Planning commission to rewrite Jolina Court zoning after select board hearing

The Town of Richmond Planning Commission on May 7 agreed to prepare a revised zoning proposal for the Jolina Court PUD after the select board declined to approve the commission's draft as written.

The commission's chair said the select board "rejected our documents as written," and asked the commission to carry out a stepwise revision. The first step, commissioners were told, is to alter the zoning so that all of Building One’s ground floor — except the roughly 900-square-foot unit that faces Bridge Street — could be used for residences rather than commercial uses. The commission plans to approve concept language and return a refined ordinance to the select board at the commission’s next meeting; the select board will take that up on June 2.

Commission members discussed timing and process. Several said they were willing to approve a conceptual change tonight but preferred to publish specific amendment language on the commission’s warning for a future meeting to ensure transparency and give affected owners time to respond. One commissioner noted the need to notify Robert Hines, owner of the Richmond Community Kitchen building, if the rule is written as a district-wide change rather than a parcel-specific amendment.

Traffic and land‑use constraints were central to the conversation. Commissioners described community suggestions to use parcels that are subject to FEMA buyouts to route new road access around the Jolina Court neighborhood. Members cautioned that FEMA buyout deeds and program rules may restrict impervious surfaces and that wetlands and mapped endangered‑species areas on the lower portion of the Buttermilk parcel could further limit road options. "Do we want to put more roads into the area that's going to be flooded?" one member asked, noting tradeoffs between access and environmental constraints.

The commission also discussed density and the residential density‑bonus program. The select board signaled it may ask the commission to consider raising base density toward the village downtown level — members cited a figure of about 24 units per developable acre as a point of reference — either with or without a density‑bonus structure. Commissioners repeatedly referred to the state affordable‑housing threshold that can change regulatory treatment: projects that meet a 20 percent affordable‑unit trigger (or reach a numeric minimum of five affordable units) may be treated as "affordable housing developments" under state rules, which can affect permit requirements.

If the select board approves the commission's amendment on June 2, the change would be subject to a 21‑day period before it takes effect. The chair said that, if the amendment becomes effective, Buttermilk would still need to seek Development Review Board approval for a master development plan change and determine whether an Act 250 permit amendment is required.

Commissioners requested staff to draft district‑level language that preserves a Bridge Street storefront requirement for the first roughly 900 square feet while allowing residential conversion to the rear of Building One, and to circulate the draft for the commission’s next meeting for a quick vote to forward to the select board. The commission also asked staff to report back on FEMA deed restrictions, the Act 250 permit language on wetlands and endangered species, and the practical limits (plumbing, cost) on converting ground‑floor space into multiple dwelling units.

No formal vote on the zoning text occurred at the May 7 meeting; the commission recorded only its plan to draft and refine language for the next meeting. The meeting ended with routine business and a unanimous consent adjournment.