Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: This on the conversation that we've been having off and on for the last week or so on municipal regulation of agriculture. And just to remind everybody, yesterday we had from Legislature just a little bit of language showing what would the status quo look like if we were to draft language to bring us back to that. And we've also heard from the agency, we've heard from some of the farmer groups, and both of those entities have been working since last summer, last spring, with the League of Cities and Towns on this issue. So we wanted to also hear from the league. And have Josh Hanford in, who I'm not sure if you've been in the committee before, Jeff.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: We haven't. Typically, we haven't been in this committee.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Maybe not even in this part of the building. So if you'd like to maybe we can do a quick round of introductions, and I'll let you introduce yourselves. And we've got, I think that we've got forty minutes on the agenda. We actually have a little more time if you need more time. We are a committee that likes to ask questions. So even without your intent, we could run them off. Great, great. But I am David Durfee. I chair the committee. I represent Shaftsbury, Sunderland, and Flossenbury down in Bennington County. John? John Bartholomew, also

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: representing Windsor and West Windsor. John O'Brien, we're already talking about the White River. We're our first branch. I represent Burlington and John O'Brien. First branch, I represent Chadathan on the beach.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Michelle Bos-Londe, Westminster, Rockingham, and Brooklyn.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And Jed Lipsky, Lamoille, Stout. Richard Nelson, Chief Friar.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Kirby. Jed, do want to add something?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. Just, you know, let's say approximately 43 and a half percent of this committee had a presentation by our guests and presenters this morning. And they not knowing how engaged we were in, you know, the tax free decision impacts and how far down the road we are. I just for their sake, so I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry, Jed. You're you're referring to the rural caucus this morning? Correct. This morning. And that some of the people in this room were Ah. In that. Three of us. Yes. Okay. Good. So,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: anyway, I think, you know, we have a lot to share. And just so we look forward to that. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: for the questions. Josh, are you here? Oh, thank you.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Low on power already. Jeez. So for the record, Josh Hanford.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, that's fine.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: I'm the director of intergovernmental relations at the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. I've been there for about two and a half years now. Prior to that, I was a housing and community development commissioner at the Department of Housing and Human Development for a long time and community development director before that. And before that, I actually worked in the resource conservation development world with the Conservation District and NRCS and agritourism and Vermont farms and did some agriculture work in the state. I live in Randolph Center.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: My name is Amanda Sheehan. I'm the municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. I've been with the league a little over a year, so it's my second session. Most immediately before that, I worked as the communications director for the city of Burlington. However, I am not a Burlingtonian, never was a Burlingtonian. I actually also live on the White River right at the Headwaters in Hancock.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: So obviously, Vermont Supreme Court decision in May 30 changed the landscape out there for all of us as a result of the case in Essex Junction. And upended long standing precedent of what municipalities could or couldn't do as far as regulating agriculture through zoning. And we worked with the agency of ag very cooperatively throughout the summer and fall to try to see if we could align our positions, knowing that likely there was going be legislation, desire to fix things. I would say we got very close just coming at it from different perspectives as far as trying to reduce those, the conflicts that do arise when you have neighbors living close to each other, and you have parts of the state that have been designated as areas to grow with housing targets from the state down to the regional level, and a a number of recent zoning preemptions that require up to 20 units per acre of housing in these areas that have water and sewer, and know that that's where we're going to have the most conflict with competing land uses. And so we came at this from different perspectives. We're going to talk to you about what our position is, how we arrived at it, and then how we think really the interplay with Act 181 in that implementation is really sort of where the biggest impacts on rural lands, what they can be done with it, how property values may change, and how development pressures are gonna play out in this transformational process we're underway right now, and really attempt to show you how much time and how much thought is going to go into a municipality seeking areas and getting approval for areas that are exempt from Act two fifty, which is the primary we want to focus agriculture regulation from the municipal perspective, because we really have no desire to regulate agriculture in most of Vermont. Two thirds of our municipalities are under 2,500 population. Many of them have select board members that are farmers and participate in this process and really don't want to do anything that would make farming harder in communities. They're business owners, they're property taxpayers, employers, and certainly don't want to impact them. So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Samantha to kind of run through this, interrupt us at any point with questions. And we do have a lot of content, but as you said, some of it, some of you have seen, and we have plenty of time to take your questions.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: I'll add to that that I'll learn this is our third time delivering this position, so I'm going learn from that. Where we agree with the agency of ag is that in the vast majority of contexts and over the majority of the land area in the state, it's appropriate for farms to continue to be regulated by the agency and to be exempt from municipal zoning. We also agree that regardless, every homeowner, renter, Vermonter, visitor should have the right to grow food in the place that they live. So that's where we agree. If I could characterize the air between our positions and what we're asking to be done, Where the agency of agriculture is able to support municipal authority has to do with the intensity of farming, the size and intensity of the farming activity. Where we are asking for authority is not based off the intensity of farming at all or the size or acreage or the existing structures. It's actually on the intensity of the mixed use zoning district, the highest density district that has the most diverse types of land uses happening in them. And so for that reason, Act 181 is really important to understand really what drives our position as an organization. So we're going to walk backwards from there to what we're asking to be done. Real quickly, since this is our first time before the committee, BLCT is a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan organization created in 1967 to strengthen local government in Vermont. We are not the only folks who work there. We actually have a pretty large staff that provides high touch one on one support for all municipal officials. So every Vermont municipality is a part of VLCT, and all town officials are a member. So staff, employees, part time, full time, appointed folks like Planning Commission members, and then elected officials, such as select board members and mayors. And these are some of the services we provide, which includes legal counsel, confidential, free legal advice from our experienced municipal law attorneys.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You said and I didn't realize this, not surprising, guess that every town in the state is a member of the LCP. Is that through choice? Or are they obligated to be?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: No, they do, and they pay a membership. Yeah, they pay due based on a per capita due system. And then we also are the insurer for currently all but two that either self insure or use a combination of private insurance. But we operate an insurance pool.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Not health insurance.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Not health insurance. This is insurance

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: or whatever you would call it. Liability. All the buildings

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: and workers' comp claim for their staff.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: And

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: if you go to like I've been to our select board meetings and sometimes they're pulling VLCT out like Marshall Dillon pulled his coal. We got to get ahold of the motives of cities and towns to get this clarified.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: We help clerks and treasurers. We have a new team of governmental finance specialists that help with budgeting and preparation of bonds, going to vote. Public service is town business in Vermont. Town business is the L. C. T. Business in Vermont.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: The health of the Sears? Yep.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Zoning administrators? Yep. We have two annual meetings a year for planning and zoning. Representative O'Brien?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I just wondered if you represent other municipalities like solid waste sort of districts?

