Special Selectboard 1/21/26

Printable version

Selectboard Minutes 01-21-26v2 4 MB

Web version

Town of Richmond 
 Special Selectboard Meeting
Minutes of January 21, 2026

Members Present:  Adam Wood, Caitlin Filkins, Bard Hill, Greg Rabideau

Absent:  David Sander

Staff Present: Josh Arneson, Town Manager; Duncan Wardwell, Deputy Town Manager; Susanne Parent, Town Clerk

Others Present:  Recorded by MMCTV, Erin Farr, 18029224324, Adam, Alexis, Angela Cote, Bonny Steuer, Brad Elliott, Brendan, Bruce LaBounty, Cara LaBounty, Chelsye Brooks, Connie van Eeghen, Corali Cotrina (Corali Bisbee), D (NHS&Co), Emily Mitchell (Amy M), Fran Thomas, Gretchen Paulsen, Ian Bender, JAS (NHS&Co), Jean Haskin, Jean's iPad, Jewels Hicks, Judy Rosovsky, Marcy Harding, Mark Fausel, Mary Houle, Patty Brushett, Richard Cowles, Robert Low, Sdowns, Tim Carrier, Tom Astle, Tracy Rosen, Tom Safford, Trevor Brooks, Virginia Clarke, Wafic Faour, Wright Preston

MMCTV Video: https://youtu.be/a4Vu9YiKRF4?si=fDOVLqdPRnVML26a

Call to Order: 7:00 p.m.

 

Welcome by:  Filkins

 

Public Comment:  Faour stated that they collected more than 5% of the registered voters of Richmond for petition presented at the January 20 Selectboard meeting.  They are not asking the Selectboard to decide on the merit of the language in the pledge. They are asking to put this item on the ballot, so the public has a right to discuss it and vote on it.  Hill suggested that they discuss this during the agenda item “Consideration of approving the Town Meeting warning”

Additions, Deletions or Modifications to Agenda:  None

Items for Presentation or Discussion with those present


Public Hearing for 2026 Town Plan
Timestamp: 0:01
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2026/01/3a1_3_-_TOWN_PLAN_2026_THIRD_DRAFT_EDITS_CLEAN_1.6.26.pdf

Rabideau moved to open the public hearing to consider the third edition of the modified Town Plan.  Hill seconded.  
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Wood in favor.  Sander absent.  Motion approved.

Clarke, the Planning Commission Chair, stated that every eight years the Town Plan needs to be revised and updated and this is the third draft.  Clarke reviewed the process and stated that the second draft was approved at the January 5^th Selectboard meeting.  There are 11 topics and they talked to lots of people, did lots of outreach, and talked to numerous Committees, community groups, and individuals.  

Clarke stated that the Future Land Use (FLU) map, which was supported by the Conservation Commission and other people in natural resource areas, has received some criticism.  Any of the plans and text can be amended at any time during the 8-year lifespan as the Planning Commission will review it periodically.  If the Selectboard does not approve of putting it on the warning for the Town Meeting, then it will still need to be approved at some point.  If it is approved by the voters, then it will need to be approved by the Regional Planning Commission (RPC).  For instance, changing the FLU map to any degree would have to be compatible with the RPC FLU map. 

Filkins stated that she would like to see the presentation to have all the information, then have the Selectboard ask questions, then open it up for public conversation.

Clarke described the 2018 Town Plan map called Wildlife Habitat in Richmond, Vermont.  It would be one of the considerations that would formulate a revised Zoning for Agricultural Residential District.  

