Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Welcome

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: back to the House Environment Committee. We are going to change topics and talk about the municipal regulation of agriculture with the League of Cities and Towns. Welcome.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thank you.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Thank you.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: For the record, Josh Hanford, director of intergovernmental relations at the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And for the record, I'm Samantha Sheehan, the municipal policy and advocacy specialist also with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Thanks for having us in today. This is my first time in the committee this year, anyways, so thanks for inviting us in to talk about this. We're not gonna go into the background because I've watched the testimony you've had in here and know you've got the background of the situation, how we ended up here, the Supreme Court case, all that. What we're going to talk about is why we believe the compromise that we have put forward is best for both agricultural businesses, farmers, municipalities, and the residents because it really focuses on the most dense populated areas of Vermont. And really, took this to our board and it was really clear that in 98% of Vermont, we do not want to regulate agriculture. It's not something that our members largely want to do. Majority of our members are small communities. Many of them are full of farms and the select boards are full of farmers, but in areas where there is different interests living in close proximity, there's a reason for someone, there's a need for someone to manage conflict in those areas and have straightforward rules and regulations to treat folks fairly and that's what we're going to focus on. You know the reality that with Act 181, the density that's incurring in Tier one areas and the connection to Act two fifty exemption for most everyone in some of these dense areas creates a situation where someone has to call balls and strikes and deal with land use regulation and have that authority. That's really what's at the heart of our proposal. You ready to share? Yeah.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I somehow just logged into Housewades and Means. That's great. But now I'm up. Okay. So our position as adopted by the VLCT board and our members is really quite simple. As Josh said, it's to exempt agriculture activity from municipal regulation except for in Tier one or in Act two fifty exempt areas. The creation of these areas is an ongoing process under Act 21. But I think for this conversation, it's important to know a few things. One is that the current projected eligible area that could be Act two fifty exempt fully or partially in Tier 1A or 1B is currently projected at 2.1%. By county or by Regional Planning Commission region, that varies widely. So a maximum of 11% in Chittenden County could be tier one. So 11% of all of Chittenden County could be tier one, as opposed to the Northeast Kingdom, it will be half a percent or less that would just be eligible. We are in a very intensive local, regional and statewide process to create these areas right now that officially began with the first regional map submitted to the LERB in December and is planned to continue until December. So this is a live mapping and planning process that's happening in towns and regions across the state. And regardless of whether or not a municipality chooses to opt for tier one status and whether or not that status is approved and whether or not within that area they choose to use some regulatory authority against farms or not. It will be true because of the Home Act that in these areas on water and sewer lines where we have existing municipal infrastructure and where our former designated areas existed, that these places are already zoned for a high level of density. So they're already zoned at 20 units per acre. There's already required bonuses for affordable housing developments. Municipalities have already been required in state law to decrease parking minimum requirements and other preemptions in state law that have passed over the last couple years that mean that in these places that are our villages and our village areas and our downtown centers, for the next fifty years, when there are opportunities for redevelopment, there will be an increased density and an increased mix in uses in these places. So these are places where there are bus stops and civic centers and public parks, but it's also where there's going to be multi story mixed use commercial and residential apartment buildings built now and in the future because of changes that have already happened in state law and because of local efforts by planning commissions and select boards to create that opportunity for growth in these areas. So the reason we're looking for this balance in the solution where you make sure that farming in tier two and tier three, so the farming in 98% of the state is totally exempt from municipal regulation, we do not wanna regulate them for any need or purpose. However, in these dense tier one areas where most of the future development is likely to happen and where state and local government agrees it should happen, we believe it's really important to have some municipal regulatory authority apply is because we need to meet our housing targets that have been adopted at the local level and required by the state is in order to reduce conflict between farms and farming activities and other types of neighbors, which could be residential neighbors, but also could be laundromats and, tire shops and, you know, any other type of use that happens in these districts. It's also because these are the existing places where we have the most public investment and public infrastructure in systems like water and sewer. And because under act one eighty one, which creates these tier one areas and makes the opportunity for act two fifty relief or the it removes the duplicate of local and state regulations there, the local community has to first go through this public citizen led, very long intensive process to create its plan for growth for these areas. And then that plan for growth has to be approved at a regional and at a state level and against a strict set of criteria and state law. So this is not just the will of one select board that happens to be seated at the time that says this is what we want our main street to look like. This is actually the result of a robust local, regional, and state planning vision for that community over a much longer period of time. And so we think that, just simply put, in these areas, the municipality needs the ability to call balls and strikes, to say this is this is the regulation that applies and is most important and why that's important for traffic safety, it's important to reduce conflict. It's important to ensure compatible land uses between one neighboring parcel and another. And it's just important to achieve the goals that that town has set forth in its municipal plan and its zoning and bylaw.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: But even in those areas, we want to preserve the right to grow food and have agriculture. And our proposal puts that in the strongest section of municipal zoning that prohibits the functional use of prohibiting those activities right in line with other institutions that we value in Vermont that we need, schools, hospitals, fire departments, emergency shelters. This would

