Selectboard 6/2/25

Printable version

Selectboard Minutes 06-02-25 4 MB

Web version

Town of Richmond
Selectboard Meeting
Minutes of June 2, 2025

Members Present: Bard Hill, Jay Furr, David Sander, Caitlin Filkins, Adam Wood
 

Absent: None

Staff Present: Town ManagerJosh Arneson;Assistant to the Town ManagerDuncan Wardwell, Planning and Zoning Director Keith Oborne, Highway Department Foreman Pete Gosselin.

Others Present: MMCTV Erin Wagg, Planning Commission Chair Virginia Clarke, Bonnie Stoyer Richmond Equity Group, Ian Bender, Mary Houle, Patty Bruschett, Chris, Wright Preston, Ian Stokes, Chris Granda, John Rankin, Emily Wood, Logan Hegg, Robin Hegg, Jim Cochran, Brad Elliot, Dan Wolfson, Josi Kytle, Andrew Mannix, Maya Balassa from CCRPC, Chelsye Brooks.
 

MMCTV Video: Recorded by MMCTV by Erin Wagg

https://youtu.be/t-jdv2FkExs?si=B1VP-2XUX1ZmeiVV

Call to Order: 7:00 p.m.
 

Welcome by: Furr

Public Comment:

Houle wanted to thank the Highway Department for the swift and skillful removal of the problem trees and the green islands out behind the post office. She also said she attended the recent Tree Warden and Arbor Day conference where tree issues in several towns was discussed, such as shedding and falling limbs and she feels that it is important to stay ahead of this in Richmond.

Additions, Deletions or Modifications to Agenda

Timestamp: 0:03

Bender wants the second item on the Agenda stricken, which Furr refused.

Items for Presentation or Discussion with those present

Presentation by Mrs. Dumas’s fourth grade class of a Project Citizen research project regarding Dog Safey
Timestamp: 0:05

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3a_Dog_Safety_Dumas_24-25_w_Videos.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Dumas

Students from Dumas’ class presented about Dog safety in person and on zoom. They suggest creating a dog park and a trail that allows off-leash dogs in Richmond.

Discussion of proposed changes to the Black Lives Matter Sign and Flag resolution
Timestamp: 0:21

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3b1_Resolution_In_Support_Of_Black_Lives_Matter.final_Signed.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3b2_Amendment_to_Resolution_In_Support_Of_Black_Lives_Matter_6-18-21_signed.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Bender, Stoyer, Hill, Houle, Heston, Granda, Bruschett, Filkins, Sander

Furr said a motion to table is inappropriate. Bender stated that this item was not warned properly. The Black Lives Matter sign was voted on in June 2020 to keep up for three months and to be voted on every year. Stoyer feels their suggestions will only improve the design of the current sign and keep it the same size primarily to make the sign more inclusive. Hill doesn’t feel the change is very substantial. Bender does not think keeping the flag up year around was warned appropriately. Sander said he remembers that previously a sample sign was presented. Heston agreed with Bender and feels this needs to be warned more properly. Houle feels it should say All Lives Matter if it’s going to be posted all year. Granda was the original creator of the sign and he gave some context for that sign. Bruschett feels the question involves making the sign prettier and leaving the discussion regarding leaving it up year around to a different discussion. Filkins wants it in writing that it should be clearer if the time to post the sign is to be extended and what changes will be accepted moving forward; that this is to be voted on at a future meeting. Sander said it’s agreed that the new sign is approved.

Update from the Andrews Community Forest Committee on progress of updates to the Town Forest Management Plan
Timestamp: 1:07

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3c_Memo_From_ACFC_For_SB_June-2nd-2025_Meeting.pdf

People who participated in discussion: Furr, Stokes, Preston

Stokes and Preston trade off being Committee Chairs every 3 months. Stokes said he has submitted a progress report since Feb 2025, which summarizes their challenges. Preston said the recreation section is one of the most challenging sections, and so is the ecological section. They have been meeting twice a month and hope to have a complete plan ready by the end of August. A map of the current trails was shown. They intend to improve their signage this summer.