Clarke described the Chittenden County RPC’s draft FLU map.  The Richmond Town Land Use map has to be compatible with this.  They used it as the basis for their FLU map.  The rural areas are in three categories: Rural General, Rural Ag/Forestry and Rural Conservation.  This is not a Zoning map.  Rural General (tan) consists mostly of places that are already developed but also feature preserving natural resources.  Rural Agr/Forestry (blue) includes blocks of forest or farmland that sustain resources industries and provide critical wildlife habitat/movement, outdoor recreation, flood storage and act for recharge scenic beauty and contribute to the economic well-being and quality of life.  Development is not prohibited in any of the areas, it is just carefully managed.  Rural Conservation (green) is identified based on existing natural resource mapping that require special considerations for aquifer protection, wetland protection, maintenance of forest blocks, wildlife habitat, habitat connectors, and for other conservation purposes.  

Most of the green areas on the RPC map are already conserved, with legal easements.  The Conservation Commission added some of the ANR maps to understand where the natural resources are located.  They know they will not be able to preserve all these resources.  Clarke confirmed they considered just using the RPC map but the Conservation Commission felt there should be a knowledge of where the resources are located to inform Zoning and minimize the impact of development on the resources.  Clarke confirmed that the Housing Committee had impact on the map as well.  

BrooksC reviewed how the CCRPC expects municipalities to be more specific about Future Land Use and municipal plans and bylaws. Information was pulled from the atlas, BioFinder, and wetland areas.  Hill observed that the word “development” is not in the Rural Conservation which might explain people’s concerns.  Clarke confirmed that development is not prohibited.  BrooksC stated that land in Rural Conservation will be subject to Act 250 review.  LaBountyB and Hill observed that Act 250 makes it more burdensome to develop. Hill stated that the Mapping Process suggests that they create logical boundaries by using the parcel lines. Clarke confirmed that they could remove those parcels when Zoning.  Rabideau stated that it opens up the possibility that the map could be adjusted. It doesn't follow necessarily that a given parcel has to be all one thing either as a question of Zoning or in the case of this mapping resources.  Clarke stated that the Zoning map does not have to use these designations.  Filkins stated that she is not comfortable putting that reference map in a written document for the Town to agree on, because it will be used for Zoning regulation updates.  They need to adjust the way that the Future Land Use map is adjusted to be better understood of the CCRPC map.  LaBountyB stated that this is what the Democratic process is about, they have until next November so there is no hurry.  

Harding read her comments on the history of Act 181 which dramatically changed the Planning landscape in Vermont.  Act 250 asks if the project conforms with any duly adopted local or regional plan, not local zoning and for that reason, the language in the Town Plan matters.  Using a different methodology than the CCRPC, Richmond mapped much more land as Rural Conservation Land than the CCRPC.   Harding reviewed that there will be a primary election in August, and the Town Plan could be voted on then, well before the current Town Plan expires and without the expense of a special election.

LaBountyC illustrated a couple of items on Southview, Interstate 89, and Route 2.  LaBountyC observed how some Selectboard and Planning Commission members benefited from the proposed designations.  Her property is being devalued by the Planning Commission and Steering Committee.  LaBountyC stated that she cannot support this Town Plan or map.  LaBountyC reviewed the requests to remove the word “shall” as mentioned in other meetings.  LaBountyC stated that the Planning Commission is not trying to do something wrong, but it's 100% driven by conservation.

Safford read the disclaimer from the map where the CCRPC states that “Errors and omissions may exist. The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission is not responsible for these.  Questions of on the ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor.”  Safford stated that this map is going to be driving decisions with Zoning.  The Animal Travel Corridor and Wildlife maps have a very similar disclaimer.  Safford asked who's going to be taking responsibility for the errors.  Safford stated that you can't put a development in a wetland anyway, so he does not really see the need for increased conservation efforts.  There is a trail shown on his property that technically is not a trail, nor a public right-of-way so he wants it removed from the official mapping.  His parcel went from entirely Rural Ag and now is entirely Rural Conservation.  Every tree was planted by his uncle from 1950-1990 so how does a completely man-made landscape qualify as Rural Conservation. 

Rosovsky, from the Conservation Commission, stated that they were looking at all those components of natural resources and were not doing it with personal antipathy towards anyone, because they don't have particularly detailed information.  If people want to develop here, then what do we need to think about. 

