Richmond planning commission weighs risk-based stormwater review to ease small-project burdens

The Richmond Planning Commission on July 1 reviewed a draft risk-assessment tool designed to distinguish lower-risk post-construction stormwater projects from higher-risk ones and reduce regulatory burdens on small developments. The commission asked staff to distribute the matrix for broader review and to test it with hypothetical projects before finalizing thresholds.

Commissioners said the matrix scores projects on factors including disturbance area, slope bands, proximity to wetlands and receiving features, soil type, and seasonal timing. Chelsea Brooks, who helped develop the draft, said the goal was clarity: "We want something in place where the applicants and the staff can all know, non-subjectively, what the actual factors at play are," and to give applicants a path to administrative review when appropriate.

Why it matters: Richmond's draft seeks to capture projects below state stormwater triggers that nonetheless can harm neighbors and infrastructure as more intense rain events become common. Commissioners discussed different numeric triggers: the draft cites a 20,000-square-foot disturbance threshold that would push a project to an engineered plan requirement (about 0.47 acres), while the state threshold mentioned in the meeting was an acre. Trevor Brooks noted town staff can verify technical details using state mapping: "On the ANR atlas you can pull the soil types for the whole town easily with the overlays," he said.

Key details: The draft separates construction-phase erosion/sediment controls (proposed to stay in administrative review for many projects) from post-construction, long-term stormwater management (where impervious-surface tiers determine higher scrutiny). Commissioners discussed risk-reduction credits—preserving vegetation, keeping runoff on-site, removing pre-existing impervious area—that could lower a project's risk score and reduce permitting requirements. The group also debated who should prepare "professionally designed" plans: the draft allows flexibility, and members discussed credentialing options (civil engineer, licensed landscape architect, or other credentials).

Concerns and trade-offs: Staff cautioned against excessive complexity. Keith, the town's planning/zoning staff, urged simplicity to keep rules explainable and administrable: "I use the KISS principle. I do like to keep it simple specifically for the applicant," he said, warning that overly detailed rules could be burdensome. Commissioners also cited past DRB practice of frequent waivers and said clearer local thresholds could reduce inconsistent outcomes.

Next steps: Commissioners agreed to circulate the revised documents in the next meeting packet, solicit feedback from the DRB and the Selectboard, and test the matrix on hypothetical projects to ensure outcomes align with town priorities. The commission scheduled an in-person meeting for July 15 with a hybrid option and asked Chelsea and Trevor to include the updated materials in the packet.

The commission did not take a formal vote on the draft at the July 1 meeting; the discussion ended with direction to refine the matrix and return it for further review.