Special Selectboard Meeting 7/22/25

Web version

Town of Richmond
Special Selectboard Meeting
Minutes of July 22, 2025

Members Present: Jay Furr, David Sander, Adam Wood
 

Absent: Bard Hill, Caitlin Filkins (recusal)

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

Others Present: MMCTV Erin Wagg, Alison Clocker, Andres Torizzo (CEA engineer), Brendan Filkins, Brian Rosen, Caitlin Filkins, Chelsye Brooks, Chris Webster, Dave Sobel, Debbie, Debbie Knakal, Dorian Evans, Doug Thompson, Ian Evans, Jeuells Hicks, JP, Kevin Carrubba, Kim Thompson, Mark Hubbard, Mary Harrison, Matt Leonetti, Michael R Werner, Michelle Rosen, Mike Werner, Nick, Nick Johnson, Noa, Paige Kaleita, Pam Foust, Pam's iPad, Paul George, Polly Sobel, Roger Knakal, Sarah Heim, Shannon Walters, Stephen Eichenberger, Thomas Senning, Tom Walters, Traci Sawyers, Trevor Brooks

MMCTV Video: Recorded by MMCTV
https://youtu.be/-ptQyLf1D8A?si=HW5RSBhrk9cw0NzE

Call to Order: 6:00 p.m.
 

Welcome by: Furr

Public Comment: None

Additions, Deletions or Modifications to Agenda: None

Items for Presentation or Discussion with those present

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Selectboard/Meetings/2025/07/1-25117-review_set_6.24.25.pdf

Walkthrough of Southview 3 Acre Permit area. The walkthrough will start at the cul-de-sac at the end of Westall Dr.

Torizzo provided a walking tour of the four sites located on page C2.0 of the above link.
The A/V of the tour can be found at https://youtu.be/-ptQyLf1D8A?si=HW5RSBhrk9cw0NzE

Travel back to the Richmond Free Library to resume the meeting in person

Review of walkthrough

Timestamp: 0:00

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Torizzo, Filkins-B, Arneson, Knakal-R, Eichenberger, Kaleita, Heim, Werner, Filkins-C

Torizzo presented a slide show that illustrated the 3-Acre Rule Compliance Basis of Design Review. The Engineering Feasibility Analysis illustrates why it's challenging to find appropriate locations. The State doesn't want us to purchase any off-site area and in order to meet these rules, we cannot relocate utilities or affect parking lots or sidewalks. We do not pump any stormwater runoff and carefully investigate the soils to make sure the subsurface is conducive. Before constructing anything, we would file an amendment with Act 250 to make sure the proposal does not impact streams, wetlands, historic preservation, and contiguous forest areas. Torizzo confirmed that some of the soil comes out to make room for the chamber, but it has the good soil below.
 

The Best Management Practice (BMP) plan considers the soils, the utilities, the impervious surface and the drainage patterns. The rule of thumb is to manage 50% of the impervious surface. Torizzo showed pictures of the chamber construction from Jericho Elementary School. Torizzo stated that it would not be permitted to dig a pond in a stream or a wetland.

Torizzo stated that in order to do a rain garden it needs a special soil mix that has a certain level of phosphorus, it requires an infiltration test and it must be separated from groundwater which may include an under drain with a daylight. It also gets very complicated with the easements and permits.

Torizzo illustrated that if not interested in the chambers, then a gravel well, infiltration basin, or bioretention basin are options but there are no good spaces for this based on the terrain. 
 

Torizzo confirmed the chambers are made of HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene plastic) which is the same as the plastic culverts that are all over the place. Sander stated that the government is restricting the use of PFAS chemicals in HDPE. Furr stated that they can do some research about the materials being used.

Knakal stated that it seems arbitrary that this site was selected.

Torizzo presented the Conceptual Level Cost Estimate the 20% contingency at $360,000 but it will change, perhaps lower. Arneson used these preliminary numbers to calculate a cost per property of $4,781 which also shows the breakdown of Private and Town of Richmond Impervious surfaces. Torizzo stated that if the chambers were put under the road, it would increase the cost as it would require rebuilding the sub-base and repaving the road. There would also be the problem of having one-lane closed during construction. The chambers are currently designed to be within the right of way limits of the Town road.       

Furr pointed out the comments in the Chat.

Kaleita stated that they should get credit if a gutter is diverted to a lawn. Torizzo confirmed that they did do a comprehensive disconnection analysis. Torizzo stated that the stormwater manual has made the disconnection criteria a lot more onerous based on soil and slope. Furr reviewed some of the implications of H.481 in that the Town has no legal right to compel the people of Southview to pay for this unless a majority of them agree to it. Torizzo stated that we need to provide the State with an administratively complete application by the end of September. Torizzo stated that if we meet the deadline for the grant, there is still time to fine tune the design. Arneson stated that there is $30,000 for engineering and $20,000 for permit.  Heim asked if the State would consider the application administratively complete without the homeowners listed on it.  Arneson confirmed that our attorney’s advice is to continue and put the NOI in with the letter of intent.

Torizzo said that he can send the data and photos for the visits to each site.  

Torizzo stated that this is an infiltration-based project where the water goes into one of these chambers and leaches out and it's considered kind of gone at that point. Werner summarized that a lot of the questions are about how effective the system is going to be for the stated goals of the 3-acre rule. Torizzo confirmed that the State is tracking the load reductions of phosphorus from the developed lands. 

Filkins-C summarized that Southview residents originally asked the Selectboard to support us without a centralized way to legally manage and they have been able to get the grant money. Filkins-C stated that they seek to approve a plan for submission not execution and there is a risk of not meeting the deadline, being non-compliant, and losing eligibility for the grant. Filkins-C suggested approving the plan to submit to the State but include verbiage in the motion around revision of the plan before implementation.
 