Continuation of Public Hearing to consider approving amendments to the following sections of the Richmond Zoning Regulations: Section 3.9, Jolina Court Zoning District; Section 5.12, Planned Unit Development; Section 6.15, Residential Density Bonus Program; and Section 6.16, Affordable Housing Development
Timestamp: 1:17

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3d1_SB_RZR_Amendents_Memo_with_motions__1_.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3d2_RZR_Section_5.12___revision_for_SB____5.13.25.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Oborne, Clarke, Hill, Wood, Filkins, Bruschett, Van Eeghen, Granda, Kytle, Mannix

Oborne mentioned that the previous public hearing would need to be closed before a motion could be made. There are four options to choose from: residential density will be increased to 24 with or without a bonus program or increasing density only to 20, and fourth option is to put 40 units in the second building in Butterfield. Hill mentioned that previously the Selectboard had been told the height could not be increased, which Oborne pointed out that zoning does not indicate that you must stay under a specific height. Wood thinks the distinction related to height is because there is no ladder truck at the Richmond Fire Dept, so this is a fire safety issue. But there are buildings that are higher than the proposed building already in Richmond. It’s unclear how DRB would be able to verify or guarantee that the building would be approved before Building 2 gets built.

Wood wants some of the units in these buildings to be rent controlled. Clarke feels this is beyond DRB’s scope. Hill added that the density bonus program is just an offer and the builders don’t have to utilize it. Filkins mentioned that the bonus program is a good idea because it allows a larger diversity of people to live there. Bruschett commented that the bonus program is more inclusionary and important to maintain, she doesn’t think there is housing for young people here. Van Eeghen said she thinks increasing base density is an innovative idea, and she feels that developers should have more options to make future development easier to accomplish. Clarke mentioned parking and warned this could become a problem if the developer builds the maximum number of units. She added that only one parking space is allowed per unit at present. Parking will be discussed again later. Hill said that the previous base density was 15, which will now be increased to 24 units per acre. Mannix thinks people will not rent an apartment with one parking space if they need more than one parking space. Kylte is one of the developers and she said they already have nearly twice the number of parking spaces. Additionally, they already have apartments that are available at a lower rent. She said cost of construction is higher now and she can’t commit to building a building with more apartments and then keep those rents low, it doesn’t work financially. Arneson stated that the issue of timing exists, because this may have to go back to the Planning Commission if this isn’t moved on today. Wood feels a motion needs to be made regarding the first floor and the density bonus program to make this move forward.

Filkins moved to instruct the Planning Commission to amend Section 3.9 to increase the base density to 24 units per developable acre with a total density of up to 30 units per developable acre if all bonuses are utilized. Residential density bonus program should be revised to exclude the parking bonus option 6.15. And to remove the first floor commercial requirement as presented from section 5.12 and to implement section 6.16 as per state statute. Wood seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Furr, Hill, Filkins, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Filkins moved to set a new public hearing per 24 VSA paragraph442(b) for August 4, 2025 for consideration to approve the revisions to paragraph 3.9 Jolina Court District, paragraph 5.12, Planned Unit Development paragraph 6.15, Residential Density Program and paragraph 6.16, Affordable Housing. Sander seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Furr, Hill, Filkins, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Consideration of opting in for the Tier 1B designation which would provide an exemption from Act 250 for housing projects in an area served by water and sewer that are 50 units or less and 10 acres or less until 2027
Timestamp: 2:27

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3e1_PC_-_Tier_1B__recommendation_to_SB__5.29.25.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3e2_Tier_1B-_Opt-In_Recommendation-_Richmond_Housing_Committee__1_.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Clarke, Balassa, Hill, Brooks, Mannix, Kytle, Oborne, Wood

Clarke explained that the developer meets certain parameters and avoids an Act 250 review. The Jolina Court developers are already under Act 250 permit, so this would mean that the Town would be responsible for everything that Act 250 now reviews of new projects. The housing committee wants to opt in. The Planning committee does not think the Town has enough staff to take on this task. Balassa mentioned that Tier 1B is only allowed in Towns that are planning for expansion and that are served by water and sewer as well as buildings under 10 units. Hill thinks there is a limited number of properties that could fit into the Water and Sewer district and house these many units. Brooks does not feel we have the staff to support this. Mannix feels Tier 1B would be beneficial to Richmond. Kytle said that choosing Tier 1B is important to give developers a chance to build affordable housing. Oborne said that wetlands would still be reviewed by the State, the Town would mostly have to absorb administrative time. Hill asked how much in time and money does an Act 250 review cost. Kytle said it takes 8 months and costs around $100,000. Wood wondered if the review could be contracted out. Furr wondered if this discussion should be revisited. Filkins thinks the Selectboard needs a bit more time. Balassa said this should be reviewed by the end of June.