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: be the first place that we're saying put agriculture there. We don't want to remove farming from these areas. We want to ensure that they can exist in these areas, but with those competing uses there has to be a way to regulate fairly when conflicts arise and conflicts have arise. Obviously the Supreme Court case that brought this and there's currently a very active case in Orleans, the village of Orleans in Barton County. If anyone has looked at the news with the 300 pig operation in town where the town for nearly a decade has been calling for some relief

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: right on the shores of the Willoughby River. And that is the only town we're aware of since the Supreme Court case that is an active zoning to try to have some regulation to bring some relief to those residents around the farm in question here. Which is largely affordable senior housing there's brownfields on the site there's some very serious issues going on that really I believe fall into environmental justice aspect that no one has been able to address until now the municipal zoning laws are able to try to address that. Zoning administrator from the town of Barton would be willing to speak to you about that. It's currently in a court case right now. They don't have a hearing until August is the next case, but these are the type of situations in places where there's dense competing uses that someone needs to be able to resolve because they've violated no Department of Agency of Agriculture rules, but there's clearly conflict going on and issues. And that's the type of area that is dense enough and has competing uses that some municipal land use regulation could help bring some relief and call balls and strikes and treat all property owners that are impacted by whatever business is going on in that zone fairly.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: So I think you've heard already from the agency and maybe you'll hear when our friends from the Farm Coalition testify after us that there are many points of agreement in the resolution that we're advocating that the different, stakeholders are sort of asking for in legislative action, that there are many points of common agreement between the agency, the groups that represent farms, and then us who represent all municipalities in the state. I thought it would be helpful to be as specific about what those points of agreement are as possible, and many of them are reflected in this draft piece of legislation that you're considering. So the first point of agreement Josh touched on already, which is a right to grow food that is plants and poultry, That we originally anyway, I'll stop there. Right to grow plants, trees, mushrooms, sugar trees, orchards, hens, just not livestock more generally. We agree that that, has not been protected in state law before and should be so that in the future, if someone wants to build a greenhouse or build a chicken coop, it's clear that they'll be able to even if some reasonable amount of municipal regulation may apply. We also agree to exempt commercial farming from municipal regulation in these other tiers. So in the tier two and tier three. So no municipal regulation over the vast majority of land area in the state. VLCT agrees to that. We agree, again, as Josh said, that municipal bylaws, no matter what they are, should not functionally ban farming. We want to make sure that in our downtowns and in our villages, farming and agriculture activity can continue to exist long into the future, just that it's done in a way that works, that is safe, that does not impede traffic, that does not affect the enjoyment or safe use of neighboring properties, and that reduces conflict in the courts and in town zoning offices. And it is really important to us that livestock on homes and homesteads be managed by municipal bylaw as they have for hundreds of years in the past. So if you have a pet goat that is not for sale, that is not for harvest, it's just a goat that lives at your house, you need to follow the rules of the town and the care and keeping of that goat. So these are some of the items that have long been discussed throughout the session and other committee rooms and are really reflected in this bill now that we have asked for in support. If you'd like, I'll stop here, but we do have specific suggested changes to this specific draft. If it's useful to go through those, we can or happy to take questions or have other discussion as needed.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think it'll be useful, but that's we can pause and see if there's questions. Because at just sort of high level, our tier 1a and 1b areas are not identified yet. And I see the limited list of things that you're proposing or that are in this draft. I don't know who's proposing it, but they're in this draft. That municipalities could regulate. I just keep coming back to 1A areas will have kind of a bright line.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And agricultural impacts don't always abide by parcel boundaries or I guess I'm wondering about utilizing that as the tool for this. And I maybe a related question is there's a different kind of conversation happening in the senate. Have you been involved in it over there? And high level, do you have thoughts on the different approaches?

