Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So Jackie survived and came back for a second day. That's

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah. I was was pretty when I got home.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If it makes you feel any better, I I was too. There's a gyroscope. Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Or the layoff. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Was so I'm not sure that today is gonna be any less Any better? That's good. Are

[Rep. John O’Brien]: you gonna commute, Tim?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah. Well, I ride with a couple other from up that way, red wire and blue.

[Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So he has a chance to tell them guys how they ought to act.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Oh, yeah. Did all the way down today. Hopefully, I'll get a ride. And as

[Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: this I told morning, you have three three full time farmers and a logger in the building now. You're all outnumbered. Alright.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We had testimony yesterday from a Wood Products Manufacturing language that L. R. B. Had helped us craft to deal with their recommendation. And we don't have to make any decisions this morning, but I wanted to just take a few minutes. We've got about ten minutes just to hear any comments that represent my My comment, Chair, is I

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: used my bully pulpit moment about fifty nine minutes ago in the fourth caucus to clarify that it seemed like the Ag and Forestry Committee, FPR, the FPA, and PLC all were on a same page with regard to support of what the version was. In the room was one of the board members, and I've met with her. So, you know, we're maybe 90 some percent there, but we have questions. So my request would be and I said, well, you know, if there are issues, we'd love to talk about it, you know, to our committee. And I think councilor, they will be we may reach out in a day or so. Sure. Yeah. And but I have noticed that the environment committee is going to look at this. So I would like them to at least be looking at the language that we did agree with, not with a lot of red lines. And, you know, if if we could Yep. We haven't voted it out of our committee, but at least what where we seem to be. We did straw poll it, I believe, seven zero one yesterday. Is that correct?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No. We that was That was something. Budget. No. That was the committee letter. Yeah.

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: The budget letter. Okay. So we've taken note. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I mean, to be to be clear, I think we haven't really had a chance to come together and say, It's fine, final. And that's what the purpose of this discussion is. But don't think that leaving that technicality aside, I don't think that you said anything that was off base substance wise. I would like to hear from other folks and see if they have other reactions. Yeah, the L. A. R. B, glad to hear they were there and heard that conversation and their meeting on Thursday, I understand. The board is, the L. R. B, and we'll review the language then. Yeah, the environment committee needs to be looped in and I sent them everything that we have just so they knew what we were looking at at this point and said we would be meeting this morning. We have more information after our conversation or that those reactions do. Anything stand out for anybody just in terms of those those two drafts? Yeah. Richard?

[Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: In in principle, I like everything we've done, and and I'm not the great expert in this world. And, you know, I'd like to the the effort and the work you've done with a chair and taken a lot of, you know, what Jed had for input and our witnesses. The one thing I wonder about to me, when I understand a sawmill is is one one thing because it that bigger nature. But in tier three, you know, firewood manufacturing businesses. I don't know where they would fall if they'd have to go through act two fifty or not. And and I don't know. I don't know if it was like that before before act one eighty one. And the only thing I can say is someone that manufactures firewood, you know, sets up to buy logs and cut them to size and split them and bring them to people to heat their homes with should be out in tier three or tier two. It shouldn't be in an industrial park where they can't even afford to buy the land. It should be out in rural settings, you know, so they can run their saws and whatnot and not bother people. And, you know, they own you know, they may even own they may be a Stony Brook thing. I don't know, that's my big concern. Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: if we've got the bill here, the so I believe that firewood manufacturers producers are considered wood products manufactured for the purpose of this. Would be treated like sawmill essentially. Okay.

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: Yeah.

[Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And it's been like that process, you said?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Has it been like that Jed or ever and ever, amen? Two years ago, maybe three years ago,

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: we tried to have an exemption in Bush for January for small sawmills, fiber wood processors, and chip and mulch yards under certain volumes. And that didn't go anywhere. I think that I own a wood processor, it's part of my business, it's at the farm where our shop is, so I have friendly neighbors. I believe municipalities can regulate

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the hours of operation Absolutely. This bill really isn't changing anything to Yeah. Do with it just pulled up the language that is but one thing the bill is doing is saying that the log yards are not Collection areas. Wood wood product manufacturers. So they have, we don't wanna impose extra restrictions on them.

[Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Wood products

[Rep. John O’Brien]: are subject to Act two fifty permitting?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. We did one last

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: year up in Fletcher. We did have some in Altair. That was expanding.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: That was in fiscal meeting.