Clarke summarized that the map will be amended, if necessary, through a public hearing process.  It says at least once every two years, the FLU map should be adjusted to reflect changes in tax map parcel boundaries.  The Planning Commission is planning to review the map and a reminder it is not a Zoning map.

Cowles highlighted the green area next to the road by his parcel next to Greystone which was listed as wetlands but now as floodplain.  Act 250 is not going to be something simple or cheap to put a house on this property. He is going through the process with an engineer, and it is ~$30,000-$40,000 to get a permit.  They do not need to depreciate or devalue people’s property.  Cowles stated that he does not believe the maps are accurate.

Carrier asked about existing permits and the floodplain fields.  Carrier stated that the Land Use, Land Trust and Act 250 already protect our conservation and this is overstepping it.  All the land across the road is under Land Use, Land Trust, Preston’s, VYCC, everything all to Richmond.  Carrier stated that there is a housing shortage and they should be able to put up a house next door house for their kids or grandkids. 

Mitchell observed that there’s a clash between intent versus impact on this map.  Mitchell stated that we have to find a way forward to support all the wonderful work that happened in the plan like housing inequities and then figure out a way to move forward positively.

Cote stated that she was able to figure out why she has a Rural Conservation in the middle of her Rural General property boundaries as it has to do with the elevation.  The FLU map has chosen to stay with the 1,000-foot elevation rather than raise it to the 2,500-foot elevation that is in the draft CCRP map. Clarke stated that it is actually natural communities and not elevation.  Clarke confirmed that they did not use elevation overlays on the map, it is wetlands, riparian areas, natural communities, interior highest priority, interior forest blocks.  Clarke stated that natural communities are wetlands, riparian areas, natural communities, interior highest priority, interior forest blocks.  BrooksC reviewed the BioFinder description as the full range of habitat conditions that the native flora and fauna evolved with and are adapted to survive in and support the vast majority of Vermont's biological diversity, specifically a hemlock and northern hardwood forest, a highest priority natural community. Clarke stated that if it's not working as an ecosystem, then it's not going to be sustainable into the future.

Farr suggested using the CCRPC map which seemed more agreeable to people to use as the FLU map.  Clarke confirmed that the Selectboard could consider it a minor change to the Town Plan in order to put it on the ballot.  

LaBountyB stated that we’re trying to solve a problem that's not there with no sprawl in our Town. We are not overlooking our conserved property.  LaBountyB stated that we need to start looking at more housing and not just conserved property.

Clarke confirmed that the State-wide planning goal is 30% of preserved land by 2030.  Preston illustrated that if you look at the total numbers of land that is Conserved that is privately owned may also be in Current Use.  Preston stated that there's the difference between land that is in Current Use and land that is by deed, Conserved.

Rosen stated he wants to build a house that appears to be green now.  He gives his blessing for 10 out of the 11 sections but there is no way that anything around these maps should be on the Town Meeting ballot.  

Rabideau stated that the CCRPC map takes into account some facts on the ground that aren't reflected in the new map.  He would choose the CCRPC map for some of the reasons discussed by the public.  

Hill summarized the options moving forward with the current Town Plan draft map, the CCRPC map, or delaying.  Hill stated that so many people will vote against the current Town Plan draft map.  Filkins stated that the CCRPC map would provide the Town Plan with the opportunity for approval.  Clarke thought that the Planning Commission and Steering Committee would be okay with going with the CCRPC map and then working in the future to amend it.  Clarke & BrooksC summarized that the CCRPC map might undergo some changes too.  LaBountyB suggested adopting the current static CCRPC map presented tonight. BrooksC summarized that it is mapping overlays that they do not control but it is really hard work.  Brushett expressed frustration about the implications, language, and tenor to the volunteers who worked on the Town Plan. Clarke stated that they are going to have to change the map for river corridor rules that are coming along. Wood stated that changing these maps doesn't necessarily bring it back in control, but it's a good line in the sand now to make it clear what we're comfortable with.  Hill observed that Item 7 on page 54 of the Town Plan states the FLU map will be amended when the Land Use Review Board (LURB) has completed its regulations.  Houle stated that nobody can sue us if we have those disclaimers that replaces shall/will with should/could. LaBountyC requested that they hold off as she did not have time to review the CCRPC map.

