Richmond planning commission advances draft stormwater, erosion controls while weighing 600‑sq‑ft trigger and state‑permit coordination

The Richmond Planning Commission on May 6 reviewed draft zoning rules aimed at limiting erosion and reducing sedimentation from new development, with commissioners debating where to set local thresholds and how strictly to require state permits.

The commission introduced proposed Section 6.17, which the meeting’s presenter described as intended “to control erosion and the sediment that washes out with runoff and washes into our waterways,” and framed the regulation as both protective and educational: officials want applicants to plan for long‑term stormwater management and to consider low‑impact development techniques early in project design.

Commissioners discussed the proposal’s main triggers. The draft would require a stormwater and erosion plan for projects that (1) disturb or create 600 square feet or more of land or impervious surface, or (2) occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater. Commissioners gave examples — a 20‑by‑30 garage (600 sq ft) or driveway work — and debated whether a single fixed square‑foot threshold makes sense on very small or very large lots. “That number of the slope number we’ll talk about in detail too,” the presenter told the commission; several members said the town should start with a relatively low threshold and revise it after public feedback.

The commission also discussed coordination with state permitting. Staff and commissioners agreed that larger projects (roughly one acre of disturbance or about a half‑acre of new impervious surface) typically require state permits, but noted legal and technical nuance in how the state treats expansions and preexisting impervious area. Keith (staff) warned that the state’s interpretation can change and said the drafting should avoid hard‑coding state trigger numbers that may be revised at the state level. The group agreed to put the obligation on applicants to determine whether state permits are required and to document that determination rather than to try to replicate volatile state thresholds in the town’s ordinance.

To help applicants, the commission agreed to require (or strongly encourage, depending on project scale) use of the Agency of Natural Resources’ online tools. The presenter proposed language advising applicants to “utilize the Agency of Natural Resources tools such as the permit navigator and the ANR atlas” and to seek state permitting if the navigator or atlas indicate it may be necessary; planning staff said they will help applicants use those resources.

Commissioners also debated Dig Safe (utility‑locate) language. Several members said Dig Safe marks are valuable but noted marks are typically valid for about 30 days, so requiring a Dig Safe clearance prior to permit issuance could be administratively awkward; the commission favored moving Dig Safe guidance into the guidelines rather than making it an absolute requirement on every permit.

Other drafting details discussed included: where to require professionally engineered plans (steep slopes, complex sites), statutory language required by 24 V.S.A. §4449 to notify applicants that state permits may be required, and clarifying application and site‑plan content (parcel boundaries, easements, utility rights‑of‑way). Commissioners also noted a related UVM student design study that may supply ideas such as retention basins and landscape solutions for municipal infrastructure.

The planning commission did not adopt final language and will continue the discussion at a meeting scheduled in two weeks; the meeting closed by unanimous consent on a motion to adjourn.

— Quotes and attributions in this story come from the meeting transcript. The planning commission will take additional public input and DRB review before any rule change is finalized.