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I guess on the first part of your question, we took that question to our members and we discussed it. We discussed should VLCT's position be no municipal authority over agriculture? Should it be what historically has been sort of the tone or the spirit of the organization, which is local control totally over all commercial practices, including agriculture? And the result of that conversation with our elected and appointed municipal officials was that it may be true that tier one a and tier one b is not the best bright line to draw for agriculture, but it is the reality that local officials are in now. Act one eighty one is passed. We are moving to location based jurisdiction of Act two fifty. The future land use areas are being mapped by the RPCs, and there will be costs and benefits to each municipality depending on how it uses that land use planning system in the future to create these opportunities. So that just is the direction of future land use planning in Vermont. It uses the tiered system, and it makes it true that in the future, tier one a and tier one b will be where public investment, public infrastructure, and plans for density and growth of different uses will be happening in the majority of Vermont municipalities. So that's why we think that that's the important framework to

[Maddie Kempter (Policy Director, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont)]: use.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And I'll just add, it's a process that the municipality choosing to participate in the tier one A to apply for tier one A to opt into tier one B. They don't all have to even if they're eligible. Well, in fact, we know some that won't. Well, then, they've chosen just like those municipalities that choose not to adopt zoning and bylaws to not have this new authority. That's another point here. The 109 municipalities that don't have any zoning or bylaws won't be able to regulate farming at all in those communities because they've chosen not to have a land use regulatory regime that's fair and people all know the rules and to plan by. That's their choice. There's been some comments about what is this going to do to cases that exist now, case in you know, the city of Essex Junction in a very dense residential neighborhood or this village of Orleans in Bartland, another dense village, rule setting though. And I think the Senate's proposal, we don't believe addresses any of those. It would leave It would either undermine both of those legal efforts and allow no opportunity what the agency of agriculture presented to deal with those issues because that farm in Orleans is an active RAP regulated farm more than four acres. For their rules. It's it's not being corrected. Any way, shape or form, we believe. And then the the duck farm effort. Well, know, perhaps if the the dollar amounts were raised, but the egg prices are doubled, that just changes that factor when you look through how wraps are either by the total farm sales or by how many animals you have on them. So we don't believe it's solving the conflicts that exist. There isn't a ton, but when they arise there's got to be a way to solve them. Otherwise we think the impacts to all agriculture are more negative. You'll continue to have lawsuits, you'll continue to not know what the rules are before you invest in your property, in areas where you could see high rise apartment buildings all around your farm. You don't have any right to object or oppose those because that's the new density allowance, but you believe your farm is exempt from any impact that you might have on the surrounding land uses. It just is going to create increasingly more challenging efforts in these dense areas if we don't have some rules to stand by. Another part in this bill that we think is important to this effort because we understand farms, agriculture, often the larger ones operate in multiple jurisdictions, multiple municipalities. There's a section in this bill to talk about a model bylaw, to talk about what this looks like. We wholeheartedly support that. We don't want each town reinventing the wheel. We don't want farmers to have to understand in this town. We want to work towards a set of model land use regulations that could be workable and understood for everyone so that it's easier to understand what the rules are. So we support that aspect of the bill. The current Senate committee bill has a lot of other things in it. There's a lot of other work going on and a lot of things that I would say from what I've heard are kind of controversial. So I don't know if they're going to separate that, if they're going to move it out, what's going to happen. But this proposal is out of the House Committee is much closer to our initial compromise offering to address this issue than what's on the Senate.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: So we've been very involved in the conversation in the senate, and we much prefer the house language at this point.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. I how does your how does How does this approach address Barton's problem?

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Barton already is enforcing But if we go back to the previous municipalities don't have

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a right to regulate, way this bill is, as it's being drafted, would would reset the bar.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Barton Village will be a one b area if they choose, and then they would choose to have those authorities to regulate agriculture among other the village area that is currently mapped for tier 1B.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And would these things in this draft, would maybe your changes address their issues?

