Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Screen share?

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. The nine and ten. Me do it. The the slides are a shortened version of what we gave you Okay. Last time we were here.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: So alright. Good. There you go.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: We got got both on screen.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: So if you all wanna just introduce yourself for the record, we're live streaming. Welcome back.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: I'm Janet Hurley, the chair of the Land Use Review Board. I reside in Windham. Prior to starting this job a year ago, I was a regional planner. Before that, municipal planning director and zoning administrator in Manchester for many years.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Kirsten? I think we were introduced to everyone last go round. I'm Kirsten Sultan again. I'm one of the members of the board. My background is both in engineering and also frontline administration of Act two fifty in the Northeast Kingdom region.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: And thank you both for coming back. And then we have Peter online.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. Good afternoon, Pete Gill. Let's see. Give you a quick camera there, maybe. Pete Gill, I'm the executive director for the land use review board. I've been with the board in that role for about three years. And prior to that, I was with the natural resources board, its predecessor, for about eight years as an attorney.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Okay. We also

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: live in East Montpelier and raise some chickens, which you all might remember because I gave you a quiz on that once.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Yeah. How many chickens, Peter?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: The flock is a is a strong nine at the moment.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Okay. We have thank thank you all for coming in. We've been talking about this quite

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: a

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: bit on and off. We only have about twenty minutes here. I put you on to try and use that time, and maybe we'll let you speak uninterrupted until we absolutely need to interrupt.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Pete, do you have the PDF of the proposed draft language or the the draft proposed language?

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Yep. Let me

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: I think, again, we didn't we didn't come in with a presentation. We didn't know exactly what areas you were interested in hearing more about or maybe questions. So we're very open to using your time as best to help you decipher all of this.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. And Pete, Chair Durfee is saying that they are focused on the recommendations nine and ten and specifically trying to understand what Stony Brook entails and what it would mean to make it automatic or just to use it as part of a permit process. So he's suggesting that he feels that recommendation 10 is fairly straightforward, on the log and pulp yards, making those not part of the definition of wood products manufacturers, but reverting back to what they were considered before as part of logging and forestry.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: I don't think we need to spend any Yeah. Time on

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: I mean, focusing on nine. So if you want to show this on screen, Kirsten and Brooke Dingledean from the board worked this up. Went to the board. The board then directed Kirsten and Brooke to get feedback from ANR. That's where is that's right. So we just wanna make clear this has not yet been Finalized. Off, you know, has

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: not received the benefit of input from ANR. I guess that's we're waiting for their feedback.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: So what you're showing us is language that you're still tinkering.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Developing.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: It doesn't have anybody's official stamp on it.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Right.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Doesn't mean that we can't turn it into a bill and pass that bill and send it to the governor.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: That's that's up to you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: Before we do that,

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: I have question. Yes?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: It was a slide where number nine took up most of the screen.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Yeah. Could

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: could could I see that just

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: There you go.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: Thank you.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Look at that. It's like magic. So recommend that the legislature extend exemptions to forestry and logging like those that are available for farming under 2,500 feet, provided existing permit conditions for permitted projects limiting tree cutting to address Act two fifty criteria are not invalidated, and providing tree removal limits are available conditions for future projects to address Act two fifty criteria on a parcel.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: So Chairman, I have a question about that, if I may.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Please. Yeah. Thank you, sir. We

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: had someone come in here recently in the last three and a half weeks, four weeks. And since they were down in Dassault, maybe they had a sawmill on a farm.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Oh, there's a big sawmill there.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: And Yeah. I'm not sure if that but they also had timberland. Yeah. I think they were some of their production, they were pulling off their land, and some they may have been buying logs in. But our desire to have parity for forestry operations with agricultural operations, And maybe they wanted to take a portion out of of for their milling operation. But there was a question that anytime they wanted to do a harvest, let's obviously, it's in current use, and it was they had to go through an extra hurdle and expense to get a

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: They had to get a permit amendment. 50. Yeah. They had to permit amendment.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: Yeah. Or whenever they want to go into the woods after it. At any time or after a specific harvest that was part of their current use? Do you recall, Kristen, what I might be reading?

