Richmond Planning Board Meeting Update for May 9, 2023

By Cynthia Drummond for BRVCA
April 11th 2023

RICHMOND – Members of the Planning Board agreed at the May 9 meeting on several amendments to the town’s aquifer protection overlay district ordinances. The amendments will now go to the Town Council for consideration.

As the name implies, the purpose of the aquifer protection ordinance is to protect the quality and quantity of the Pawcatuck aquifer, the town’s sole source aquifer.

The board is proposing to divide the aquifer protection overlay district into two sub-districts.  “Sub-district A,” with the most restrictive use regulations, will include the sole source aquifer and well head protection areas. “Sub-district B” will pertain to groundwater recharge areas.

(It should be noted, however, that Sub-district A has effectively been eliminated, since it was intended to pertain to Phase I of The Preserve Sporting Club and Residences, which was on a private well but has since connected to the town water line.)

Over the course of several meetings, the board concluded that the current version of the aquifer protection ordinance should be repealed, because it is based on outdated mapping and in some cases, places unnecessary restrictions on economic development.

Assisted by consulting engineer and Richmond resident, Todd Greene, of the environmental engineering firm, GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., the board approved draft amendments to the chapters of the ordinance pertaining to the storage and use of hazardous materials in the aquifer protection overlay district.

Town Solicitor Karen Ellsworth explained that another chapter of the ordinance had been amended to allow a brew pub, a previously prohibited use in the aquifer protection district, at The Preserve, and that water consumption at the facility, should it be built, would be monitored by radio frequency meters.

“It’s radio frequency, so they don’t have to enter buildings,” she said. “They can just drive by.”

Board Chair Philip Damicus said water use by a brew pub would be limited.

“A manufacturing facility shall consume no more than 20,000 gallons of water per month,” he said.

The board also approved an amendment to the section of the ordinance governing development plan review and major land development approval.

“This just replaces the phrase, ‘development site’ with the phrase ‘proposed area of disturbance,’ Ellsworth explained. “So, it’s much more specific about explaining what part of the lot.”

The other change relates to hydrogeologic evaluations.

Among the requirements for applications for projects in the aquifer protection overlay district will be a peer-reviewed hydrogeologic evaluation which will remain valid unless there are substantial changes to conditions on or near the site.

There was also a discussion of a proposed buffer between the area of disturbance and the remaining area of the aquifer protection district.

Board member Kevin Stacey said,

“I guess what’s puzzling to me is that that 200 feet, 100 feet, whatever we’re talking about, that same area is something we wouldn’t require people to look at if they went right up to the line and didn’t cross it. But if they cross it by five feet, then that are comes into play, and to me, that seems a little bit inconsistent,” he said.

Board members agreed with Ellsworth’s proposal to remove language referring to the distance from the aquifer protection district and require the study of only the area within the district and agreed to send their recommended amendments to the Town Council.

Housing needs survey

Town Planner Shaun Lacey and board member Bryce Kelley presented an update on the design of a new housing needs survey which will be sent to residents.

“I would probably ask for a special meeting of the Affordable Housing Committee to review it so that they can they can get a little bit of community level control, buy-in,” Lacey said. “We started off with 20-something questions. I think we’re down to about 20.”

Kelley added that so far, there were no questions about accessory dwelling units, known as ADUs.

“The only thing that we really didn’t hit on, which was kind of the genesis of the idea of this housing needs survey, is questions specific to ADUs, and that is the one thing that I want to bring up to you,” he said. “I feel like the housing needs survey, as it is now, is pretty strong, but I know that we really initiated this conversation based on our conversation around ADUs, so I just wanted to quickly get the pulse on that.”

Damicis said he believed respondents should be asked about ADUs.

“It would have been nice to include that,” he said. “The only issue with that is I don’t know how you would word it…A lot of people, if you just say ADUs, or accessory dwelling units…they don’t have any idea what we’re talking about.”

Ellsworth proposed a survey question that would include an explanation of ADUs and Damicis said he wanted to add an ADU question.

A draft of the survey will be ready for Planning Board review in the coming weeks.