Clarke confirmed that if they delayed the vote then the Planning Commission would have to meet and discuss the map situation.  Clarke stated that if they want to have an approved Town Plan then it has to be compatible with the CCRPC map.  Clarke stated that we can replace shall with should.  Filkins suggested changing shall to should so that it puts us in a better position to then assess and amend the CCRPC map in the future.  Clarke summarized the memo with many action items because they recognized so many things that we were doing right.  

Rabideau moved to close the second required public hearing for the 2026 Town Plan Update.  Hill seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau, Wood in favor.  Sander absent.  Motion approved.

Arneson reviewed and referenced the different “shall” to “should” items in the Town Plan draft with the Selectboard and public.

Rabideau moved to approve the third draft of the 2026 Town Plan dated January 6, 2026 with any minor revisions, and direct the Town Clerk to place Final Draft on the Town Meeting Ballot for town-wide approval on March 3^rd.  Further the Selectboard directs the Planning Commission to forward what is now considered the Final 2026 Town Plan draft to Regional Planning Commission for consideration and adoption with the following amendments:  
-Language on page 54 where the first two instances of “shall” will be modified to “should” 
-The Future Land Use map prepared by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission will be used as the Future Land Use map in its current edition.
Hill seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau in favor.  Wood, Sander absent.  Motion approved.


Consideration of approving the Town Meeting warning
Timestamp: 3:01

Arneson reviewed the current version of the Town Meeting warning including Article 6 for the adoption of the 2026 Town Plan, Article 7 for the Conservation Reserve Fund, Article 8 for the Town Center Reserve Fund, and Articles 8-16 for charitable appropriations. 

Filkins reviewed the petition that was discussed at the January 20, 2026 Selectboard meeting.  Faour stated that the petition if very clear and it is in over 15 other Towns.  Faour stated that Palestine is very much a local issue as it is a question of human rights and where we stand on racism.  The language of apartheid free community was adopted because it is the end goal.  If they to Israel to accept everybody living from River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea as equal, then there is no war.  Faour requested that the Selectboard put the petition on the ballot to educate the public and let the public decide.

Hill asked why the petition is asking the voters to advise the Chair of the Selectboard to adopt the pledge instead of just asking the voters to adopt the pledge.  Hill suggested just taking the Selectboard out of it.  Arneson illustrated that the petition does not force it on the ballot because it is not Town business.  The Selectboard could vote to put this petition or anything similar on the ballot.  Hill suggested just rephrasing it for the ballot to just ask the voters to support a pledge.  Rabideau wondered what specific Town activity or behavior would change if the voters supported this concern.  Rabideau stated that not all Israelis support this war or the mistreatment of Palestinian people.  Faour stated that the Israeli government in general operates under different laws, one for the West Bank, one for Jerusalem, one for Gaza, and one for Galilee.

Houle stated that they cannot legally change words in a petition that 250 or so many people signed.  Houle stated that affirm, resolve, condemn, and pledge will involve money at some point.

Bender requested that the Selectboard read his message in the chat before they vote:
03:23:34          Ian Bender:     “WE PLEDGE to join others in working to end all support to Israel's apartheid regime, settler colonialism, and military occupation.”

I believe this statement violates Richmond’s policy on equity and inclusion.  I find it harmful, threatening, and offensive as Jewish resident of this community.  To be clear, I am speaking for myself.

You can argue that the issue lays with the Israeli government and not with the Jewish diaspora.  However the topic is not a simple one, and this type of language can have unintended consequences.