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: That's a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: great question. Lot of those are

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: what we call affiliate members, water districts, fire and water districts, the solid waste districts, the RPCs. RCDs. Yeah, They are affiliate members, they receive some benefits, but they're not voting members, because they're not a municipality incorporated the way that governs. They're set up to have some of those authorities to, but yes and no.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Mighty and old voting members. Our policy is not created by Josh and I. It's created by our members. So we have before every biennium, we have a member driven policy setting process. Every town gets one vote, All present and voting unanimously supported our twenty twenty five-twenty twenty six policies. And then this one we're about to reveal to you was amended by the board following the Supreme Court decision and is actually a pretty significant departure from fifty years of VLCT's position, which has been really strictly in favor of local authority and only local authority. For us to say, we want 97% of the state to be regulated by the state when it comes to farms is a change from what the organization has advocated for in the past. A little bit you know our communities. You serve them. You live in them. But when it comes to forms of government, they vary widely from town to town and city to city in Vermont. So about 73% of our membership communities have 2,500 or less residents. 66 only out of two fifty one have a town or city manager. So the majority of our members are run by elected volunteers. Only eight have mayors. Two are strong mayor, which is kind of like a governor, mini governor. Those are Burlington and Rutland. So we largely work for the legislative body in rural communities that have very limited capacity to meet the obligations of local government. So this is our position. This is what we're asking for legislative resolve for in this session, which is to exempt agriculture activity from municipal regulation statewide except for in Act two fifty exempted areas. The path to Act two fifty exempted areas comes from Act 181. They have been used as synonymous with the designated growth areas or what the new law calls the FLUs, future land uses. That's not true. There is a long, statutorily defined public process under state authority that creates the exempt status. It's not the same thing as the eligible areas, which we'll explain more about. This total eligible area is currently projected a month ago, it was 3%. It's now 2.1%. So the total acreage of the state of Vermont, 2.1% of that is eligible for Act two fifty exemption, pending the process that we'll talk you through in a minute. And this is an ongoing live process that's happening. It started last month in December with regional plans. And it will, in theory, by law, conclude by December.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Should representative Nelson Thank you, Chuck. And this is what I wanted to talk to you about this morning, but we're getting pinched on time. Tier one b. County Derby does not have a city center or village center per se, but they have a lot of land suitable for designated growth areas. And so I I'm assuming that would be in tier one b. And tier one b, because Derby has a robust town plan and whatnot, would that be considered except for Mac two fifty?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: So do you does Derby have zoning, permanent zoning? Yes. Okay. So law, Act 181, prescribes that to be Tier 1B eligible, a town has to have a duly adopted municipal plan, permanent zoning, flood hazard zoning consistent with three different state statutes, water and sewer or suitable soils for large scale septic capacity to administer zoning, so DRB and a zoning administrator or a subcontractor and one other thing.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: I think those are the main And the second part of your question is they would only be exempt from Act two fifty for housing. Housing will be up to 50 units. And one of the nuances here we're going to show is as you map these areas, the RPC, the town, agriculture is already exempt from Act two fifty. Why would you map in agricultural areas in these new areas designated for growth that you're seeking act two fifty for new development?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Well, so so that brings a point. If you're familiar with the town of Derby and all, it is shallow development off from Route 5. There's a couple thousand developments, not many. Derby Line Village being the exception, which is surrounded by some of the arguably the best Yep. Best soils in the state. The same up in off the village of Derby. Derby. Some of the best soils in the state are there. Highly septic system ready. Matter of fact, you go down Route 111. I believe that's all septic system down through there. It's also where we farm the hell

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: out of it. Mhmm.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So would we be if that was the one b, which they can, we're not enticed to sell, but there there are other areas in town that should be in one b. Would that make us would we fall under zoning for our agricultural activity? Only if

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: the town chose to adopt new regulations on farm. None of what we're presenting is automatic.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I I I understand. I'm using Derby as an example. I'm not so worried about Derby, but but I'm worried about other communities because your best development soils are prionine glands. There's no sense arguing about that. We know that all would be true. I mean, you know, it's harder to develop in clay, especially with anarchal and everything with a fern in it or what man.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Let's pause. But I think what we hope the description you gave us of your community, which sounds a lot like mine, there are reasons why the municipality would want to not include parcels. Remember, the purpose of this process for the municipality is Act two fifty exemption. Ag land is Act two fifty exempt. Conserved land has no potential for development to meet housing targets. Prime Ag soil has other suitable priority land uses. The area that the community process, the statutory community led process, so the area that is mapped by that process is for development, and it is suitable for development, and it is seeking Act two fifty exemption. So there are good reasons why a sensible planning commission over an eighteen to thirty six month process would not include existing ag lands. And to be clear, if they did, if we did receive this authority in an Act two fifty exempt area that did include an existing farm with existing farm structures, they're fine. They already exist. It's just like how existing five plex housing units may not be built today under the municipal zoning, they still exist. They can still be rented. They can still have people living in them. They're still connected to the sewer.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So an existing farm structure doesn't need to go no one needs to come in after permission because it's already there.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Yeah. It's just non conforming. Most of the structures we have in the state are non conforming to both state and municipal regulations.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Before any of these zoning laws exist. And that that wouldn't change.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Two two other things. First of all, would you come up to the counter derby and give this talk to our select board? They start trying to wrap their heads around it. They really are. And or should I get David Sneden from the number? We can follow-up on that because

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: we might be doing a very in-depth dive on this issue in this coming spring, like probably April, that the town of Derby would have an open invitation to come and work with all the other towns because we think what's going on with that 181 is critically important for municipalities to understand