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah. So in one specific case, the so called grandfather clause or the exemption for existing farms, we agree with that in spirit. We don't like to apply land use regulation retroactively, especially to developed lands and working commercial enterprises, whether they're a farm or not. However, because there are open enforcement cases, we think that that particular language and subparagraph b needs to be more carefully considered. Because as if it was passed into law as drafted right now, that would upset the Barton enforcement case Yeah. And any others that happen between now and and, you know, when the law becomes effective.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And I would say we agree with some of your sentiment, chair. I've heard testimony that some of the language that is restricting what we can enforce and regulate is overly complicated. Like that some of our, suggested changes simplify that. We don't need to talk about all the different ways vehicles go in and out. That's called traffic.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And you know, like the areas in this section of top 24 municipal law have been tested for a long time. These are the standards. These are the areas we don't need to invent new concepts in land use regulation to deal with this issue. They're in there. Some things that folks are concerned about actually aren't land use regulations. They're ordinance policies, you know, noise, smell. We know very few municipalities that try to address those because they're so complicated. You know, to have a noise meter out there, to have a smell test. Those aren't issues you you address with land use regulation. They're they're through ordinance. So we definitely agree that some simplification to what they're trying to do to accept that, okay, some regulation in tier one A and B, let's get there, but let's sort of eliminate the factors, the areas where farms most likely run against, we think it could be simplified by using more of the existing language that already exists, has been tested for decades.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do members have questions? Representative Hoyt.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Thanks. I just have Just so I get the sort of the the history of this. Like, so there was an understanding about the powers of municipality to zone farming activity. Supreme Court had a decision to basically upset that understanding. In this bill, instead of just going back to the original understanding, this would basically add some new amount of zoning authority for farming in certain areas. Okay? Those are the areas that are tier one A b.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Correct.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Which misspelled, but it's either have to apply for in the one instance or opt into. So you could have tier one b where, you know, they opt in, they get some amount of regular authority, then you have towns that just don't bother, and they don't have that. Correct. So you could have sort of a different system depending on

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: With with an important distinction and some sort of on queue, the the state authority arrived. What you what you said is correct. And not only does the municipality apply or opt in in the case of one or the other, they also have to meet the statutory standard to then be granted it. And it's the verb that holds that authority and is the test of it does does the village of Orleans in Barton meet the statutory standard to become one b Gotcha. In their local regulation and capacity.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: And just one question on the your suggested language. So right now, the bill would say that a municipality can't regulate the noise, smell, lighting, hours of operation. The US would sort of shift it to they can regulate traffic and sighting?

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: So, no. Thanks for asking. So these are in different sections of the draft bill, different subsections. And I'm actually gonna look. I can't see it on my screen. But this one so the little I, a municipality shall not regulate noise, smell, lighting, and hours of operation. We would strike that because that those are not regulated in zoning. They're regulated through ordinance and in most cases not regulated at all. There's also existing protections for farms and all types of property users through existing nuisance law and others. So we just don't find it appropriate or natural to this section of law. And then

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: talking about Gibson as probably the authority to regulate traffic citing through zoning.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah. And sorry, there's an important typo here. This should be I and II. In the draft bill, they're long. It says ingress, egress, striping, blah blah blah. We just think that should be remember, this is like Yeah, this is a limitation to bylaw in state law. So it's like a negative of a negative equals a positive. So we think it should just say, for farms in tier 1A and 1B, the municipality can regulate traffic, can regulate siting, can regulate fencing and livestock enclosures. Simpler is better. It's easier to interpret. It's better tested and better applied.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thank you.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And also it's important in that same section of law, this is where we can't have the functional sort of where it's functionally not able to operate. If we say we're restricting operation hours, hospitals have ambulances blaring sirens at two in the morning. Like they have to have that ability to do that. That is the same place we're quitting the ability to operate farms. Tractors start at four in the morning and they're loud. But if they're going to be exiting and entering a busy intersection where there's also school buses coming in out, might suggest that they exit on the back. These are the sort of things we can't functionally interfere with their ability to operate tractors early in the morning or at certain times, but we can mitigate those impacts in these areas alone on the other land uses around there, try to keep safety and a balance of abutting property orders in check.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Wanna just keep walking us through your

