Richmond planners debate whether village commercial zone should allow residential PUDs under new state housing laws

The Richmond Planning Commission on July 16 began reconciling local PUD (planned-unit development) rules with Vermont’s Acts 47 and 181, focusing on a conflict that could allow fully residential PUDs in the Village Commercial District while a separate provision appears to require at least 50% of building floor area to be commercial.

Chair Virginia opened the discussion, saying the commission had found an inconsistency in section 5.12 of the PUD code and that “you don’t know which one to go with” administratively. The conflict arises because an earlier clause allows residential PUDs in several districts, while a later clause in the Village Commercial standards requires 50% commercial floor area.

The practical stakes emerged when commissioners discussed three small commercial lots on Railroad Street newly owned by Roger Brown and his brother. Virginia said the new owners want options: “He could not rule out a scenario where on those back lots…a residential PUD, for instance, was established.” Allison, a resident who commented during the meeting, responded, “I don’t think I would tell him that he can’t do that,” reflecting public sentiment that owners should have flexibility at parcel edges.

Commissioner Mark pressed caution about allowing fully residential PUDs in core commercial areas. “I would be opposed to allowing full residential PUDs in designated commercial areas,” he said, while Commissioners Ian and others suggested permitting residential PUDs only where parcels sit at district edges or by making such conversions a conditional process subject to review.

Staff and commissioners proposed two paths to resolve the contradiction: (1) remove the allowance for residential PUDs from the Village Commercial wording; or (2) reorganize the PUD structure into three explicitly defined procedures — residential PUD, commercial PUD, and mixed-use PUD — then indicate in each district which subclass is allowed and what level of review is required. Keith, the zoning administrator, said the administrative clarity of separate definitions would be easier to implement.

The commission noted the changes must also account for state statutory triggers. Virginia warned that if the town allows full-time residential uses in a water-and-sewer district, Acts 47 and 181 require the town to allow duplexes and 3–4 unit buildings wherever residential uses are allowed, and to set a minimum lot size of 0.2 acres. The commission said those statutory consequences complicate decisions about whether to loosen or tighten use permissions in the village.

The Planning Commission did not adopt any code changes at the meeting but directed staff to draft possible language: either an edit that eliminates the internal contradiction or a rewrite that creates three PUD subclasses and assigns permitted subclasses to each district. The commission agreed to return to the issue for detailed drafting and a district-by-district review.

The meeting adjourned after routine business; commissioners set a follow-up schedule and flagged the proposed edits for future packet materials and a public hearing process.