Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: On 8c. So on the bottom of page three, some changes are made to that. So the Land Use Review Board in collaboration with ANR shall adopt rules to implement this new criterion eight c. It is the intent of the general assembly that these rules and so it strikes reference to discouraging fragmentation of forest blocks and habitat connectors and instead adds that these rules encourage, onto page four, conscious development of wildlife habitat while maintaining historic values of homesteading and agrarian activities. The rules adopted by the board shall include, and there's some more changes here on page four, standards establishing how impacts can be avoided or minimized, including how fragmentation of forest blocks or habitat connectors is avoided or minimized, which may include programs to incentivize conservation of land, enrollment in current use, and collaboration with local conservation groups. It is the intent of the general assembly that the permitting process for single family dwellings, accessory dwellings, and accessory structure structures be cost effective and timely. The Land Use Review Board shall take measures to operate an efficient, organized, and customer focused system with regard to any development within the board's jurisdiction. So these rules are currently under development at the Land Use Review Board. And so amending, if you were to amend this, they would probably need to keep working on the rules to address this new provision. Section four is slightly related, but on a different different topic. There's this existing statute in 10 VSA section 127 about resource mapping. So the Agency of Natural Resources currently maintains a resource map. It's a very interesting detailed map that you can access online. It has a lot of different overlays on it with the different natural resources in the state. And so this is amending the statute at the bottom of page four into page five. The mapping shall identify natural resources throughout the state, including forest blocks and connecting habitats. And it strikes reference that they be relevant to the consideration of energy projects and projects under Act two fifty. And then on page five, new language is added to the next subsection on this that says, However, the maps shall only be advisory and not determinative for regulatory programs, including permits under Chapter 151, which is Act two fifty. And so currently, the maps are not determinative, but this is making it very explicit that they will not they'll continue to be advisory and not determinative for Act two fifty. On page five, section five is a repeal. This is repealing, what is called the road rule or road construction jurisdiction under Act two fifty. So that is being repealed in section five. And then next, section six is on the tier three rulemaking from act 181. And so this is making a change to that rulemaking, which is on page six. And so the Ladies Review Board in consultation with ANR shall adopt rules regarding what will be tier three under Act two fifty. The board shall review the definition of tier three, determine what critical natural resources are, give due consideration to those, land use types, and I'm on page six now. And finally, in that sentence, measures they shall, look at measures to ensure that no municipality or region is disproportionately impacted by tier three designation. It strikes reference there that says that would limit reasonable opportunities for tier one or two. So it just strikes that part. And then also it strikes another part further down. The rules adopted by the board shall include the process for how Tier three areas will be identified and strikes reference to them being mapped. And so then the effective date is 07/01/2026.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: On the road rule. Sure. That's the one that is less affectionately called the 800 foot rule.

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't heard it called that, but maybe.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. That's very

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Question down there, Larry?

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yes. It's representative. Just Can explain the world rule to me?

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. It is a new jurisdictional trigger under act two fifty, the construction of a private road, greater than 800 feet, not a municipal road, or a combination of multiple roads or drive private roads or driveways greater than 2,000 feet will trigger an Act two fifty permit starting in at the starting in 2027.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: K. Thank you. Representative Chittenden.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: And you two things. One, you just said that the 800 foot road rule is new, but I believe it's also been clarified in committee that it used to exist until somewhere in the mid 2000s and then removed. So in some ways, we're bringing back something that had been for a good portion of active fifties history. Is that true?

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: So it there was Yes.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Sorry. I'm

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: happy to come back and actually discuss the history of the road rule. I think I have done that before. It was there was something under Act two fifty that was repealed in, I believe, 2001 by the legislature. It existed under Act two fifty for, I think, about fifteen years. And at the time, it was an Act two fifty rule. It was not in statute, and it did also govern the private construction of roads. It is slightly different than what was enacted in Act 181. It is and calling it the road rule here is not exact because it is a different but it is a road jurisdictional trigger for Act two fifty. There used to be one. This is a new one. Great.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thank you. That's helpful. Also, you said something about the maps. Actually, there's a clause in here that would clarify that the maps are not what was the language you used? Determinative. Determinative. I guess I thought of them as fairly determinative. So can you just explain that? Sure. So