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Test each other.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: The other is to you've heard advice which you should always follow from Ledge Council on whether this should be in 4413 or 4412 or if it should be in a one or if it should be in d one. You should listen to Ellen about that. We just think that for in particular, the right to grow plants and food and to keep poultry really should be on 4413. That makes it a permitted use. So the impact of that would be if I lived in Randolph where they have zoning and wanted to build a greenhouse and a shed, I would have to go to the DRB and get a permit. But if it's a greenhouse to grow food and a shed for my supplies for for plant growing, I can't be denied that permit. But they may say it has to be a certain setback from your neighbor's property. The material of the greenhouse can be these materials and not that material. So it ensures that the property owner is allowed to build the structures necessary for growing plants and other types of food, but that some municipal regulation may apply. So we think it's important to move that to 40 four-thirteen, and we think it's important to add a minimum number of poultry in the flock of hens. Because as it's written, you could act municipality could actually say you're only allowed one, which is not, I think, the spirit of the right to keep hens. So that was our other change. And then I'm happy to talk about these. We have talked about what would be appropriate to do summer work or legislative study work. And currently, the draft bill has proposes a study that looks at the impacts of municipal regulation on agriculture. We think there has been very little evidence of impact of municipal regulation on agriculture. However, there is a known problem here, which is sort of the under regulation or the current regulatory gap when you have commercial livestock operations on very small farms. So under the wraps now unchanged as proposed in the senate, it's one to four acre farms with a certain density of livestock. The agency of Ag is proposing something else for the change that I won't get into. But either way, there is there will be a sub acreage, a sub four acre or a sub one acre commercial farm that is not subject to the wraps that could be exempt from municipal zoning. And we think that deserves more discussion and understanding of how to consider in the future. So we would add that to the study.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: then we also think we wholeheartedly support and think it is in a very important time in Vermont's land use conversation to look at not only how municipal planning and zoning could restrict agricultural activity in tier one, but how can it support and promote and protect agricultural activity in the other parts of the community. There are other states that have these tools for local government to use. Vermont has not really ever used them. It's just exempted farms from everything. And we think it's important to talk about how to promote and protect prime ag soils, community gardens, homestead and home growing food operations, orchard and sugar enterprises, and to do that through zoning and planning at the local and regional level. So we want to add that to the study. And then finally, we represent municipal planners and municipal officials, but planning is a profession. And we think if we're talking about the application of municipal regulation at all, it's really important not only to have someone from VAPTA, which are the generally the RPC planners, but to have an Vermont municipal planner that's on staff at a municipality. Ideally, maybe one that has existing zoning that applies to some agricultural activities, and to also have a permitting a zoning and permitting official who has already undoubtedly navigated these questions with farmers in their community in the past and well in the future, and we think it's important they participate in the study work.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And, like, you're taking you're taking these to the ag committee too, I assume.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: We've been in we we've discussed with the ag committee substantially over the session.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Not this specific

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: These new

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: These two slides are new based off of the new language.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: The draft

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: that came out yesterday. Yeah. I guess big picture, the concept that we're pursuing here is not unlike other states that are strong agricultural states that have protections but yet allow regulation. It's different zone within city limits, within whatever their boundaries are in these states, and then not have the ability to regulate outside of those areas. It feels like this is not exactly the same, but it's moving to that more common approach across the country, particularly in other strong agricultural states.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We need to thank you for your testimony, and we may have more questions for you.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Great. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Hey,

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Kev.