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: what their future is gonna look like if this law goes forward. No. A 100% agree. Second second point, I wanna make. So we we talked about buildings. What about zoning, like, hours of operation? Could could would could exist in farm or or agricultural entity, you know, they feed their cows at 04:00 in the morning.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Mhmm. Mhmm.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Because it takes till noon. And, you know, would a farm be subject, you know, like a gravel pit, you know, like gravel pit can only operate between seven and five. That's something that's a very big concern to myself and probably several, if not all, the committee.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: That's an important and complicated question. So zoning regulates land use, building and structures and land use. Ordinance. If you have zoning, you can have ordinance. Ordinance in some communities, although frankly very few, can regulate things such as noise, hours of operation for different types of establishments, commonly bars and restaurants or those that have event permits, things like that. And then there is also something called have nuisance law already. So it's like what comes first has a presumptive rebuttal. So if there's, again, an existing dairy farm that's always operating at 4AM and has the lights on and cows moving in and out and then a competing neighboring land use happens later, that farm has that presumptive rebuttal, the same way a fire station does, which is also very annoying to live next to. Or a twenty four hour laundromat does as well. So that's not unique to agricultural activity. That's just part of land use law in Vermont.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I just asked you, sorry, is it okay if I interrupted you? Yeah, go ahead. Just because top of our minds yesterday when we were discussing this terms of nuisance was the bill that we updated last year nuisance, involving neighbors. Not municipalities, just the right of a neighbor or the extent to which a neighbor could file a legal claim. Are you talking about something different here?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: No, that's the same thing. Okay. Yeah. Which does I guess my point is that's not zoning. Yeah. But there's ordinance which can regulate the activities of all businesses and residents to an extent through ordinance. And then zoning is the use. So if you're building a structure, does it conform to the local regulation for setbacks, for building height, for exterior lighting, for sometimes fences. You have to be able to see through x percent of the fence for road safety and pedestrian safety. And the reason there is a municipal interest in having that regulatory authority is for public safety and to prevent these abutter conflicts, which encumber the municipality, gets caught up in appeals and lawsuits. And that is a drain of public resources. Farms, of course, experience that if they're the subject of the appeal or the lawsuit. And it's to allow these land uses, agriculture and housing, housing and commercial, commercial and civic, to exist together in a cooperative way that supports the whole health of the community, that has safe streets, that pedestrians can use safely, that visitors can use safely, that delivery trucks can make it in and out. That is the point of what we're asking for, and only in these very small, important central growth areas, which now we'll go on to.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry, I want to make sure that because there were a couple of hands up here. Did you get to finish your question?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No, you had the same question I Perfect.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien? Thing, I mean, the one

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: question I wanted to ask now is that in Tonbridge, know it's like board, we do not have any zoning in town, but we can still do ordinances, right? So you don't necessarily need zoning in order to have a noise ordinance, right?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Correct. Yeah, but you can have an ordinance for the purpose of enforcing components of your zoning and your municipal plan.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: That's the sort

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: of zoning? Yes, that's how zoning is enforced. Act 181 creates location based jurisdiction of Act two fifty. We are in the implementation process of Act 181 now. It creates three tiers, but really it's four tiers, and then there's a fifth jurisdictional trigger called the road rule. 1A is total Act two fifty exemption. Act two fifty does not apply. Only the municipal zoning applies. 1B is Act two fifty exemption for housing up to 50 units. Two is, in theory, Act two fifty as usual, triggered the way it was before, five, five, ten, five years, five miles, 10 units of housing. It creates a new tier three, which is based off of the mapping of resources of statewide importance. And then there's the road rule, which is jurisdictional starting 800 feet off of an existing road. The road rule starts this July, barring legislative intervention, which requesting. We do not think the state or communities or property owners are prepared for the road rule to take effect this July.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Tier three is being mapped by the LERB, the Land Use Review Board. Tier one is being mapped by the RPCs. And tier two is what's left over from those processes concluding. So this is what one of the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: sorry, Are did

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: you have a question for the Senator? Yeah, actually. Going back to this grandfathered farm that might be in one of these areas. Sure. If that farm is sold, so you've got this historic use and suddenly it's sold and it might then have a different usage, would that all of a sudden its grandfathered status be gone?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: No, It's still a nonconforming structure. This happens with all types of structures for all uses.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: It's often said we could not rebuild any of the cities we have in Vermont with the current zoning. It's very true. You could not recreate Montpelier because the new zoning wouldn't allow what's built here to be built. So you can't undo that with even a change in ownership, those structures exist. The uses of them may be different. Those uses may be impacted by some ordinance. The farm turns into a nightclub, and the nightclub's having parties all night long, maybe there's an ordinance to control the noise. Right, but the structures can't be impacted from a new zoning ordinance, a new zoning that would be applied to that area of town.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: At the point of redevelopment, it would be subject. So if you do what we ask, which is allow municipal regulation to apply in Act two fifty exempt areas, if they adopt it, if the town adopts it. Let's use give me a town to use that has zoning and bylaw and sewer at Rutland. City. So Rutland City. So if Rutland City has tier 1A and there is an existing building, a mushroom cultivator moves in, they have a farm designation from the agency, And they're operating in an existing building in Rutland as a mushroom cultivator. And then they want to redevelop the building to add height and density on the lot to create public parking. They want to open it up. They're going to start also serving food and become a restaurant. And they're going to make an adaptive reuse of that existing structure for other new purposes of the building as a farm, they would have to go through a municipal permitting process to get their adaptive reuse zoning permit, which if that business was not a mushroom cultivator but was a brewery and went through the same path, which had a commercial brewing operation in an existing nonconforming building in the city Of Rutland and then wanted to make an adaptive reuse of the building to add a restaurant and a parking lot, they would have to go to the City Of Rutland and get an adaptive reuse permit. The answer to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: your question. No, I know what your question is.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So let's use an example, say there's a farm that's been now surrounded by development, it's a long standing farm, farmer passes away, the children inherit the farm, no interest in farming, it sits there for five years as not a farm, and then suddenly a farmer comes in and buys it and wants to take up farming again. Wouldn't then, because it's in one of these tiers, the municipality say, no, you can't do that now?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Only if they build something. This is if they build something.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Well, at the farm, they could build something, but it could be a farm again. So it was farm, not farm, farm again.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Are they building a new structure to or they're just repurposing the existing buildings and now have a new farm determination letter from the agency of agriculture? By the farmers, you

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: could build farm buildings. If you're designated to the farm under the RAPs, you can build buildings.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: That was a common interpretation of the law prior to the Supreme Court decision. And so what we're proposing is that that basically stay the same, except in these tier, these Act two fifty exempt areas. So that