I would appreciate it if the selectboard would consider removing that segment from the ballot initiative.
Bender stated that he does not disagree with the principle that the petition is trying to accomplish but the wording made him very uncomfortable.

Haskins stated that she does not believe the Selectboard can modify the petition once people have signed it. Arneson reviewed that if the petition was about Town business, then it would be forced onto the Warning as written. The Town attorney has advised, based on case law, that it is not forced onto the ballot because it is not specifically about Town business.  It is up to the Selectboard to add it on to the Warning with some leeway to make changes.

Faour stated that if they do not put it to the voters, then the Selectboard is violating his equity.  Alexis stated that there is nothing in that language about Jewish people or about Israelis, it is about the apartheid system in Israel. This pledge is asking people to oppose an apartheid system.  Brushett stated that the Selectboard should put this on the ballot to let the voters vote but it is also important to have these difficult conversations.  Faour summarized that it multiple Towns or Cities pass this then it will put pressure on the State to declare itself as an apartheid free community.

Filkins read a draft from Article 3 of the Warning:  
“Shall the voters of the Town of Richmond adopt the following pledge: 
We affirm our commitment to freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people and all people, and
We oppose all forms of racism, bigotry, discrimination and oppression, and
We declare ourselves an apartheid free community and to the end
We pledge to join others in working to end all support of Israel's apartheid regime, settler colonialism and military occupation.”

Hill moved to put the language as worded in the draft Article 3 on the ballot for Town Meeting Day.

Arneson confirmed that this would be voted on from the floor as Richmond has not adopted public questions other than the budget to go on Australian ballot.  Rabideau asked if it was a necessary component of the statement to include the language of apartheid, military, and occupation.  Filkins thought it was key to the message otherwise they are not calling out what is actually happening.  Hill illustrated the comment from the chat that one modification is to say “end all support to the government of Israel’s apartheid regime.” Filkins stated that they want to have that conversation and vote the decision.  Farr asked what if the Town is not in support of this, is that opening up the Town or the people voting on the floor to an unsafe situation.  Faour stated that it is on us to educate the public. We are using the tool of democracy to bring to the public a question.  Haskins observed that there is typically 125 people who attend Town Meeting out of the 3,000 voters in the Town of Richmond.  Haskins illustrated how she knows a lot of people that go to Town Meeting and don’t vocalize how they feel for fear of standing up and stating their true feelings.  Arneson confirmed that there is a process for a certain number of people who could call for a paper ballot on Town Meeting.  Filkins stated that this is going to come up on the Town Meeting Day floor regardless so why not give people the time to think and educate themselves.

Rabideau seconded motion.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau in favor.  Wood, Sander absent.  Motion approved.

Arneson presented the draft of the Official Warning of the Annual Town Meeting with Articles 1-4 By Floor Vote and Articles 5-18 By Australian Ballot.

Hill move to approve the Official Warning of the March 3, 2026 Annual Town Meeting as presented.  Rabideau seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Filkins, Hill, Rabideau in favor.  Wood, Sander absent.  Motion approved.


Adjourn

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

Meeting adjourned at: 10:45 p.m.

Chat file from Zoom: 
00:42:56          Judy.Rosovsky:           I agree with Chelsye, we used ANR Biofinder and the 4 town work done by Arrowwood to add local details to the RPC map

01:15:15          Brendan:         I live in that south view “coffee cup” and I agree that that doesn’t make sense, feels like some shady stuff happened there

01:17:44          Brendan:         No scenarios where perfect circles should exist on that map

01:18:58          Jean Haskin:    If my property is coded as conservation, do I get a tax break?

01:20:18          Jean Haskin:    Reacted to "No scenarios where p…" with 😂

01:25:05          Patty Brushett: I find Cara’s implication that selectboard members are being given preferential treatment insulting to both the selectboard the planning commission and the community they serve.

01:48:32          Jean Haskin:    What is a natural community?