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: the Agency of Natural Resources maintains their natural resource atlas on the internet. It has a lot of different information in it. However, when someone applies for an Act two fifty permit or another type of permit under either ANR jurisdiction or the PUC's jurisdiction, they generally are using the site maps and flats from the specific site in question. Applicants and members of the public are able to get information off ANR's natural resources maps, but I think generally they can consult those maps, but additional on-site verification and specificity is required. So the ANR Natural Resource Atlas is not always as detailed on a parcel by parcel basis. And so I do think they currently have I'm about to go over my skis here a little bit because you can hear at ANR how they describe it. I think there is a disclaimer on it that says it is not perfect and that it should not be taken as perfect and exactly always matching what's true on the ground. And so I think I think generally for Act two fifty permits, an applicant provides their own detailed map and, plot for the actual site as opposed to using the online reference. Thank you.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Any other questions for our presenter? Seeing none, thank you very much.

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So net next is h seven thirty. H seven thirty is an act relating to Act two fifty location based jurisdiction and makes an and proposes a number of changes on similar topics than the last bill. So on page two of H seven thirty, this bill would also amend the tier three rulemaking provision. So again, this is a session law provision that's in Act 181 about the Land Use Review Board defining tier three based on criteria that was enacted in Act 181. So it keeps all the language on page two into three the same, and it's adding new elements that the Land Use Review Board shall include as part of the tier three rules that they're currently developing. So on page three, the Landry's Review Board shall include in the rules number six on line 12, a definition of de minimis residential construction that will not trigger jurisdiction, which may include installation or improvements to a wastewater system and installation of a shed less than 200 square feet in size, and if a criterion under 10 VSA 6,086, which is Act two fifty, is not recommended for review under tier three, it shall be identified in the rule and a rationale shall be provided as to why the criterion is not required for tier three protection. So here so with Subdivision 6, there is a definition of de minimis activity under Act two fifty where the board has said in their rules minimal development that is de minimis may not trigger Act two fifty. This is asking that that definition be specific for this residential construction, which may be triggered in a tier three area. And so that's important to remember. Under tier three, residential construction may trigger the need for a permit under Act two fifty. Additionally, it's asking that if

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: It's under default, Austin.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I'm having a little couple understanding what a definition in six, like de minimis is the least resistant? De minimis

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: referring to a very small change that would not require need for review or change to a permit, which something like Can

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: you just say it a different way, please?

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So under tier three, the construction of residential property may trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit. And this is saying if someone is actually gonna be constructing a shed less than 200 feet in size, the board should address if that is de minimis and would actually not trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit. Or if they're gonna be getting work done on their wastewater system, would that be considered de minimis and also not trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit? What are small alterations to a home that would not trigger the need for an act

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: two fifty permit? That's right. Thank you. Yeah.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Presented North. With with the clarification on that statement that this only applies to, like, pre existing homes that happen to be captured in tier three areas. Oh, no. That that what we're we're applying?