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Even an existing farm that needs to build a new barn can't do it.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Can do it according to the regulation if it exists.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Municipal regulation.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: The municipal regulation.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: If it's in a tier one area.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Yeah, is what we're proposing. So I think it would be maybe productive at this point to look at what is this area, and how do we get it? How does it become created? Because it doesn't currently exist. So this is a representation of one of the FLU maps that's created by the RPC. So in the pink donut, the three pink colors in the middle of Pittsford, that represents the prior village center, the planned growth area, and the new village area. The reason I chose Pittsburgh is because Pittsburgh already has and has had for a long time a lot of this stuff and the characteristics that, in theory, Act 181 allows Pittsburgh to leverage for new housing growth in the future. So they have a five person select board. They have professional municipal staff, including planners. They have municipal water and sewer. And they have permanent zoning and bylaw already. And if they wanted to, they could continue working towards Act two fifty exemption through this '1 181 process. So the RPC, the Rutland Regional Planning Commission, has created this map through a many months long process. And now this map is before the Land Use Review Board to affirm or deny the regional plan, including this Act two fifty it's so confusing to say, but it's eligible. This pink area is not Act two fifty exempt. It is the total area eligible for Act two fifty exemption later. And I wanted to point out that in this regional mapping process, ag and forestry and conserved lands are considered and mapped. The town and Rutland RPC know where these existing they don't know perfectly, but they generally know where existing agricultural activity is happening as well as forestry lands and land under all sorts of conservation covenant and easement.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: There's even mapped area within the pink area that is carved out.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: So this is the Rutland Regional Planning Commission map of Pittsburgh that creates the maximum eligible area that could be Act two fifty exempt in the future. Then remember our three tiers that are really four plus the road rule? So on the right side of your screen is the current tier three draft map of the same area in Pittsburgh. You can see me moving my mouse, right? Okay. The pink there is actually pink in Pittsburgh. It's right there. That represents a significant natural community, which is basically an endangered species, plant, or animal that ANR knows about. So that's been mapped. You can't build over there without an Act two fifty permit.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Do you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: affirm to your truth?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. The

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: green area that looks like the top of a mountain is the top of a mountain. That is the headwater streams or headwater area. So basically, really steep slope that generates a lot of runoff that's important to the headwater. And then the yellow, we're calling these the fried eggs commonly. That is what's identified as a habitat connector. So the habitat connector is the state resource that needs to be protected. The way that that's been identified is where there's road between tree canopy. So 75% tree cover with a road in the middle becomes Habitat Connector and now requires an Act two fifty permit review under the current draft rule. This would apply to all development that has an impacted area of 200 square feet, so 20 by 10. And not agriculture. Agriculture and logging are expected to be totally exempt from this map. The road rule, this is not what This is not exact. This is a model of showing 800 feet off of an existing road. So everywhere there's this opaque whitish gray also would require an Act two fifty permit review for any development over 200 square feet of impact. So real quick, I want to point out sorry. I know this is a total repeat for the folks in Rural Caucus. But in the Northeast Corner of Pittsburgh, you see that yellow habitat connector. That's Sugar Hollow Road. So this is Sugar Hollow Road when you put the Habitat Connector with the road rule. It's under total jurisdiction of Act two fifty. So any residential improvement, septic actually, the current rule includes trails, utilities, transportation facilities improvements to existing structures, so homes, and new construction. And this area would require an Act two fifty permit, but not for farms and forestry.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So and

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: go back to that slide.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: If you look if you were unfortunate enough to live there and had a five acre or 10 acre lot or or two acres, and you wanted to build a little 20 by 30 more than 50 feet from your house to store your tractor and stuff, you'd have to get an act two fifty permit. Sign me up, that sounds like a deal.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: You know, so if you had a land along that road and you were protecting the interior forest because you did a lot of forestry management, but along the road, always hope to punch in a driveway and then let your kids have a single family home. They'll go, you need that two fifty permit now. And this goes forward and we'll point out that this whole road is covered with homes and driveways already. Isn't like this is wilderness. And this is just one example. I think if folks have heard about this, town of Moore Town, just up the road here, is almost entirely covered by this situation.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Most of their town highway network.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Yeah, even some state highways have this scenario under the current rule.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Yeah, Ripton State Highway serves as Main Street, all habitat connector.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I want to just maybe suggest that we not spend too much time on the build rule. Today anyway, we can echo that another day. But just since we're here now, I'm thinking about or about

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: We're getting to the point. Almost

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: going to wrap up. So to be fair, I wanted to show you an urban center. Same map. So this is Rutland Regional Planning Commission map. Pink and dark purple shows what could be Act two fifty exempt. Green is showing you already conserved and unsuitable for future development land. And we do expect Rutland to go for Tier 1A. Rutland City. City Of Rutland. Again, so this pink area is what's eligible, maximum land area within the City Of Rutland eligible, if the LERB approves it. So this is the process created by the LERB but enabled by statute to receive that tier 1B status, we call it. It's the status of tier 1B. So it starts at the Regional Planning Commission. There is a point in time which the Planning Commission takes the municipality's input, but it's not the municipality's map, the Planning Commission's map. That goes to the LERB. There's a sixty day public hearing process, a high standard of review facilitated by the LERB, which is a political subdivision of the And then the LERB will affirm or deny. If the LERB affirms the map, it goes back to the RPC. There's more public hearings at the regional level, and then the RPC adopts it. And then there's another final action by the LERB to affirm or deny. And now the status of tier 1B can be created if the town opted into it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Tier 1A? 1B. 1B, Okay.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: If the town opted into it. So Rutland Regional is in that process now. It could conclude by April or May. And at that point, the city of Rutland could be Tier 1B.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: We'll note that in the Rutland RPC's map and present it to the LERB and their plan, there are some communities that they have said, you don't meet the characteristics to be eligible for tier 1B because you're too linear. You don't have streets and neighborhoods. So it's not a given that even Derby Center or Derby where you have that development would be eligible because you might not meet a traditional town layout. And so that's another issue we're pointing out prevents communities from growing in the way they desire. You have to have already existed in the past in order to grow in the future. And that wasn't, we believe, the intent of this law, which was to allow even rural communities to grow and allow housing. Where do they think it was best to allow that to happen?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: So basically, the map is affirmed by the LERB, then a municipality, just the individual municipalities so in this case, the city of Rutland apply for Tier 1A status. And there's basically a duplication of that whole process again. It's not exactly the same, but it follows the same theory, which is citizen led, multiple opportunities for public comment, an extended pre application period. There's statutory notice requirements. By law, the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets is notified of the request for tier 1A status already. That's already law. So on and so forth. Then if the LERB denies it, it's denied. If the LERB affirms it, it's checked in on every four years to make sure that the municipality continues to meet these nine statutory criteria. So in order to achieve total exemption, you have to meet these nine statutory criteria, which starts with having a plan and zoning in sewer but includes other things that are subjective and to be assessed by the LERB, which is, do you have smart growth principles? Is it consistent with the character of nearby historic districts? So on. So this brings us to the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All nine have to be?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: These are in law, yeah. So I linked it there. This is paraphrased, but I linked it so you can read the straight from statute. These nine criteria are created by Act 181. And then L. B. Has put flesh on the bones of this through their Tier 1A guideline, which I also have linked later, which is a much more they actually even add notice requirements that are not in statute.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I see you're almost done. So why don't we