01:49:27          Jean Haskin:    It’s where the turkeys live!

01:58:54          Judy.Rosovsky:           Just a reminder that current use land is different than conserved land as the land owner can choose to end their participation in current use.

02:06:28          Jean Haskin:    Go with the CCRP map

02:07:31          Patty Brushett: I think this is a good idea. Let’s move forward

02:08:11          Van Eeghen, Constance O:     I agree; the CCRP map provides a way to move forward

02:09:44          JAS:    Wait for the ccrp maps to be approved.  Why would we adopt first?

02:15:33          Bonny Steuer (she/her):          Thank you for your statement Patty. I completely agree.

02:22:12          D:        No downside to waiting for August election that's scheduled.  Let's get it right. Please let's remember that civil discourse is crucial for democracy. The conversation has in general been peaceful but firm.  Please let's not convolute opposition expressed w personal disappointment. Everyone is working hard. Please consider delay.  Great to have civic engagement. Thank you so much.

02:23:11          Trevor Brooks:            This is only one page. The CCRPC map does not have the same level of opposition. The FLU can be changed after Town Meeting if the Town Plan passes. At that point there would not be a rushed timeline and make modifications then if needed.

02:24:51          Jewels Hicks:  Reacted to "This is only one p..." with 👍

02:26:35          D:        Yes thank you Bruce!

02:28:39          Patty Brushett: Move forward with CCRPC

02:39:12          Patty Brushett: Please move forward.

02:44:44          Adam: Hey all I need to sign off and deal with some sick family members.

02:45:23          Adam: As we sit now I’d lean towards moving foward with the plan with ccrpc maps

02:46:19          Van Eeghen, Constance O:     The word "shall" appears six times in the current draft of the 2026 Town Plan

02:46:58          Erin Farr:         Shall is in the updated document 7 times.

02:48:06          Erin Farr:         Page 7, 52, 53, 54, 77, 106

02:48:34          Erin Farr:         Same thoughts Connie :)

02:48:41          Van Eeghen, Constance O:     Reacted to "Same thoughts Connie..." with 👍

02:49:27          Patty Brushett: Make a decision and move forward.

02:54:29          Patty Brushett: Yay!

02:57:42          D:        Thank you for the lively and open discussion select board!  Please let's not rush to bring to vote with all these moving parts being discussed, and wait for the CCRP map to be approved at state level. please let's delay to town vote and get it right. Thank you!!

03:23:17          Bonny Steuer (she/her):          I support this being brought directly to the voters.

03:23:31          Patty Brushett: Revise the language that that keeps the intent of the signers of the petition. And let the voters decide.

03:23:34          Ian Bender:     “WE PLEDGE to join others in working to end all support to Israel's apartheid regime, settler colonialism, and military occupation.”

I believe this statement violates Richmond’s policy on equity and inclusion.  I find it harmful, threatening, and offensive as Jewish resident of this community.  To be clear, I am speaking for myself.

You can argue that the issue lays with the Israeli government and not with the Jewish diaspora.  However the topic is not a simple one, and this type of language can have unintended consequences.

I would appreciate it if the selectboard would consider removing that segment from the ballot initiative.

03:26:31          Patty Brushett: Let the voters decide.

03:36:49          Jean’s iPad:     I would also be concerned with repercussions against the town or people of the town  if this were approved

03:40:54          Bonny Steuer (she/her):          I agree with Bard and re-write by Josh. You might want to say "Israel's government" or the government of Israel.

03:41:57          Bonny Steuer (she/her):          The recognition of apartheid is the clear focus

03:46:17          Bonny Steuer (she/her):          All are invited to the film and panel discussion being held on Feb. 22 from 4-6 pm at the library

03:52:19          Patty Brushett: They can call for a paper ballot

03:55:11          Patty Brushett: Please read Bonny’s message in the chat

03:56:46          Bonny Steuer (she/her):          Thanks Caitlin