Discussion of plan to cover Zoning Administrative Office duties until the position can be filled
Timestamp: 3:00

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Arneson, Wood, Filkins, Brooks

Arneson said that the Zoning Administrator position is open and CCRPC does not have anyone to lend us. Oborne does not get any compensation for the extra work he is doing. Oborne said he is spending 12-15 extra hours per week covering zoning tasks. Wood and Filkins supported this. Brooks wholeheartedly supported this.

Sander moved to provide a $500 per week stipend to Director of Planning and Zoning Keith Oborn through the end of August 2025 or until a temporary or full time Zoning Administrative Officer is hired, whichever comes first. Filkins seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Sander, Furr, Filkins, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Discussion of process to appoint the next Fire Chief including consideration of setting a term of service for the Chief and consideration of non-Richmond resident candidates
Timestamp:  3:09

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Wood, Filkins

Wood thinks hiring a Chief for one year at a time is a bit short and doesn’t show support or trust, he thinks a 3 or 4 year term is more reasonable. Filkins would like to hear from some Fire Dept members, they were away on a call. Wood and Filkins are volunteering to help with hiring a new Fire Chief. Furr thinks one year terms make sense in the short-term. Hill likes a 3-year term but wonders if a probationary period should be utilized. Everyone agrees that a 3-year term makes sense.

Discussion of traffic calming measures on Bridge St. from intersection with Rt. 2 to intersection with Huntington Rd.
Timestamp: 3:18

People who participated in the discussion: Furr, Gosselin, Filkins,

Gosselin said most of the painting has been completed. The pedestrian crossing signs are very faded and should be changed. He thinks the Cochran Road/Huntington Road intersection could use a speed bump at Long Trail Physical Therapy, and a flashing red light on Cochran Road to remind people to stop. He said a physical speed bump would slow things down. Filkins supports this idea and she wonders what the right of way is at that intersection. Gosselin said a speed bump and flashing light is a simple and cheap alternative to changing traffic patterns as suggested by the Cochran Road study. Furr concurred with the idea. Gosselin said they have used several tons of asphalt to repairs roads in Town already this year. Gosselin thinks the speed limit at Faye’s Corner should be set to 30-mph, it is 40-mph presently, he also suggested three speedbumps and two yellow flashing beacons to slow people down at that 90-degree turn. He thinks signs are faded and need to be updated. Gosselin reminded the board there is a traffic calming budget that would likely cover new LED flashing lights for certain intersections. Arneson said speed studies have to be done before speeds can be lowered, a speed study is being done on Hinesburg road.

Discussion of amending and extending the agreement with Hinesburg for police services and discussion of searching for an interim shared chief, possible executive session
Timestamp:  3:33

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Arneson

The committees are still meeting to talk about shared policing of the two Towns. Wood thinks a collective bargaining agreement is necessary to make an agreement with Hinesburg.

Wood moved to find that premature public knowledge about a police services agreement with Hinesburg would cause the Town or person to suffer a substantial disadvantage. Sander seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Sander, Furr, Filkins, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Wood moved that we enter into executive session to discuss a police services agreement with Hinesburg under the provisions of VSA 313(a)(1)(a) and VSA 313(a)(1)(f) of the Vermont Statutes. Filkins seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Sander, Furr, Filkins, Wood in favor. Motion approved.
 

Sander moved that we exit executive session. Filkins seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Sander, Furr, Filkins, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Consideration of setting a date for a public hearing to amend the Traffic Ordinance
Timestamp:  3:47

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/05/3j_Traffic_Ordinance_Effective_May_12__2023_DRAFT_UPDATE.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Furr

Wood moved to set a hearing date of July 7, 2025 at 7pm for proposed amendments to the Traffic Ordinance. Sander seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Furr, Sander, Filkins, Wood, Hill in favor. Motion approved.

