Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond advisory committee weighs fence options at Johnny Brook; seeks state sign-off
Summary
At its Jan. 13 meeting the Richmond Parking Advisory Committee reviewed vendors' proposals to add more substantial barriers at the Johnny Brook/Checker House parking area and agreed to contact the state (AOT/VTrans) before seeking town funding because the town would assume maintenance responsibility under the current agreement.
The Richmond Parking Advisory Committee on Jan. 13 discussed plans to replace the current stick‑and‑string perimeter at the Johnny Brook/Checker House parking area with a more durable barrier, but members said they will first seek state approval because the town's agreement appears to make the town responsible for maintenance.
Committee members reviewed photos and preliminary vendor descriptions, including a three‑rail post configuration and split‑rail options. Kevin, who provided one of the project quotes, said contractors may need to re‑quote for 2025 because wages and materials have changed and warned crews might encounter ledge where posts would be driven: "he would need to requote for 2025, I assume so wages increase and all that stuff," which the committee said could affect price and feasibility.
The committee noted design choices — post‑and‑rope, split rail, or a heavier three‑rail post — affect both appearance and future maintenance. One member read the relevant agreement aloud, saying the document requires the town to "assume full responsibility for any and all associated ... maintenance activities such as lawn mowing [and] trash collecting" and emphasized that the state may restrict permanent features (boulders and some in‑ground obstructions were singled out in the document).
Members repeatedly urged coordination with the state transportation agency (AOT/VTrans) and with the landowner (Richmond Land Trust) before soliciting formal contractor quotes. Chuck volunteered to contact the state district office to establish what types of barriers the agency will approve, and the committee agreed it was premature to request select board funding until the state and the select board sign off.
The committee also discussed maintenance implications — whether fencing can be mowed around, whether posts would need special anchoring on ledge, and whether a portable or removable approach (split rail or surface‑mounted posts) would be preferable for seasonal operations. Committee members asked that photos and clearer specifications be posted to the committee drive to help compare visual options.
Next steps: Chuck will contact the state to clarify the approval process and any limits on materials; the committee will pause on obtaining additional contractor quotes until the state and select board guidance is clear.