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: I recall mention of a project in that region during the stakeholder meeting process and that there was a sawmill on a piece of property that was also in logging use. And so what this language considers is parity with how farming works. I mean, there is already language in the statute that clearly establishes that land below 2,500 feet, if it's used for logging or forestry management, is exempt from Act two fifty jurisdiction. It doesn't explicitly call out that the permit that no permit or permit amendment would be needed for those activities or that the land itself is not subject to the conditions. It's just not quite worded the same way. And so what this would do is bring it in line with how farming is addressed through act two fifty and that an applicant would designate on a plan, like, this is land that I've assigned to farming or logging forestry and is not the subject of the act two fifty permit condition. And I guess, Jed and we were talking in the hallway a little bit about the, you know, Stony Brook that I know has been discussed as well.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Just gonna ask before we Sure. Before we shift to Stony Brook, just the so the recommendation that's here is saying we're gonna basically solve the problem that you just described. If you have a sawmill on your property right now, if you want to cut, you would have to get a permit amendment.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Because the sawmill needs a permit.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Well, only if the specific permit put in a restriction on tree cutting. For example, this might occur for a stream buffer area or an aesthetic buffer or maybe as a result of a deer wintering area being identified, like the agency of natural resources might advocate for certain protections. And if the district commission decides that that's necessary to meet the criteria, they can put that kind of tree cutting restriction as a component of an Act two fifty permit.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: If you a plot of land under 2,500 feet and you want to log it, there's no sawmill on that plan on that lot. You can log it.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Of course. Coming to Right. Right.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: If there's a mill on that parcel, then if you want to log it, you might have to come back to the board?

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Well, I think it would depend on the specific conditions of the permit and where the logging activity could be undertaken.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: So some might. My question is, yeah, just whether there are some situations where you might have to currently.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: If the logging would be undertaken in areas that where Act two fifty has established a restriction on tree cutting, then doing tree removal as a as a component of logging in those areas would require return to the district commission to consider relief from those restrictions. Right? But I think what this is looking to do is more clearly defining that if property is dedicated to both, say, like commercial development activity and logging, you can define that at the onset more specifically and ask the district commission to recognize these are the areas of the property that I'm designated for designating for logging and forestry, and they're not, therefore, the subject of the act two fifty permit condition, like the of the permit or restricted or governed by the act two fifty permit conditions.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: So if you if you were going to apply for a permit today. Mhmm. Okay. So so the

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: You wanna put the PDF back up?

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Well, just before you do that, just the rest of the sentence here provided, the two provideds.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Oh, yep.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: What what

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: are what's the what do those actually mean? For an existing permit that has conditions as kids describe them.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. So let's say someone has a permit and there's as a order to satisfy, let's say, criterionate aesthetics, there is a band of trees that is to be retained to provide aesthetic buffering. Screen right. And that's a a requirement of the existing act two fifty permit. You you can't go in and log that area unless you return to act two fifty to get some to get that somehow revised. So that's that's saying you you can do logging, and and this happens routinely. Right? Like, that owners can do can undertake logging and force your management as exempt from act two fifty below 2,500 feet, but they can't run afoul of an act two fifty restriction. Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: That makes total sense. There are always, you know, and specifically, for aesthetics. Yeah. Obviously, frontal pools are very unique habitats and it wouldn't belong to their other AMPs. So it doesn't require let's say it's a 300 acre woodlot or a 200 acre. They could routine as long as they're following their management plan, to approve and file under.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Yes. That's Right. Then they they don't need to come back.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: Right. They do a harvest, and a year later, they may buy a different section that complies with

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: The Act two fifty permit condition. Right. As long as they're not running into that area that is yeah. And then restricted.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: It's a separate company sense thing. There's no common sense clause, but let's say along that buffer, there was a windstorm, a lot of wind thrown trees, maybe some red pine, big fiber, where they could go and salvage or Maybe

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: I'm trying to think of a case when I myself encountered that question.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: Would they call the or or the local

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Coordinator. The coordinator. Thank you.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. I mean, there's acts of nature that reasonably warrant some kind of remedial action, particularly if it's threatening a structure or property interests, then ordinarily, a combination is made.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Is it pretty clear then on what the concept here in recommendation is and what it isn't.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: So I mean, it's the first provided, but

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: not the second. The second provided? So this last part of that

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Right. So you would Yeah.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: That would be in the case where there wasn't an existing permit, but then somebody did get an act two fifty permit for an operation on the property. And

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: It would be retaining the ability for the district commission as a component of development review to define areas where there would be restrictions on tree cutting. It's make it's it's saying also when needed to conform with the act two fifty criteria. So that's the second part. It's sort of a look back. The existing conditions would remain you know, they would they wouldn't be altered by this statutory change as as proposed. And then looking ahead, there would also the commissions would still have the ability to put restrictions on tree cutting for the types of things that were were mentioned.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: That's not work.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: But yeah. I've just got my eye on the clock here, and I don't want us to be all of us to be late. Go ahead, Jed. I'll finish up.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: Alright. K. Let's say they don't have a sawmill, but they have a family or children. They may wanna take a piece of their holding out to so their family members could build homes, they would need it. Back

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: to the current use. So are

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: you talk so if it was just a a large parcel that they logged and it does not have an Act two fifty permit. So whatever else they did, if it had an Act two fifty trigger, then it would trigger the need for a permit. It depends on the municipality and whether it's a 10 acre or one acre town and whether it's six lots or 10. So it depends on what gets proposed as to whether that triggers. If the scope of the number of lots or units rises to that threshold

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: pretty large.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. It wouldn't trick. If they haven't done anything in five years, then they wouldn't they wouldn't need to come to Act two fifty for a permit.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: They would have to if you withdraw a portion of that land, let's say it was kind of use, well, obviously, you pay up

