Richmond housing committee backs recommending Tier 1B overlay and outlines zoning incentives to support infill

The Richmond Housing Committee on Monday discussed a package of proposals aimed at encouraging long'term infill housing in the village core and agreed to draft two letters to the Select Board: one suggesting targeted future land use map changes for a handful of parcels and another recommending the town seek the state'level Tier 1B partial exemption that can ease Act 250 review for projects between 10 and 50 units.

The recommendation to pursue Tier 1B grew from committee members' analysis of redevelopment constraints and a belief that, while large 50'unit projects are unlikely in the short term, an overlay would signal the town's long'range interest in promoting infill. Andrew, who led the mapping review, told the committee he views Tier 1B primarily as a strategic, long'term tool: "I would," he said when asked if the committee should opt in, indicating support for recommending the exemption to the Select Board.

Why it matters: the Tier 1B partial exemption can remove a project from Act 250 review for developments between 10 and 50 units in eligible overlay areas, potentially speeding municipal-level permitting and lowering a regulatory hurdle for infill redevelopment. Committee members emphasized that applying the overlay selectively to downtown and village center parcels would limit unintended change in outlying rural areas.

What the committee reviewed: Andrew presented three case studies'the Far Farm parcel, Saddler Meadow and a roughly 360-acre parcel near Governor Pek'and walked the group through the CCRPC future land use map. Members focused on practical constraints that determine developability, primarily proximity to municipal water and sewer stubs and site soils. The committee noted that having water or sewer at or across a street often makes a parcel practically developable under current state rules; members referenced state practice under Act 181 as relevant to whether a parcel can be considered served.

Planning commission position: Virginia, who summarized the Planning Commission's view, said the planning commissioners see Tier 1B as largely moot in the near term because they do not expect major 50'unit projects to materialize within the statute's timeframes and because overlay boundaries still need to be defined. "They think it's moot because nothing is going to happen in eight years," she said, urging the committee to present its rationale clearly if it asks the Select Board to opt in.

Zoning and incentives: the committee also reviewed updates to the strategic housing plan. Proposals under consideration include a townwide density bonus to encourage permanently or long'term affordable units, a narrow height incentive (one additional story for qualifying projects, using the state'level Act 47 precedent), and efforts to streamline development review so smaller multiunit projects are less dependent on conditional-use permits.

Members debated mandatory inclusionary zoning versus a carrot'based approach. Several participants warned that small, one'off projects (two to a few units) may not financially support firm affordable-unit requirements and suggested starting with incentives and a density bonus, plus a housing trust fund that could accept fees in lieu of units to support nonprofit developers.

Action items and next steps: the committee asked Andrew to draft two letters for review by committee members'one describing recommended map changes for some parcels and another recommending the Select Board authorize Richmond to apply for Tier 1B. Members also agreed to solicit feedback on the strategic housing plan from local housing organizations (Miranda, Cathedral Square, Ever North) and to continue refining zoning language before presenting recommendations to the Planning Commission and Select Board. The committee scheduled its next meeting for May 28 at 5:30 p.m.

What remains unresolved: the Planning Commission has not finalized its position and may not concur on Tier 1B; the committee discussed coordinating with the Planning Commission so the Select Board receives clear, contrasted recommendations. The precise overlay boundaries and whether any near'term projects would qualify under the 10'50'unit band were left open for later clarification.

The committee concluded its business and adjourned after agreeing to circulate drafts and collect external feedback prior to the next meeting.