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: Not necessarily. It is gonna be applying to tier three. It may be for preexisting homes or it may be for new homes that are built under that system. Meaning that it would be an act two fifty permit attached permanently to the property. And so if a new home is constructed and then ten years later, they wanna add a shed, an amendment would not be needed. Alright. And and then asking if any of the the criteria need to be waived for tier three. Alright. Still under the rulemaking provision for tier three, on page four, there's some additional language added. Oh, sorry, I missed that. At the very bottom of page three into page four, currently, the rules for tier three are due 02/01/2026, which is June. This is pushing it back to 2027. It's also changing the name of this committee, which has changed a few times in the last few years. And then there's also new language added on page four still within this rulemaking for tier three, subdivision E. At least thirty days before a public hearing is going to be held on the proposed tier three rules, the board shall mail written notice to every property owner within a tier two or tier three area and those properties located at or above 2,500 feet in elevation, that the property may be subject to the updated act two fifty requirements, including when road construction requires a permit. The notice shall include information on how the property owner can submit comments on the draft rules and the date of a public hearing on the rules. Later in the bill at section six, there's a $20,000 appropriation to pay for the mailing of the notice. Alright. On page four, section two. So another thing that this bill does is it extends all of the interim exemptions for housing under Act two fifty that were in Act 181 by six months. So on page four at the bottom of page two, currently in the statute, there's this interim exemption for priority housing projects. Any number of priority housing projects under the terms of the statute are exempt currently until 01/01/2027. This is extending it to 07/01/2027. On to page five, section three, still related to Act two fifty exemptions. At the bottom of page three into page four, it is striking language that says that the Land Use Review Board and the Agency of Natural Resources will not have authority to enforce existing permits in Tier 1A area. Under the language of Act 181, existing Act two fifty permits in Tier 1A areas where an exemption is being created, those permits are being transferred to municipal authority, and the LERB and ANR's ability to enforce those permits were transferred to municipalities. This is getting rid of that and basically letting the LERB and ANR still enforce those permits. On page six, the other interim exemptions for housing are extended. And so on page six, subdivision DD. So for 75 units of housing in new town centres, growth centres, and neighbourhood development areas, again, being extended from January to 07/01/2027. And then the same is also true on page seven for the housing in downtown development areas. Again, January to July 2027. Section four is on that topic I just mentioned about municipalities enforcing the Act two fifty permits. So the change is actually on page nine Within a tier one a area, the appropriate municipal panel, so the municipality shall enforce existing act two fifty permits, and that language is being struck so that they will not be enforcing the existing act two fifty permits. Next, on page at the bottom of page nine into page 10, section five, the effective dates from Act one eighty one. So at the top of page oh.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Sorry. Just back on page nine. Can you just explain

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: the impact of the whole thing? So, tier one, which is made up of tier 1A and tier 1B, once those areas are established in that area, depending on if it's tier 1A or tier 1B, there are exemptions from Act two fifty in those areas. But municipal permits are still to be issued. As it is established in the statute currently, the municipality is to take the existing Act two fifty permit conditions and put them into the municipal permit so that the municipality can be enforcing those permit conditions, not the Land Use Review Board or ANR. So it's taking away Act two fifty's jurisdiction in those areas and putting it all with the town. This would be striking that and leaving enforcement of those permits with the Land Use Review Board and the Agency of Natural Resources. I do not know how that would play out practically, so you may want to hear from the sponsor.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: So the municipality would still be the only one permitting, but the LERB would still have enforcement

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: role? Yes. Thank you. At the top of page 10 in section five, there are effective date changes. So in one here, the effective date is being changed for what is criterion eight c. It is changing it currently, it is to take effect at the end of this year. It's pushing it back to 03/01/2027. And then also subdivision two here, section 19, is pushing back the effective date for the road rule, the 800 foot jurisdiction, the private road jurisdiction from 07/01/2026 to 03/01/2027. Section six is the appropriation I mentioned before. It's $20,000 to the Land Use Review Board to do location based jurisdiction notice requirement that's being added to tier three. And then these last two secs oh, sorry.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yes. That notice, and it says an appropriation for twenty seventh, if you go back to page four, and I'm sorry to Yep. No. Know we would get there. It says that a notice will be mailed to every tier two and three property. Is that around the state?

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Whole state? I think it's most almost the whole state. Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: So I I 20 to be held.

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: $20,000 is an is an estimate I came up with. I don't know how much the mail will cost, but I do think there would be a cost to having to mail a notice to every address in the state practically.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: So the expectations are multiple meetings? Have to be. Yes. Have to place tickets.

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: And how they can submit yes. I did that. Yes. I think the sponsor has thoughts about that. Yeah. Alright. Oh, good.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Senator

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Austin. The municipalities getting any funding for taking on this the permitting responsibility? No.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: K.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. But to

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: be clear, municipalities could charge their own permit fees.

