Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves zoning amendment for Richmond Common site after affordable‑housing change
Summary
The Richmond Town Council approved a zoning text amendment at a public hearing to allow industrial uses on the 246‑acre Richmond Common site with design controls and a 700‑foot setback from Route 138; councilors struck a 10% deed‑restricted affordable‑housing requirement and reinserted a two‑bedroom maximum provision during amendment votes.
The Richmond Town Council voted to approve a zoning text amendment that applies only to the 246‑acre property commonly called the Richmond Common site, a change presented by William Buckley of GFI Partners.
Buckley, vice president of development at GFI Partners, told the council the amendment is intended to allow modern industrial uses on the portion of the site that lies more than 700 feet from Route 138 while preserving mixed‑use commercial and residential frontage along the highway and requiring a minimum of roughly 20% open space. "The proposed amendment before you maintains the ability of the Village Center District to allow for a mix of residential and commercial uses," Buckley said, also noting the amendment "adds industrial uses" and requires a planning‑board‑approved master plan before development.
Council discussion focused on the parcel breakdown outlined in the applicant's land‑use plan: approximately 137 acres shown as industrial beyond the 700‑foot setback, about 42 acres for mixed‑use frontage, and roughly 24 acres of conservation. Planning staff clarified that on‑site utilities are required to be underground unless the planning board grants a waiver for specific physical constraints.
During deliberations the council debated an affordability provision originally recommended by the planning board. Councilor Madnick led a motion to strike the requirement that 10% of residential development be deed‑restricted to low‑ and moderate‑income units, arguing that such a mandate could make projects harder to finance and slow housing construction. After debate the council voted to remove the 10% deed‑restriction while reinstating a provision that would limit residential dwelling units in the district to no more than two bedrooms, "if allowed by state law," language Town Solicitor advised was a way to preserve the option without contradicting state statute.
The final motion approved amendments to multiple sections and chapters of the zoning ordinance governing the PUDVC district, including changes to allowed uses, dimensional regulations, and development standards, with roll‑call votes recorded in favor by councilors present. The council and the developer said the amended zoning will still require a detailed master‑plan review by the planning board before any building permits are issued.
Council and staff emphasized that the measure does not itself authorize construction; rather it adjusts the zoning text to make certain industrial and mixed‑use configurations permissible on that specific parcel and to create a predictable entitlement pathway. Buckley said GFI has invested in the property and expects to work with the town on a multi‑phase development that would include recreational space along with commercial and industrial uses.