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: let you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: finish, and then we'll go back to questions.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Cool. Why don't you take it away?

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: So this all matters because we've set in motion over the last few years a very large process to determine where we're going to grow in Vermont. And because we need 30,000 to 40,000 housing units that might be a bit ambitious, but we know we have a housing crisis, a shortage. And the theory is this would reduce conflict between farms and neighbors in the dense growth areas, if we get this right. The tier 1A areas represent these most dense areas where there's going to be residential, mixed use, commercial, civic, all of these activities that have competing interests for safety, public, they're all taxpayers, they're all property owners. Some of them have employees, some of them have businesses. If Act two fifty is gonna be exempt from these areas, who's gonna regulate the land use? It sort of falls to the municipality to call balls and strikes, right? If you are looking to grow hydroponic facility in a greenhouse with lights on twenty four hours a day, and then you're next to a childcare center where people are dropping off, in the, someone's gonna have to determine how to manage these conflicting interests in these most dense areas, which is a teeny part of the state. And that's where we feel that municipalities have, we're moving towards this process, where these are the Act two fifty exempt areas. Here's where we want you to develop. In fact, municipalities are told your responsibilities to grow this many units. Your region needs to grow this many units. Here's where we're investing water and sewer. This is where we have to have some authority to manage those competing uses and treat landowners fairly, so they know how to think about their future investments. To think about those conflicts if they're gonna have neighborly disputes, So they don't end up on the wrong side of something because the laws aren't clear of how to treat land use evenly among all their taxpayers and property owners. So that's where we get to this just in the big picture. Trust me, our members have no desire to seek farms, leave their community, regulate any more in the end area than we need to, and frankly manage these difficult disputes among neighbors and competing land uses. But in some of these areas like the city of Montpelier downtown, they need to do that. And that's really sort of just the nuts and bolts of why we're here to talk. We're happy to have this. And to also emphasize that since the Supreme Court case, we're not aware of any municipalities, even though they have the authority now to start regulating farming that have even begun a process or even thought about. So we also just think it's important to be cautious about how we're dealing with this and how quickly we're rushing, because you never know where some other corner is gonna present itself that this, there could be an impact, unintended impact on agriculture in Vermont. And that's certainly not our intent. Why we're bringing this to a very small level through a process that is going to take two or three more years to play out till we even see the, we believe, diminished areas where there'll be Act 50 exemption if a municipality seeks to achieve it.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: And I can't remember if I said this before, so I apologize if I'm repeating myself. But regardless of if a municipality goes forward to seek Act two fifty exemption, which they might not, it's hard to do, and you might not get what you want at the end of the process. And it's a political process at the local level. It has to also go through the select board, Board of Aldermen, and you have to have public hearings, etcetera. But whether they do or they don't go for 1A or 1B or neither, the Home Act of 2023 already through state law preempts the density in these areas. So if a municipality has water and sewer, it has to zone 20 units per acre, duplexes, ADUs by right and more. So regardless of if a municipality gets Act two fifty exemption for non agricultural uses in this area, these are dense. They are dense. Over the next fifty years, ten years, honestly, we hope five years they will become more dense with more infill and more mixed uses, including residential.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Are we, in theory anyway, able to see, and maybe you've done this exercise, or maybe since it's still adapting, it's still a work in progress, not yet, but at some point we would be able to see how much land is currently being farmed in what could be a 1A area. And I think you said that 2% was potentially eligible. That was a new number.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: That's a new estimate.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, which we all know that there's 6,000,000 acres in Vermont total, I think. So we can figure out what 2% of that is. But do we have any sense of currently being farmed?

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Within those areas, since they're still changing, not one has been approved yet, It's hard to calculate that, but we do know from the maps, that Rutland City example, even in the city of Rutland, you can see, I'm just going go off memory, 15 of Rutland City has already been mapped as conserved rural, likely agriculture is going on there. And then they're not seeking that exemption in those areas.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Act two fifty exemption.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Act two fifty exemption for other uses. But

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: three maps are drafted and before the LERB. There's eight more to go over the next year. So Washington County, we haven't been able to see. They're still going through a public process, and then the map will be drafted. Also, the agency of Ag knows where all the farms are. We don't. So it would have to be done with the municipal zoning doesn't create a farm, and a regional plan doesn't create a farm, the farm designation letter. Yeah.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: The case that brought this forward, obviously, it was determined to be eligible for

[Glenn (Center for Agriculture, Vermont State University)]: a

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: farm, and then that receipt, which the municipality, they couldn't regulate it, which then proceeded the complaints, which then brought the case to the court. So, it's just we need to be careful and deliberate about how we move this forward to not have more unintended consequences.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you have time for a couple more questions? Yeah, absolutely. A little over. Who had a hand up for Isaac? John, do you have

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Can I quickly I always forget to do this? These are resources about municipal planning. Some of them are FAQs. They're really easy to review. I skipped over the statutory requirements at the municipal level, but if you want to know more, they're here. This is all the resources for Act 181, including maybe the most important one you're maybe the most curious about. This is the map viewer. So you can see the three draft maps. And if you know of a farm in your town and you want to look and the map's up there, you can zoom right in. You can check the parcel ID, everything. And then this is the type of development currently in the draft rule that would be subject to Act two fifty, again, not agriculture. And then this is more information about where municipal regulatory authorities rest. And that's all. I just want to say that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, thank you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Very

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: thorough. And I'll stop sharing here.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Representative O'Brien? Yeah, just a couple of quick things. So for clarity, you have to become a 1B as the gateway to 1A? Basically.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: And it's the same area that's eligible for one or the other. Or it could be a donut.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: But you can't go straight to 1A?