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. There's last two sections on page 10. I did not write these. They're related to tax and property evaluation. So if you have detailed questions, Kirby Keaton drafted them, but I do think I can explain them briefly. So section seven, amends 32 VSA thirty six twenty two, a parcel subject to Act two fifty requirements. When determining the appraisal value of a parcel, an assessing official shall account for any impact on the fair market value of the parcel due to development requirements under Act two fifty. And then related to that Section seven is that on or before 10/01/2027, the Department of Taxes shall publish guidance for Vermont assessing officials regarding how to implement the requirements of that section. So I do not know a lot about property valuation, but this is directing them to include it in their appraisal. And then finally, effective dates. The act shall take effect on passage except for the tax section I just read you, section seven. That shall take effect on 01/01/2027, and shall first apply to list lodge on the grand list assessment assessment date in calendar twenty twenty seven.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Any other questions from the members? Thank you very much, Abby.

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: You're welcome.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. We're running ahead of time. However, that's rare. Are you prepared to testify for introduction on seven '49? Seven I am seven 07:30. Excuse me. 07:30. Excellent. Anybody need a file brace first? No.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: Representative Laura Sabilia from Wyndham two here this morning on h 07:30. I think you just had a walk through from Ellen on the bill. And so I don't think I need to get into the technical aspects. Let me tell you a little bit about the bill. This bill has been sponsored by a number of members of the rural caucus. The rural caucus is a nonpartisan caucus, looking to find consensus and, on areas of great import to rural Vermont. I was in this committee, when act one eighty one was developed, recognized it as historic legislation for our state. And the rural caucus, since passage of this bill, has, asked our RPCs, VLCT, and others to come and talk with us. We've been very concerned about public notice and public awareness because of the historic nature of this legislation and the potential to impact, people's ability to develop their land. We just wanna make sure they understand that these changes are occurring. And so as is the case when you are trying to find a consensus a bipartisan consensus, This bill does not represent the hopes and dreams of every sponsor that is on there related to, Act one eighty one or but it is what we have been able to agree at a minimum is really important for rural Vermont. We believe that, this legislation is moving very quickly and that Vermonters are not really aware. And so we are asking for notice, to be sent to Vermonters whose land will be impacted, so that they're aware and to have that happen prior to, the final hearing for tier three. And I have not had a lot of time to prepare my comments for all of you. And so if I miss speak on what the bill says, I would hope that, Ellen will remind me. So notice is very important. We have also asked for delay in a number of the aspects. And I'll speak more to real time what we are seeing and how important that is in a moment. We are also asking, we think that it is really important, to make sure that our listeners and assessors have some sort of guidance on how to consider all of the tiers when they are thinking about Vermonters, the value of their property, and evaluating that. It's possible, perhaps, we will see increases in property values for some in some aspects. It's proper possible we will see decreases. And so this is asking for guidance for to be given for listeners and assessors to help them think about this historic legislation and how to evaluate on property values. In addition, we have language in here asking that existing act two fifty permits, the the execution of that, oversight of that is not given to the tax. Let that be kept regular. I think that is really the highlights. We've and we've moved the all of the deadlines forward. And if I might, Mr. Vice Chair, do I have a few more minutes? May I share something? So I'd like to share an experience I had two nights ago, which really validated the reasonableness and appropriateness of this request for me. So I am a citizen's interest commissioner on the Wyndham Regional Commission. And the RPCs are those that are being asked to bring these maps forward to the LERP. And I will speak more about what I understand about that process after this. We were fortunate enough that chair Hurley attended the meeting. The regional commission had brought her there to explain to the Wyndham Region Commissioners about the work of the LERB and how things are going. And I I wanna note that I feel the LERB are they board members or commissioners? Board members. I have seen them at so many meetings, so I wanna really credit that. She was there, and she talked about she talked about the implementation. And then she finished, and then the staff from the Regional Planning Commission began to speak about the process for Wyndham region map. And our maps in the Wyndham region will probably be amongst some of the last to be sent to the LERP. And right now, staff is on a trajectory for a May draft to be sent to the LERP. And so at that point, Chair Hurley was still there, but she was not speaking. The staff were speaking. I raised my hand and said, I think it's really important that we understand, as a commission, that our draft map is going to be going to the LERB in May. It's not scheduled or not thought to be able to be approved and completed until next winter. And yet, very significant regulatory pieces of Act 181 will go into place before that process is completed. Specifically, the road rule, which will impact all of Vermont. I mean, the entire the entirety of section or tier two is scheduled to go into place July 1. Chair Hurley then came back up. This is a public meeting. I wanna be careful not to say that I am quoting her, but, I believe what she said was Laura has raised a very important point. The end, she did not continue. And the chair of our commission, the executive director, noted the same. And my takeaway from that was an acknowledgment by the LERB, which is working really, really hard, that we may have the timelines not quite right. And I don't know if you all have had the opportunity to hear from the other RPCs or to look at some of what has been happening with the LERB and the initial maps, but it is intense work and negotiation that is happening and going back and forth. Intense. Which I would say to you, I think is appropriate given the historic nature of this legislation. And I think it really warrants a a tweak in the timelines for sure. For sure. Which will also help with public notice. And so I think it's very difficult as a citizen legislature to pass historic legislation with all of the details figured out in one session or even in one biennium sometimes. And this is that type of We see it with education reform. This is of that level. And so we think that these are really modest proposals to consider. As I said, it does not represent the hopes and dreams of all members of our caucus or all of the sponsors. There are folks that would like to repeal Act 181. There are folks that would like to repeal aspects of it. This legislation does not ask for that. It says, please, we need more time. The LERB needs more time. Vermonters need more time. If this is to be enacted, we have to do this right, and we are not on the right timeline. And, mister vice chair, may I just quickly check-in with the league, who I have consulted with on some aspects of this bill to make sure that I haven't missed