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: extraction fee. Yeah. But that's not us. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Right. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Yeah. This isn't really Stony Brook that we're talking about. Not yet. I I don't think. When you mentioned nine and said Stony Brook, I was like, okay.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Well, it's a Stony Brook like concept because it defines areas of a particular property that would be governed by the Act two fifty permit versus other areas that would not be.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: And if you put on the quoted language for farming, it shows this. So if you put that page back up, like It's Stony Brook.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Right. But it's important to Stony Brook is this feature of Act two fifty that's founded in precedent that describes how an applicant can ask the district commission to define as part of an application and recognize that it's only this subset of land that is that is the development land. And it requires that the applicant provide some supplemental material, and it's it's complex, frankly. And I'm someone who's helped people navigate this, and it's not easy to understand. And it's this whole other thing that one has to do, basically demonstrating that this is a subset of the land that supports the development and is, you know, impacted or affected under all of the criteria. So it's kinda like think about you analyze all the criteria and what those impacts are, and then you have to go beyond that and think consider, you know, then what is the area of land where where that effect occurs? And it's just so it's it's it's more work, frankly, and it and it's complex. And so, like, from from a from the board's perspective, it you know, mandating that that occur or somehow trying to standardize and automate it doesn't it it would it would be complex and cumbersome, and we it wouldn't make sense. Like, it's it's simpler to do it this way from like Can you zoom in a little bit, Pete?

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: And this is the language that is in statute for agriculture, for farming. And

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: that would be relevant to

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Make it relevant to forest

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Right. For people doing Act two fifty projects on land that where they're say designating, this is land that, at least insofar as at the time of application, they're designating as logging force management. They're saying that's that's the present purpose of that of that land and the and the use of it, then they can map that out and ask the commission to recognize that in the same way that occurs now for farming.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: So the fundamental idea is to have some parity between forestry and farming. There's no provided bats in the existing

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Well, farming that's true.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Well, it says will not conflict with any permit condition. Right. I mean, that's

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: the provided language. Parallel to the

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: provided language. Okay, that's helpful.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: So we very much tried to mirror the farming language in coming up with the proposed language. And

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: you was there anything else? And I think you've so you've spoken a little bit about Stony Brook and how it's a little bit more work, maybe a lot more work. And that's a reason to think twice about saying in addition to what language that you're gonna propose for nine possibly, that makes Stony Brook automatic because that would

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: be a little bit more of a burden. Yes. More more complex. And people can ask for that now. It's just as a reminder as an a component of the guidance that is being offered to wood products manufacturers. It's being, you know, made known the related existing guidance concerning this is is being provided, but it's an opt in. Right? Like, you if you want to do it, you can. It's available now. And people can actually return if they already have a permit and there's some, you know, plans change or maybe the statute changes and there's a restriction that they want the commission to re like, assess. Maybe they're now devoting land to logging forestry. Like, you can ask for the commission to make a a determination of, like, a stony a limited subset of the land and and determine that that is the subject of the permit and the area of land subject to act two fifty jurisdiction. You can do that after the fact too. So, I mean, it's it's something that's available, but if it was something it it it just doesn't lend itself to this sort of cookie cutter automated kind of standardized methodology because each piece of property is different and each project is different. And so you would have to think about, okay. Well, where where are all the areas where there's traffic and access, and where does all the runoff go, and is there aesthetic buffering? And and it would be, you you know, unique for each project, and you you'd have to have information from the applicant to support that analysis. And, you know, I just think it's adding a lot of extra burden and complexity that does and it just doesn't lend itself to kind of being automated that way.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Before we disperse, any anything else that you wanna say? Good.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: No. I mean, how can we help? You know? Whatever.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Thank you. Yeah. Very much appreciate your

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: you know, coming back. Yes. Ahead, Mike. A yes or another question. But those two lots that plan owner wanted to give to his kids, it required an 1,100 foot driveway.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Oh, wow.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: With the road rule as proposed enact one eighty one trigger.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: After July 1.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: After July

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Not necessarily. The board is currently developing guidance, and an 800 foot road would trigger, up to perhaps 2,000 foot driveway would not. So it's gonna depend on

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: yeah. Whether it meets the definition of road versus driveway. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: Grass growing up the middle of it.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: No. No. No. I think it'll

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: be more like That's exactly the use is it serving?

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. With with So the the board is developing guidance around this to help ensure that it's understood. And but but, no, it wouldn't necessarily, I guess, is

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: For the record, I said to chair Durfee is yes, no question. So I'll choose to end

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: on it.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky, Committee Clerk]: I'll just send her a statement. For the record, the road rule still is a terrifying notion to a lot of Vermonters.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. Understand.

[Rep. David Durfee, Chair]: Great. Okay. We have one of our committee members leading the devotionals.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Oh, okay.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Land Use Review Board]: Thanks for having us.