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: You can, but it's like, why?

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Yeah. The 1B process. It's a proof.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The 1B process. If

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: you're seeking that exemption, why not get the immediate exemption for housing that exists with that before you get the rest? And I think one thing that's really interesting that we're struggling with this two, three year effort that's added all kinds of staff and public meetings and taking tons of time. When we're all said and done, the estimated Act two fifty exempt areas might be less than what we currently have under the interim exemptions. So it begs the question, was this the balance that we are looking for? And for your concerns, are those areas really substantial for the farming community to maybe avoid some of these other nuisance cases that end up in challenges to farming in other areas of the state.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: And we're trying to help town officials and Vermonters understand this, the reason we talked about the road rule is the road rule is in state law. It is not a choice of the municipality. It's not an area mapped through a planning commission citizen process. It is just going to happen. And so the future growth and density and new housing and new commercial and industrial uses in Vermont are being pushed They're contracting into these very small areas. So the issues that we see happening between farm and non farm neighbors and in all sorts of other situations, pedestrians and commercial trucking, like combined sewer overflows. All of the intensity that happens in these dense areas where growth is happening quickly and different uses are competing with each other, where you have college students and you have safe housing for aging people, like in Burlington. Those things are going to start happening in these smaller areas. And so we're proposing this because we want to plan well for the future. And we want these municipal regulations to be fairly applied in a clear and objective way, regardless of whether you're converting a brewery to a mushroom cultivation operation or backwards the other way.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So Samantha, my follow-up was on your mushroom example. Didn't even come up today, but it sounds like, to me that would be an accessory on farm business if you started the mushroom theme restaurant. And that has its own sort of municipal zoning exemption or not.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: In the

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: sense you can't say, no, you're not doing a mushroom theme restaurant connected to your mushroom farm. But it does have to follow the zoning by it.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Yeah, that's a good example.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: So,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: my question is, you have a dairy farm, it's kind of the way John was alluding, you you change from dairy to mixed use farming enterprise, vegetable fruits, vegetable, orchard, whatnot. Would that trigger zoning because it's gone from historic and, of course, our right to farm bill that we passed protects that. It's still agriculture. So let's not let's not pigeonhole the type of farm that it is. But if it's agriculture, if it's growing food, it's growing food, it's growing food.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Yeah. I mean, I think if it comes to this, if it's in this act two fifty exempted area, that gets approved, and the town decides to add agriculture regulations, and that dairy farm is changing some use of its farming, nothing's happened yet. Now they want to add a huge parking lot that is on the corner of an intersection where maybe if that was another type of business, the fire department might say, that's on a corner, we need you to move that 10 feet back.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Oh, I

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: understand. That's what might be because you're proposing a new use and now an area of the town that does have zoning, that chose to regulate farms, that now has a permit that has these broader public safety concerns.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: So yes. And I have friends that have converted historic more than 100 year old dairy farms into mixed vegetable farms. And there's stuff they needed a wash and pack facility, walk in coolers, more equipment. They have much more mechanized cultivation compared to dairy, so equipment sheds and safe storage for that stuff. They had employees who park their cars. They have a farm stand where you can buy the mixed vegetables. They put much more land under cultivation. So they might have been building farm roads and driveways and new egress onto state highway. If that was happening in the Act two fifty exempt area and the municipal regulation were to apply, they might need to get a permit. If they're building a new farm access road that is a transportation facility, if I did that at my house and to my property, I would need a municipal permit. I wouldn't live under these

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: no names.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: And so that farm also would never need that. So if this conversion from if you're talking about historic farm, existing structures, conversion to a mixed enterprise, mixed vegetable farm, if they built stuff and it was in this 2% area, they might need a permit. The municipality might not regulate all of those things. It may or may not require, for example, if you're building five new walk in coolers for vegetable storage, some municipalities require an electrician's stamp before you connect to the utility. Most municipalities don't. So in that situation, they might be required to go through that process just like a homeowner or a different commercial or industrial business would if that municipality has the regulation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Doctor. Lipsky?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: This has been very helpful, and I appreciate how important you are as a resource set for for. And now I'm gonna try to go back in history where the genesis of January was originally clothed as a housing act February reform bill, mostly to primarily to meet the needs of the extreme shortage of housing statewide. But, you know, I represent basically in my life or most of rural Vermont. It's active in forestry, and we're 76% forested and maybe another five or 6% agriculture. So in all those towns is what is appearing to me, and you've almost alluded to this and when I've gone to tier three hearings, not with you all, obviously, but with the words, there's a lot of alarm. And I'm gonna use not incendiary words, but the notion of regressive. Mhmm. Rural town, rural folks Mhmm. Are generally they're not the most affluent towns in the state. They struggle for wages and employment opportunities. But I heard many, many constituents of that, those folks that I feel I represent even though they may be outside of Lamoille. Alarmed at the cost of an automatic trigger under the road where an example, a spouse is caring for whose elderly is dealing with an even older or more struggling partner spouse, yet they don't wanna sell and move into a nursing home. They'd like to gift or provide for their children, want to stay in Vermont land, and maybe it's a 1,400 foot driveway. But they don't have enough money to put wood in their boiler or oil in their tank, and now they're faced with triggering a a 32 hurdle barrier under act two fifty automatic trigger. Mhmm. And this happening all over world from. And you uttered the notion that maybe this road rule is causing more problems and for moderate low income rural for moderns Mhmm. Than doing good. I just wanna hear from you articulate leaders of Vermont League of Cities and Towns that that maybe is something that's alleged cites are and the word is free and clear. They didn't write the law. We take responsibility for what was voted in, whether we voted against it or we voted for it. This is what the monitors are gonna have to live. The monitors, many of them, cannot afford the the burdens of these automatic triggers.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I wanna hear the answer to that too, but I'm gonna suggest that we wait until we have different time set aside for a discussion of other parts of Act one eighty one because we are already now five minutes into our next testimony.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: I'm sorry.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's okay. And I thank you for being Happy