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: To take.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: Yes. To make sure I haven't missed anything in particular. I know they're this is a surprise to them. So I guess you probably is there anything that I I've missed that you would want me to hide?

[Josh Hanford (VLCT, Director of Intergovernmental Relations)]: I'm just gonna sure. For the record, Josh Hanford,

[Abby (Legislative Counsel)]: director legislature.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT, Director of Intergovernmental Relations)]: Intergovernmental relations at their Montpelier cities and towns. I would say that the Act 181 requests in this bill align with what BLCT is also asking for. It's a delay in implementation so we can understand a little bit more about what's going on, that there can be more public input and notice. A delay in the implementation of the road rules so those maps can be finished, a delay in the implementation of the Tier three implementation, And then also under the Act 181, which is the areas we want to grow and where Act two fifty will be exempt, there's a challenge right now that communities are not interested in pursuing Tier 1A, is really meant to be the balance between conserving more areas and developing our dense centers so that that's where the growth occurs. The current requirement and LERB has also presented this challenge, but they have no authority to change it. That if a municipality cheers tier one a status, that means the LERB is determined they don't need Act two fifty. They have rules and regulations, land use regulations that exceed Act two fifty. The current law requires them to take over all existing Act two fifty permits on behalf of the state. So literally managing two sets of regulations. The new regulation, may reduce parking requirements, which may have much more progressive land use regulations, but yet they're being told enforce the old Act two fifty permits. And in some communities, these are hundreds. And they don't know how they will do that or whether they'll have the authority staff to do that. Another part of this bill seeks to address that challenge. And then the notice aspect, we clearly understand that from our listers and assessors who are municipal members of VLCT. Although listeners and assessors also have their own association, they are municipal employees or volunteers elected or appointed. Clearly, you need to understand if property now would be transferred and sold after it has received a new Act two fifty jurisdiction that never applied under these conditions. That could be a single home, a single garage. They need to understand how that would affect the property valuation of those properties in time to accurately assess before properties are transferred with this new regulation applied to it. It's fair to say that VLCT has been asking for very similar delays, not a repeal or cancellation, but a delay, and for some of these aspects to be dug into. And our communication with the LERB and our written comments on various aspects align with those very comments that are represented in this bill. And again, we would also say that the LERB has been working very hard. Those board members and those staff have been working very hard to implement this work, I think they're even asking for some additional time to implement their rules. But our concern at this point is those will all be implemented before there's a sinking and before