Consideration of accepting the loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for Step 1 design of the flood mitigation project for the Wastewater Pump and Force Main at 100% subsidy
Timestamp:  3:48

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/04/3l_FY26_Paving_-_PO__5251_Pike_Industries.pdf

People who participated in discussion:  Furr,

Wood moved to accept the loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for Step 1 design of the flood mitigation project for the Wastewater Pump and Force Main at 100% subsidy. Sander seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Furr, Sander, Hill, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Approval of Minutes, Purchase Orders, Warrants
Timestamp: 3:49

Minutes:

Sander moved to approve the draft Selectboard Minutes of 05/19/25 as presented. Wood seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Sander, Filkins, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Motions for Purchase Orders:
 

Wood moved to approve Purchase Order number 5168 to the Town of Williston for an allocation to the Community Justice Center in the amount of $15,840.00. Sander seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Filkins, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Wood moved to approve purchase order 5258 to SD Ireland for $72,543 for concrete for sidewalks. Sander seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Sander, Furr, Filkins, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Wood moved to approve Purchase Order number 5290 to Mount Mansfield Unified Union School District for education taxes in the amount of $2,091,980.00. Sander seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Filkins, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Warrants:

Sander moved to approve the Warrants as presented. Wood seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Hill, Furr, Sander, Filkins, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Next Meeting Agenda

Timestamp: 3:52

Policing

Andrews community service

Black lives matter sign

Adjourn

Sander moved to adjourn. Wood seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Hill, Filkins, Sander, Furr, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

Meeting adjourned at: 10:54 p.m.

Chat file from Zoom:

00:34:14          Ian Bender:      your muted

00:34:17          mannix:           cannot hear discussion. just me?

00:34:31          Duncan Wardwell:      I cannot hear it just now

00:34:41          melissawolaver:           We have lost our audio of the meeting

00:35:03          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Still can't hear

00:35:16          June Heston:    Can you let us know if you are reading these chat messages.

00:35:35          mannix:           have audio

00:35:36          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Yes

00:35:38          Maya Balassa (she/her) CCRPC Planner:       we can hear

00:35:38          melissawolaver:           Yes we can hear

00:36:04          Maya Balassa (she/her) CCRPC Planner:       we heard the description

00:37:10          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Mics go in and out; hard to hear

00:37:16          Chelsye Brooks:          Cannot hear Jay Furr.

00:37:21          Duncan Wardwell:      i cannot hear jay

00:37:22          mannix:           mics dont work

00:37:25          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Can

00:37:37          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Can't hear Jay; can hear Bonny

00:38:00          Chelsye Brooks:          Yes, I cannot hear Jay or anyone on the Selectboard. I can hear Bonnie.

00:38:03          mannix:           still cant hear comments from Jay

00:38:09          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Can't hear Selectboard

00:38:12          Brendan:          Jay’s laptop audio may be on and canceling the audio

00:38:16          Duncan Wardwell:      cannot hear bard or any side microphones

00:38:30          mannix:           can hear josh

00:38:32          Duncan Wardwell:      i can hear josh

00:38:34          Chelsye Brooks:          I can hear Josh and Bonnie.

00:38:46          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   No'

00:38:48          June Heston:    No

00:38:51          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Can't hear Katie and David

00:38:59          melissawolaver:           Can only hear Josh

00:39:02          Duncan Wardwell:      it was working earlier did someone kick out a cord

00:39:10          mannix:           lost everyone

00:39:14          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Jay, could you mute your laptop?

00:39:17          mannix:           now back

00:39:32          Brendan:          no

00:39:34          mannix:           no

00:39:40          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   No, can't hear D or K

00:40:07          Duncan Wardwell:      if you share mikes it can work

00:40:16          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Can't hear Jay at all now

00:41:13          Ian Bender:      video frozen

00:41:36          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   I don't have frozen video; I can see everyone moe

00:41:39          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Move

00:41:54          Duncan Wardwell:      i am getting sporadic audio

00:42:05          mannix:           atever you just did cut the feed

00:42:08          mannix:           whatever

00:42:11          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   No audio

00:42:55          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Still no audio

00:44:02          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   No audio, still

00:44:13          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Yes!

00:44:20          John Linn, AIA:          We can hear you now

00:44:21          Ian Bender:      hear but no see

00:44:24          melissawolaver:           I can hear Josh

00:44:38          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   But not anyone other than Josh

00:44:45          Richmond 2:   I can hear josh but not see

00:44:51          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   I can hear Bonny faintly

00:45:00          Ian Bender:      I hear Bonnie and Josh

00:45:05          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   And not Jay at all

00:46:06          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Only Josh

00:46:06          Ian Bender:      I can see you

00:46:07          Duncan Wardwell:      i can see and hear josh

00:46:13          Brendan:          Can hear now

00:46:14          Ian Bender:      yes

00:46:15          June Heston:    Yes

00:46:16          mannix:           good

00:46:16          Duncan Wardwell:      yes i hear

00:46:16          John Linn, AIA:          You're back! Audio and video

00:46:16          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Yes!

