Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits And Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond board denies appeal challenging certificates of occupancy for 1330 Jericho Road
Summary
The Development Review Board voted to deny an appeal that challenged two certificates of occupancy for 1330 Jericho Road, concluding the COs were properly issued; appellants had argued timing, limits‑of‑disturbance and missing certifications (RBES, public works compliance), and the board sent the matter into deliberative session before voting to deny the appeal.
The Richmond Development Review Board on May 20 denied an appeal of two certificates of occupancy issued for 1330 Jericho Road, concluding the town did not err in closing out the relevant permits.
Appellant representative Chelsea Brooks argued the driveway certificate of occupancy issued May 15 was premature because the appeal period for the amended driveway approval had not yet expired and because the CO record lacked required evidence that driveway, drainage and related work complied with the approved plans, the town’s public works specifications and other permit conditions. Brooks also raised concerns that excavation, riprap and grading extended into a 5‑foot no‑build zone and that the RBES (residential building energy standard) documentation supporting the dwelling CO was incomplete or improperly executed.
Neighbors and affected property owners described downstream erosion and sediment impacts and said the as‑built driveway appeared wider than the 12–24 foot width authorized on the permit. Appellants asked the board to vacate the certificates of occupancy (COs 2026‑005 and 2026‑006) so the zoning administrator could re‑examine compliance and obtain any missing engineer certifications.
Town staff and the applicant disputed those claims at the hearing. Town staff explained the legal distinction between the issuance of a permit and the date a permit takes effect, and noted a stay in environmental court related to the house permit does not automatically prevent issuing other administrative permits. The town’s highway department provided a preliminary letter indicating no present undue impact to public culverts on Jericho Road and did not require a post‑construction inspection; the zoning administrator said driveways and the major permit footprint had been built in substantial accordance with the approved plans and that some field adjustments are common in construction.
Board members also discussed whether the town’s public works specifications and state B71 standards apply to private driveways; parties disagreed over interpretations and whether required engineer letters documenting compliance were present in the file. Appellants pointed out missing RBES elements including a blower door test result and installation values below standard; one board member raised that the submitted RBES form did not meet minimum points and may be incomplete.
After closing testimony the board moved into deliberative session. Returning to public session, the board voted to deny the appeal. The board did not provide an immediate detailed written ruling at the meeting; the record shows the board considered procedural timing, evidence of compliance with permit conditions and the limited scope of appeals from certificates of occupancy in making its decision.