Consideration of approving the engineering plan for the Southview 3 Acre Permit

Timestamp: 0:57

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Kaleita, Wood, Filkins-C, Sander 

Arneson summarized that when they submitted the initial Notice of Intent letter, it said the Town was not going to accept full responsibility for the permit, and the homeowners aren't organized into a homeowners association.

Sander moved to approve the Watershed Consulting preliminary engineering plan for the Southview 3-Acre Permit with the understanding that the plan may be reviewed and/or revised as new information becomes available, or prior to any additional steps. Wood seconded. 
Roll Call Vote: Furr, Sander, Wood in favor. Motion approved.

 

Discussion of next steps for completing the Notice of Intent

Timestamp: 1:06

People who participated in discussion:  Furr, Torizzo, Brooks, Sander

Torizzo summarized the next steps are assembling the six different components to the application with a draft progress plan. Torizzo would like to submit it to the State portal by the first week in September to leave a buffer. Furr confirmed that he was not sure if the State would consider the application complete with the homeowners joining in or the Town taking full responsibility. Sander appreciated everybody coming together and solving issues collaboratively.   
 

Adjourn

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

 

Meeting adjourned at: 8:40 PM

Chat file from Zoom: 
01:11:37          paigekaleita:   You the homeowners are on the hook because you are impervious surface owners…. Isn’t everyone who owns a home an owner of an impervious surface?

01:12:20          paigekaleita:   Meaning everyone in Vermont, including those in our neighborhood not within the 3-acre area? Sorry, had to point that out.

01:13:35          Trevor Brooks:           They own impervious but not all are jurisdictionally covered requiring mitigation.

01:14:44          paigekaleita:   I understand that… just being snarky. It’s ridiculous that the state of VT requires some of us to manage our impervious surface and most not. But we all benefit

01:17:35          Jay Furr:         www.adspipe.com/stormtech/resources

01:19:04          Jay Furr:         chatgpt.com/share/6880294a-3064-8012-a8b2-b7b10ce6e50f

01:19:47          brendan_filkins:         Just to clarify I don’t think this accounts for properties that have been deemed “disconnected” and not contributing to the impervious run off

01:20:29          Chelsye Brooks:         It would also be an additional cost whenever they need to be replaced. Under road means digging up the road. In the ROW means only dirt work.

01:21:02          paigekaleita:   Brendan, I am out of town and not able to attend in person but are some properties completely  disconnected?

01:22:32          brendan_filkins:         Replying to "Brendan, I am out of..."

It sounded that way yes

01:33:58          paigekaleita:   CONGRATS TO SARAH and NOA who just had a baby

01:34:05          Caitlin Filkins:           Reacted to "CONGRATS TO SARAH an..." with ❤️

01:35:10          paigekaleita:   Never saw anyone either

01:35:30          noa:     Can we see a public list of which sites were looked at?

01:36:55          Mark Hubbard:           191 Joan Ave. I did not see engineers visit my address on my cameras either

01:37:49          Jay Furr:         We will get the complete data and photos and make them available.

01:38:16          noa:     Reacted to "We will get the comp…" with 👍

01:38:42          paigekaleita:   The state (ANR) has admitted that residential 3-acre is the NOT most effective and not very effective, (in some of the testimony over the winter)

01:39:16          Jay Furr:         most effective but nonetheless not very effective?

01:39:39          paigekaleita:   Typo, I corrected

01:39:54          noa:     Reacted to "CONGRATS TO SARAH an…" with ❤️

01:40:09          Jay Furr:         ah, thanks

01:40:14          Jay Furr:         I was rather confused

01:41:12          brendan_filkins:         While I’d agree “dollars per pound” is an important metric, I don’t want to pay to calculate it as it likely won’t change anything in terms of what we need to submit to receive the grant.

01:41:39          paigekaleita:   Great point, Caitlin, thankyou

01:42:33          Mark Hubbard:           Agreed. These are contractors who may be on a Time and Material contract. Best not to ask for any additional services/deliverables

01:42:42          Jay Furr:         Reacted to "Agreed. These are co..." with 👍

01:43:35          Caitlin Filkins:           In writing: Please include in the motion for approving the plan to have it be solely for the purpose of submission for compliance and to a requirement for revisiting the plan prior to any further steps toward execution to be taken.

01:47:08          Chelsye Brooks:         I believe the state will take an NOI submitted by just the town as the town being the sole permittee. The letter we submitted earlier I don’t believe will get the town off the hook… unless the town wanted to fight it in court which would be costly.

01:47:29          Jay Furr:         we will check with our attorney

01:54:24          Chelsye Brooks:         Ok. If the town are the ones submitting the application & plans. The town are the ones applying for the grant. The town are the ones accepting the grant money. The town will be the permittee for it to be considered administratively complete I believe.

What happens if the state won’t deem this complete without the homeowners joining unless the town takes full responsibility?? With deadlines & money on the line, what will happen?

01:55:10          paigekaleita:   The state is supposed to give guidance on this per H.481

01:55:20          paigekaleita:   Thank you select board!

01:55:24          dpevans:          Thank you, all!

01:55:36          Caitlin Filkins:           Thank you!!

01:55:50          brendan_filkins:         Thank you Andres as well

01:55:51          Sarah Heim:    Agreed, thank you!

01:55:54          Stephen Eichenberger:           Thank you Select Board!

01:55:56          Caitlin Filkins:           Reacted to "Thank you Andres as ..." with 💯

01:55:59          paigekaleita:   Yes, thank you Andres too!