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: to come back and talk more. Happy to keep talking with the agency of agriculture, talk with the Farm Bureau, other groups, understand this is an important topic and we wanna be good partners and communicators with all the groups.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I would appreciate that. We had two other hands up. If we've got questions about the league's position here, I think that's the most important thing for us to understand. So go ahead and grab I'm a minute,

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: just trying to understand, you gave two maps here with colors that you don't see very well of eligible. When these are designated, then these maps will change, right? Do I have that right? When you have 1A and 1B are actually designated areas? I'm missing something.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: I think the answer is no. Actually, the map won't change. Because this is mapping the future future land uses. So Downtown Center Village Center Plan Growth Area. What does mean? Eligible means eligible for Tier 1A or 1B.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: If you meet all those requirements, you get approved by LERB, the municipality approves it. If they grant you that status, now you have Act two fifty exemption.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Am I still in the Zoom or did I leave it? No. So if you look at the Rutland City one, and there's a dark purple glossary center in the middle, and there's pink around it.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Can see

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: those colors good.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Which colors I

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: can see. So that's the eligible area. Rutland City won't do this, but they could. Only seek Act two fifty exemption for the downtown part.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The dark purple.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: The dark purple. They could seek it for the downtown part plus their new TIP district, which is inside of this whole pink area.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Eligible just sounds like it requires further approval to get

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: does. It

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Extensive further approval.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So then why wouldn't it potentially change?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So The question I'm the question

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I'm getting to, though, is if if we have a whole bunch of environmental refugees coming to Vermont and the towns then want to expand the areas, is there a mechanism to do that? That's my real question.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: The current mechanism in law is in the next regional planning process. We advocate in fairness and transparency, we advocate they should be able to make a substantial change before then, before the LERB, if they have a local process, statutory process that supports it. And a good reason to make a change in between planning cycles is for the conservation of land for agricultural activity. If inside here someone acquired six acres and conserved it and made it undevelopable, it would make sense for a Rutland to remove that from Act two fifty exempt status and add Act two fifty exempt status somewhere else. And there are other reasons, like you've had one yourself. But right now, this can only be redone. This can only be changed. The Tier 1B eligible area, maximum area, can only be changed in the next regional plan, which would be eight to ten years.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: The answer to my question is yes.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: The map and the colors, I'm not sure that once something's approved, they're not going to produce a new map. No. It says these are the areas that, because these were map based on characteristics. Those characteristics aren't changing, if you only choose to seek a portion of them for this Act two fifty eligible exemption. Maybe there'll be a new map that LERB or someone creates, hopefully, that shows the Act two fifty exempt areas that encourages development there, so it doesn't put pressure on the working lands. That's the whole point of this thing. But in the law, it doesn't require anyone to go back and change these maps until it's an eight year cycle.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Representative Burtt. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just mentioned that

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: the land area is about 2% of the I'm

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: telling the exact numbers on how much of our land is farmland. Ish percent. Taking 2% out of 17 it's a significant thing you know to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: our committee to our farmers so I

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: just wanted to point that out

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: that's I think you know

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: we're wanting to make sure this conversation is

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: done right and come up with a final solution that works well.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: 2% doesn't sound like

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: a bunch of, of 100, 2% of 17%,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: if it includes a decent amount of farmland, you're talking about 12%.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: It's almost definite it's not 17 two, though. Again, if you look at the Rutland map, inside of that exists in conserved agriculture. It is being mapped at the same time. So land under conservation, agricultural, and forestry uses are being mapped at the same time as land identified for having development potential.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So, what you're saying is that it's less than 2% that's actually farmland in the mapped territory.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Oh, yes. Way,

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: way less.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Maybe, I wish we had that number. Maybe we can ask the GIS. My guess is you're talking a fraction of a percent, not even 8%. And that it's also clear that that land, even the ones that's characterized as the place for growth still can allow farm. It might just have these competing interests that need to

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: be

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: weighed. Then so could the areas that aren't currently farming that maybe are in tier two or three, those could be new farms, cleared and land and sought. The point is well taken that this is very important for this committee and I think that we've heard from the agency of agriculture, it's very hard for them to agree giving up any square inch of land anywhere in the state and saying you can't farm there and we completely agree with that sentiment and that's why our statement was preference and it says in the most densest part of your backyard in Burlington on 10 feet, you should be able to farm that land. Grow food. Grow food, have hens, so completely understand.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So just one last thing I want to clarify and then we'll say thank you and you can head out and we may ask you to come back if we feel like it would be helpful. And if you feel like it would be helpful, certainly let me know. The agency had, in their proposal, and we heard them say, I think that they had negotiated this, or they had worked on it with you. It may not even be relevant now to your proposal, but increasing in the wraps from the current $2,000 level to a higher number. Is that a concern of yours at all now? Or are you saying, nope, we're not even worried about that? All we're suggesting is that we use this tier 1A.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Yeah, so in the back and forth with the agency, we got every good healthy negotiation closer and closer to each other. And in a situation where it was one acre farms subject to municipal regulation, They asked for it's one acre or as decided by the secretary. And so in that situation, that wrap threshold is much more important to us, whether it's the animal, the intensity of the farming, or the revenue. In a world where we're regulating, again, based not on the intensity of the farming, if we go back to the very beginning, not the intensity of the farming activity or how much money they make or how big the farm is, but what's happening in that zoning district and the density of that zoning district, that dollar figure is far less important to us.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Yeah. Feel like they were trying to achieve the same concerns by saying, okay, these real small farms that don't make a lot of money, they're probably gonna be in these same areas. And we said, we think so. And we think it's much easier for the farmers to understand and all the other landowners in your work, the Supreme Court cases, the neighborly disputes to say, let's just do it this way. And so it's the same goal, it's just a different way to do it.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Great,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: good, thank you.

[Amanda Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Thank you so much, thanks for the extra time. Sorry to whoever was waiting, thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We'll be digging into this in the next couple of days. So now just before we break, Glenn, thank you. Can you hear me okay?

[Glenn (Center for Agriculture, Vermont State University)]: Yes, I can. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you for your patience. And we're gonna just switch gears for a minute here. Next week, the committee is planning to visit Randolph. And I thought it might be helpful, Glenn, just for you to give us an update, tell us what we're gonna see and, anything else that might be easier to discuss here rather than there.