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: What's that called? All I say after the lab in Stockton.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Oh, trying to

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: figure out, that's a word I don't expect it.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah. And I have a good friend in Royal Oak who just built a new site. Angels? Angels are good friends of Royal I just built a new one. Used to call me and complain about the HAC250 process. It's quite a shock.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon]: You brought it up yesterday, David, that what if it's piece of land is 90% or 10% forests, and this word devoted to logging and forestry, you could make it, I know it's actually devoted to agriculture, or what if it's open land that's just not enrolled in current use, you know. Either fish or not. It's not, is devoted to logging and forestry at that point and you decide to put sawmill on one part of that. Got 10 acres of forest and 90 acres of field. Obviously

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: you probably want to get grow current just

[Rep. Amy Sheldon]: first before you went through this process, but I'm just wondering why not? This is a legitimate question I want answered. Why can't we just say when development is proposed to occur on parcel attractive land, only those portions of the parcel of attract support the development of a mitigation areas necessary for the development comply to 10 DSA 6,086.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So yeah, I think that's a good question for Does

[Rep. Amy Sheldon]: it matter? What's happening on the rest of world?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Why is it? Why does it matter? Does it matter? Why?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Does it matter? Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon]: And when I just want an explanation from somebody that says whether it does or not, because if it doesn't, then why lose Why put that potential problem in

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: there? If it's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon]: just land, it's gonna, I mean, they can just should not fall under Act two fifty because of activity happening in one corner of it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, and I, so I have to say, this is not my area. And Jack may have more thoughts on it, but I think there's probably a lot to say about it, I have no idea what that lot is. I think it needs

[Rep. Amy Sheldon]: to be whatever it is before I go down and off.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, John?

[Rep. John O’Brien]: And I'm still confused about when you have to ask for Stony Brook or when it's a default to a Stony Brook type of field. Basically, we've heard in farming, it's a default immediately to it logging, it's not, but it might move it there. But I haven't seen the language. Yeah. It's not even like never comes up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think it's I don't think, like, at first.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: And then Greg's point that

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

[Rep. John O’Brien]: All the the types of land. Right. Do they notice

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let's have have lunch counsel come in because they can come in before Friday. The alert can't really I don't think come in till Friday. But let's ask them that question too. I think I know what the answer is, but I'm not sure, so I'm not gonna say it.

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: Yeah, confused.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Confused things. Okay, good.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Then

[Rep. Amy Sheldon]: Think outside of that, I'm getting the rest of that. Okay, so, right. One more thing that

[Rep. John O’Brien]: not so much maybe to deal with the language, but of consequences. If you have our 100 acre example with the 10 acres being developed, What sort of restrictions are on the non developed part of that? Because it's still, they said it's jurisdictionally still Act two fifty, the permit covers that whole parcel. And so what does that obligate you to once you're in an Act two fifty permitted parcel as opposed to our farms, which are not Act two fifty permitted or a logging operation? I don't know what that means. And if you want to sell it or if to if you have succession, all those issues, covered use, how does being sort of in have that cloak of Act two fifty, what does that do to that parcel? Patricia, I don't know

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: if we have any slots available today, but maybe you can just find the first available slot whenever it is and see if Ellen is available.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah, we do have 02:00 staff committee chairs.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, and then we've got

[Rep. John O’Brien]: I was just saying,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: you probably have a much better idea of that. Even the whole person is

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Right, when, you know

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Usually if the guy owns, or the person owns the whole, it's all in the maps and stuff we get. But I've not seen one up in Fletcher there talking, that was pre existing and so was angels. That's quite a process to go through but Act two fifty gets done with that I don't think a lot of people understand. It comes to us first after town and we look at it and make our approval and we don't take that long up where I You know? Some other districts are a little more intense for whatever reason. But then they got ANR and water, all those other agencies they go through. And they all got their 40 odd dates. So back to fifty's and it's blamed for me holding everything up when it ripped. Usually a week, two weeks after we've reviewed stuff and talked about, we pass it on.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Does the permitting them trigger approval from all those other agencies though? It does, so it somehow connects us out.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: We get it first.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: The district commission.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yes. Then it goes to everybody else and then you gotta wait for all of them to wait and have to turn they don't get back within the deadline so they gotta ask for an extension and that really needs a soft fill. We always get flamed. That

[Rep. John O’Brien]: sawmill, right, it was all sorts of water. Oh yeah, storm water. Yeah, and they need engineering scoping.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah, And you know, he's been here for New York Stock. He's gonna figure out what the but anyway.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. So we'll see if we can get Ellen in later in that today. Good morning, Steve. Are you? Good morning. If you want to, I think we can jump right in actually. I

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: apologize, but I've just finished PowerPoint ten minutes again.

[Steve (witness on rodenticides)]: Yeah. And, Sandy, did you get it?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, sorry, I realized, Steve, that we had you on starting at ten. Yeah, I'm fine, whatever you want to

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: do. Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: go ahead and have a seat. I think it's five minutes to get. This is from Anson. Oh, thank you,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: you get the link from Terry? I did, but if you have the PowerPoint up, I'll I'll share with you. If you can share the Are you talking about baby food or rodenticides? Rodenticides, hopefully. Because I don't know anything about other than having As I said, at 50, it says baby food. Yep. Switch that. Okay. Gotcha.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good print. But that that the written agenda on a Tuesday morning is outdated before it gets

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah. Before the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: drugs. Yeah. It's not a problem. Steve, we Patricia can't by policy, not her choice, not really my choice, she's not supposed to be directing what happens. Oh, okay. If you wanna you don't have to put it up. We we can just look on our devices too if that would be easier. Whatever works for you guys.

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're going have

[Rep. John O’Brien]: any discussion time about the municipal relation? Just what does that seem like?

[Unknown member (owns wood processor; Forestry Caucus participant)]: Sure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Maybe we can stop doing main care too.