purposes, that the driveway permit stands as a separate approval, and that enforcement and CO issuance would require as-built verification. Neighbors also raised observed erosion and siltation during heavy rain events, a concern the board acknowledged would be reviewed in inspections.

After closing the hearing and moving to deliberative session, the board voted to deny the appeal, recording a unanimous vote among the four members participating in the final decision. The board’s action leaves the zoning administrator’s approval in place but also leaves enforcement mechanisms available if as-built work does not conform to the permits and CO conditions.

The board did not specify a detailed timetable for enforcement actions in its decision; it noted the zoning administrator will rely on required as-built documentation and CO inspections before any occupancy is allowed.