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: the

[Josh Hanford (VLCT, Director of Intergovernmental Relations)]: legislature, after you're out of this section and before you come back for the next session. There'll be no time to evaluate whether there is something that needs a tweak, and that's really what this allows us to do. Just make sure that an historic change to all of Vermont's land use development regulations has the time for people to understand it and the ability to tweak if necessary.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: Mister vice chair, may I do I have another minute or two? So I would just suggest for consideration, you might ask the to explain the potential complications of the road rule going into place before maps are are finalized. And so how that could play out on the ground. That's a suggestion on testimony. And then my final comment that I will leave with you, is one of my hopes and dreams, which is not in this bill, but I have been trying to activate, which is, you know, in Vermont, if you have enough money and legal assistance and patience, there's probably not many places that you will be unable to build. And I and I know a lot of my colleagues on the rural caucus, and I'm sure all of you. I am very concerned about the potential for unintentional rural gentrification if, along with this historic legislation, we do not put in place some tools to help the Vermonters who live in rural Vermont and who have lived there for hundreds of years and may want to pass on a bit of their land for their child to be able to build a road, to put a maybe a double wire or a very modest home. And they may not have the money for the engineering needed to mitigate or any of that or for the permit. And so we risk potentially making those folks criminals, or disenfranchise really disenfranchising Vermonters. And I think we can solve those problems if we want to. They're hard. This is historic legislation. And if if this is right to do, I think we have to solve for providing some tools. And I have reached out to a lot of my environmental friends and suggested that, you know, that if if this is right for Vermont, we've got to figure out how to help the Vermonters that are there now be able to stay and afford to participate to be law to be lawful afford to be lawful. So thank you very much,

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: sir. Any questions? Senator Roth. Thank you, mister chair. Representative Sebeliya, thank you for your presentation today and bringing age seven thirty to us. Question. How would permitting of tier one be done by a municipality, but enforcement be handled by the learner? We talked about Josh brought it as well. The removal, the striking out of that paragraph, that removed the enforcement of the tier. Are we just basically suggesting that all of the act one eighty one enforcement goes away altogether since it's been essentially delegated, like, concepts have been delegated to the municipalities? There's would be zero enforcement of that?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: So sad to see that my good friend Ellen is not here. But representative North, what this has to do with is existing Act two fifty permits that exist now. The enforcement of those permits as contemplated in this, in act one eighty one was that enforcement would move to the municipal to one a one a municipalities. And that does not feel appropriate. That that's an existing permit that should stay with the LERB. Those were issued by the individual districts. The LERB is now connecting and managing all of the districts together. And so that's what we have. Have I? Yes. So

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: So maybe that's what I was misunderstanding is that it's existing F-two 50 permit is now encompassed in a tier one a area Yes. It's not up to the municipality to take over Yes. The act two fifty enforcement of that existing permit.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: Well, right now, the law says that it is. And so we're saying we don't think that that should happen.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Gotcha. So in the tier one a area, a once a municipality grants tier one a development permit, you know, whatever that's gonna be called in a particular municipality, we're not expecting any Act two fifty enforcement be gut of that. Because they'll be exempt. Because they're exempted. That was where I was.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT, Director of Intergovernmental Relations)]: And I could just add to that. You know, it's it's really it's not a municipal authority to become Tier A or to get Act two fifty exemption. That's up to the LER. The LER decides if they're eligible, that they meet and exceed the standards that Act two fifty has for all the different protections, all the different criteria. Once they've received that authority, and this isn't the whole community, it's a designated area, right? Typically, maybe Burlington or Rutland City might be able to achieve that for their whole city. But even that sort of in question, once they've achieved that status, act two fifty doesn't exist because their parking permit, their storm water permit, their all their permits cover and exceed what act two fifty does. So it's not necessary. That's why it's really hard to say, but follow our old Act two fifty. So this bill seeks to say, Nope, that can stay with the Lurb and Act two fifty process. Or if there's a way to sort of remove those permit conditions and then have the municipal existing permits take that over in a logical way, that's open for discussion as well. But it can't just be automatically you own 300 Act two fifty permits that you had nothing to do with the permitting and don't even know if your local regulations match up with what, is a condition, an act two fifty condition on that property that now you have