00:49:41          Linda Parent:   The old flag was faded & torn, I gave it to Chris & Jeff

01:05:38          Brendan:          No scenario “all lives matter” is going on any sign

01:29:28          mannix:           you can sprinkle a building with a water system and go many stories high.

01:51:51          Chelsye Brooks:          They want to be able to put 40-50 units in building two. So the only way to “force” them to use the density bonus would be to lower the base density. Just realistically, it’s cheaper to not build low income or inclusive units.

01:54:00          Chelsye Brooks:          To be clear, I’m not saying decreased density is the answer, but want folks to be realistic that they’re unlikely to use the density bonuses if the base density is increased to 24.

01:54:34          Josi Kytle:       Reacted to "To be clear, I’m not..." with 👍

01:57:28          Chelsye Brooks:          You could lower the base density, but then give much larger room to expand with the density bonuses. THATS how to incentivize them.

02:03:28          Chelsye Brooks:          Is anything limiting the number of bonus units per acre? Can we make the bonus 10 units per acre? I don’t think they would use it in developing building 2… but maybe they would in 3 or 4.

02:32:56          Jay Furr:          I move to instruct the planning committee amend section 3.9 to increase the base density to 24 units per developable acre with a total density of up to 30 units per developable acre if all bonuses are utilized. Residential density bonus program should be revised to exclude the parking bonus option in 6.15. And to remove the first floor commercial requirement as presented from section 5.12. and to continue to implement section 6.16 as per state statute.

02:42:17          Chelsye Brooks:          I strongly oppose opting into the Tier 1B program. Our town does not have the expertise to replace the function of Act 250 review. The DRB has directly misspoken about state Stormwater recently. Furthermore if things do not go before act 250 the state doesn’t have the staff to police things like wetlands. They rely on applicants to be honest, and unfortunately sometimes folks aren’t, because it’s cheaper to avoid or subvert it.

02:42:29          Chelsye Brooks:          Also, this is not only water sewer.

02:42:41          Chelsye Brooks:          IT CAN BE SHARED SEPTIC.

02:43:16          Chelsye Brooks:          For example, if the trailer park gets mapped for planned growth they could expand and be exempt from act 250.

03:02:18          mannix:           Great point Maya

03:02:22          Chelsye Brooks:          I’d like to hear clarification from Maya regarding whether this has impacts on funding as implied.

Also, would anyone be ensuring that state permits such as wetlands and stormwater are obtained?

03:03:24          mannix:           Chelsye - the bank always ensures these are done. No permits, no money

03:03:29          Brendan:          To be respectful of everyone’s time I will leverage the chat, I think we need to strongly consider removing barriers to Richmond development. Just because low income housing isn’t viable in the current market conditions doesn’t mean we should pause more high-end development. We’ve had 2 restaurants go out of business, in the last ~3 months. This is important development.

03:03:55          Maya Balassa (she/her) CCRPC Planner:       Thank you for having me!

03:04:01          Connie van Eeghen, she/her:   Thank you, Selectboard, for thoughtful, inclusive discussion!

03:04:12          Maya Balassa (she/her) CCRPC Planner:       And thank you to Virginia and Keith for their work on this!

03:04:55          Chelsye Brooks:          Replying to "Chelsye - the bank a…"

I’ve personally seen development without appropriate state permits. So I am not confident in this statement.

03:05:24          Chelsye Brooks:          Replying to "Chelsye - the bank a…"

A bank would only make you get the permits they KNOW you need. What happens when someone says, nope, I don’t have any wetlands?

03:10:49          Josi Kytle:       Replying to "Chelsye - the bank a..."

@Chelsye Brooks From my understanding.. in that case.. a person doesn’t get permits they can’t resell until the permits or fees and fines are paid. I just know this from a friend trying to buy a house with such a situation. At the creamery, my bank required copies of our Act 250, our wetlands, our fire permit, town permits etc.. BUT there are likely bad players out there! I don’t doubt that.

03:17:21          Josi Kytle:       Thank you all.