[Glenn (Center for Agriculture, Vermont State University)]: Certainly. Thank you, chair Durfee. So, yes, I'm, extremely excited to welcome you to the Randolph campus next week. It's, Thursday at 09:30. I think piggybacking off of another, visit you'll have at Vail. But, it's a chance to see the seventeen eighty seven Butchery, which is our new state of the art facility to support teaching in the areas of butchery. And so it's a great chance to see some of that equipment and space. Just a few notes, to prepare you. So this is a cool space. So even though we do heat it a bit in the wintertime, it's warmer than outdoors most days. It's still a bit chilly, so you'll need to wear your coat. We keep that cold for food safety standards, of course. And then we'll have an opportunity once we're in the space, hopefully, to not only see the equipment in space, but to spend a little bit of time. We can see some of the meat, products and cuts that have happened from our last training and perhaps even have a chance to sample some things if, the bacon makes it out of the smoker. So fingers crossed, but looking forward to seeing all of you in person, meeting our, director, doctor Demetrius Reid, and, having a good conversation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Can you can you, say anything about how how the space is being used currently? What what programs are running? I know that the university is in the process of ramping up a new set of credentialed classes.

[Glenn (Center for Agriculture, Vermont State University)]: Absolutely. Yes. I have a PowerPoint ready if you don't mind. I'll I can share a bit more information on that. It's a pretty exciting time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sure. Yeah. We've got we've only got a few minutes. We we need to be on the floor at three, Glenn. So we'll see whatever we have time to see.

[Glenn (Center for Agriculture, Vermont State University)]: Okay. All right. I'm going to go very quickly and I'm just gonna skip through to the key points, but yes. So I'm with the Center for Ag and for Mont State University. And I think the two key points I wanna focus on with your time is really focusing on the actual activity that's developed since the last time we were together. And so our goal has been to set up programming in the areas of agriculture, food, and forest. We're a workforce center, so all of our activities are geared towards getting folks ready to hit the workforce, upskill, reskill, and that sort of thing. And so two areas of activity since we last connected. The first is with our certificate programs, and so this has been a long undertaking, but the goal has been to identify areas of opportunity where we can provide work ready skills that are specific to needs in the industry, so we have where we see either a current void or a projected workforce shortage in the future, or as well as areas of opportunity where there's not already solid instruction within the state or even sometimes within the region to support those workforce needs. So based off of a lot of internal and external conversations with industry stakeholders, our full advisory committee, as well as our president and chancellor, we arrived upon these three certificate programs as being a key opportunity for the university and for the state. And so this is regenerative grazing and livestock systems, which is focusing on the growing need for things like grass fed beef, looking at management practices that are land based as opposed to intensive based, and looking at all of the systems that go into making that successful financially as well as ecologically. We're looking at the Applied Meat Processing and Butchery Arts certificate. This is geared towards getting quality butchers, folks who can handle the meat safely, who can create value added meat products, who can process meats at a variety of levels. So gaining that sort of art and science skill to be successful therein. And then lastly, a sawmill operations certificate. And so this is geared towards that sweet spot in terms of getting folks who are competent in terms of being able to mill lumber, sort grade, have a general understanding, be able to operate equipment, as well as have some business savvy. So these again are all work ready certificates. We're excited to see these launch in the 2026. These are all modeled as hybrid certificates, meaning that their lecture components of the coursework within the certificates is taught remotely. And then with most of the courses, there's an intensive where students would come on-site or with industry partners and spend four to five days learning some of those hands on intensive skills. So we're excited about this. It's a pretty good value proposition for students, aligns with some of the industry needs specifically, and it's one of those things that has a lot more flexibility than some traditional programming. So you can take a one off course, you could go at your own pace, or you could cram this in as short as two semesters. So that's a little bit about the certificates. We're currently offering a number of short course trainings as well. These trainings are everything from distilling, welding, wetlands delineation, artificial insemination of dairy cattle, just again trying to fill niches of opportunity within the state where there's a workforce need, sometimes a homesteader need as well. And of course, we're incorporating trainings within the new 1787 butchery. So I just want to if I've got one more minute left or do you need to leave, Dave? Do I need to leave?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No, we're good.

[Glenn (Center for Agriculture, Vermont State University)]: Okay. Awesome. I know I'm rushing through here. But I wanna just spend a few minutes on the butchery. And so first of all, to say thank you. This project was a tremendous undertaking that happened. We broke ground, so to speak, or renovations started back in the spring of last year, were completed over the summer and into the fall, and then we began holding some of our trainings in in, the winter. And so this was truly a monumental undertaking financially. I'm very grateful for the support of the legislature in terms of being able to support this project. I think it's a really great example of multiple funding sources identifying a share shared opportunity and then, putting money to support that and make it happen. And so we had a legislative appropriation that covered about a third of the cost. We had a working lands grant. We had a CRRP grant, USDA NIFA grant. We had alumni support, and then we had some core dollars from the sale of some of our farm equipment. So all in, it was about $1,200,000 invested to create this state of the art meat processing facility. And so started with some design work. We're very fortunate with our meat facility director, Lots of experience in terms of creating a really comprehensive design. It's not a huge space, but it's by no means a simple space. Very complicated HVAC systems, complicated equipment, very tight set points with environmental controls. So having to make that space work was critical. So over the course of construction, we were able to renovate that space completely, make it a food safe, wash down ready space, bring in lots of industry representative equipment, So anything to cut meat, grind it, process it. This is a smoker here and a grinder in the front, but all of the equipment that you need in terms of being able to safely and effectively butcher and process. And so since that time, the space has come online. We've been excited to offer various trainings in advance of our certificate going live in the fall. And so these are often focused on different animals. So we've had a pork training, a poultry and lamb training, a beef training, and a sausage making training at this point. And so these have been well received, and we're excited to see the enrollments that have been happening. And through these trainings, we've gotten some of our initial interest for enrollment in the full certificate program. And so the space is absolutely fantastic, leverages audio visual equipment. It's part of the NEFA grant funding, just an ability for folks to get hands on in a safe way and in a way that truly represents what we wanna see in our in our butchery industry. So with that, I know I I tried to speed through, but I just wanted to, again, thank you all for your time. Appreciate being able to give you an intro and look forward to talking with you more, when you have your tour stop next week.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thanks, Claudia. You find that perfect. I do. And I think if when we're there, people ask questions and look forward to seeing it in person.

[Glenn (Center for Agriculture, Vermont State University)]: Okay. Wonderful. Thank you all.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you.