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: to learn about and enforce. So so given that in these municipalities that are in these regions, the tier one a of regions, that there's gonna be a mixture of things. There's gonna be developments where that were originally actual 50 permitted. Right next door is gonna be a new development that is now tier one a permit. And, yeah. So this I guess what I'm understanding then is that act h seven thirty doesn't attempt to resolve how to deal with those differences right next door to it took.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: No. Representative North, as, you know, as I as I noted, it does not seek to solve all of the issues that may be out there, but really issues around process and timing and notice. Yes.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Any other?

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Ela? Josh, just on that piece of you represent so many municipalities. I guess I'm just curious if particularly the cities in Vermont have had these conversations internally. Do you know Burlington feel the same? I mean, I'm imagining the cities don't all feel the same about this topic. I'm just curious if you know how many of them have actually had conversations about this internally and whether they do or don't want it.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT, Director of Intergovernmental Relations)]: Absolutely. So we had our priorities for this session include this very thing. All of our municipalities, all of our cities that are represented on the league, many of them are on the board, has been expressing this very concern. They very much like to be tier 1A areas, but they're not at all sure how they would take over the state's act two fifty permits, considering their own regulations that they would be approved for tier one a may go above and exceed some of those or have different approach so that they are all very much want to not stop the tier 1A delegation process. And that's why this is an eloquent way to say, we don't wanna stop that process. We want you to just say, once we achieve it, LERB suggests we've got this authority, let us then now permit the new projects. But the old Act two fifty one's, you're gonna have to enforce those until we figure out how to do this transfer. And I think the LERB is working on some of that, but not all of it's in their statutory authority to do that. It's a very convoluted process to do some of these. And so I can say with confidence that our members that are likely to achieve tier one a status, are synonymous with probably our fifth district areas, our cities, our largest city are all seeking the same relief because they wanna be tier one a.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: So just to confirm, what I'm hearing is that a lot of these municipalities, a lot of these larger municipalities have had internal conversations, have concerns. They don't necessarily say, no, we would absolutely never want this, or we would want more process and options and need to continue to figure out how it would work and if we'd even want it. This

[Josh Hanford (VLCT, Director of Intergovernmental Relations)]: is the number one concern they're expressing, a wider hesitant to pursue tier one. In a more concise way.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah, and that's a really important barrier.

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Representative Malik. Thank you. Were you done, Ela? Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Chair. One more hopefully simpler question, Representative Sebeliet. Are the three months, six months, and I think maximum twelve month delays that are sprinkled throughout H730, do you really think that's sufficient amount of delay to accomplish the alignment of the public notification, the engagement, the resulting tweaks that have to occur. It sounds like a pretty lengthy process. I'm not convinced that three, six, maybe even twelve months is in some cases at the top.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: I would say that they seemed like appropriate minimums at the time of drafting, and that seems like a good question for the committee to explore. And I'm also gonna have to go to another meeting. You know?

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Just like to comment on that. Like you said, they they at the time, they seemed appropriate minimums from what I've been hearing in meetings that I'm on to and what was brought up with the number of towns that are gonna be having their plans reviewed and approved, I think those minimums need to be rethought. Because it's Represented Boston. Right.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I really like that you're looking at unintended consequences, because I feel like that's a really important thing for us to do. And you know this, Repsaville, no one's moving to Vermont. We have the lowest population growth in the country. No, our births are the smallest in the country. Our workforce is aging out. So we end We're a demographic of seniors, citizens. And so I'd see buying time to do this, but I would ask that we, you know, really try to get this going because we need housing. You know, we need people, not taxpayers to move here, but workers to move here. So just encourage I don't want the unintended consequences.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Windham-2, Sponsor)]: So I appreciate Mhmm. Looking ahead. And this does extend the current exemptions until we contemplate extending, depending on what the body needs to be done. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I apologize if you have to talk.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thanks, Laura.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: So just sick. Members,

[Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: we are adjourned. We're adjourned.