[Maddie Kempter (Policy Director, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont)]: Hello, everyone. I did submit my testimony to Kat. I don't have slides to share, but I'm just gonna read it. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, chair Sheldon and committee members for taking the time to hear my testimony today regarding the municipal exemption for agriculture and the bill put forward by your colleagues in the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee. My name is Maddie Kempter, and I'm the policy director at the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont or NOFA. A little bit of background on NOFA for folks who might not be familiar. NOFA was founded in Putney, Vermont in 1971, and is now one of the oldest organic farming associations in The United States. Today, we have 2,500 members, nearly 40 staff around the state, and we are directed by a majority farmer board. Our vision of a is of a future wherein Vermont is home to thriving farms and agriculturally rooted communities that support the long term well-being of the earth and all its people. As such, ensuring that policy decisions made by the legislature are informed by the people most impacted and move us toward viable and diverse farms, food security, and climate resiliency is an essential part of our work. One important way to support the success of our farms to ensure that they can operate under a clear and consistent regulatory framework informed by agricultural expertise and with broader community well-being in mind. Following the supreme court decision last May regarding Taft Street, NOPA Vermont has been working with a diverse group of our partner organizations toward reinstating the long standing precedent that farming is regulated by the agency of agriculture, food, and markets, and not by municipalities who generally lack the interest, capacity, and expertise to do so. Testimony from legislative council this session has made it clear that this decision by the Supreme Court was based on incomplete understanding of legislative intent regarding the regulation of farms, and we seek to remedy that through this bill. In addition to working with other farming and land access organizations, we have also worked diligently to find consensus with the agency itself as well as with the League of Cities and Towns, and much of that work is clearly reflected in the draft bill you're considering today. We believe the draft bill in its current form comes very close to striking the right balance of providing a clear and consistent regulatory framework for farms statewide under the agency of agriculture, food, and markets while allowing limited and appropriate municipal authority over issues of public safety in more densely populated areas. The draft, as written, also protects Vermonters' ability to grow their own food in the form of plants, mushrooms, and poultry, which we believe is a basic but important step toward bolstering food security in the face of a changing climate and an increasingly consolidated and corporatized food system. While there are still some changes we would like to see to the language, we are asking for your support of the draft bill as written so we can continue to move this work forward in the second half of the session. That said, I do wanna make an important point of clarification regarding livestock under four acres or otherwise outside of the parameters of the required agricultural practices. I think you've heard now that this is sort this is a clear, you know, remaining gap in the existing regulatory framework currently. And the current version of this bill defaults to leaving municipalities with the authority to regulate livestock through bylaws and ordinances when the property is not a commercial farm. I do wanna say you heard Steve Collier from the Agency of Agriculture yesterday say that some farming groups want people raising livestock at the homestead scale to be unregulated, which is not accurate. We and our partner organizations have consistently stated we believe it makes sense for the agency to have the authority to regulate operations with livestock, including those under four acres, and we're concerned about the current lack of clear and consistent standards and process in those particular cases. We have provided suggested language to the House Agriculture Committee as well as to the Senate Agriculture Committee that we would like to see in title 24 that would clarify the agency of agriculture's responsibility and role in adjudicating instances where enforcement or even simply guidance is needed regarding livestock on properties under four acres who are not currently regulated by the RAPs unless they also meet the minimum income threshold. The current version of the bill includes language creating a study committee, as you know, to work more on this in part because the other parties have so far not been amenable to the language that we've suggested that would provide that fair authority for the agency to conduct enforcement in these cases. The law already clearly directs animal control officers on the local level to consult with the agency of agriculture when there are animal welfare concerns, and the legislative language that we are working on would codify a new stocking density requirement in title 24, which would also allow the agency to develop guidance for animal control officers explicitly expressing stocking density addressing, excuse me, stocking density and nutrient management considerations. We believe this would be helpful to folks working on the local level while also being good for the health of the land, for water quality, for neighbors, and the well-being of the animals involved. In lieu of this language, we feel the creation of the study committee as proposed in the current house versions version is an acceptable compromise to ensure this issue gets addressed. And then in closing, despite this outstanding concern, the bill you're considering represents a significant degree of consensus and collective effort on the part of our organizations, the agency of agriculture, the league of cities and towns, and your colleagues in the house agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry committee. And we are ask for your support of the draft bill as written so we can continue to move this work forward in the second half of the session. Thank you so much for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. I think what I heard Steve Collier say was a lack of capacity at the agency to get into kind of non RAP regulated farm regulation. I think that's what I heard. But you have language that you've been trying to work on to get consensus on that we seen.

[Maddie Kempter (Policy Director, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont)]: Correct. And I'm happy to provide that if it would be of interest to you. And I think in terms of the capacity consideration, our language would really give the agency the necessary authority that would need in order to provide guidance, which could then be used in a collaborative sense between relevant municipal authorities and the agency. So there could be really somewhat of a shared responsibility for enforcement and oversight in those particular cases that would ideally not be an excessive drain on the agency's capacity, but would require them to be involved as a relevant authority that has agricultural expertise that the municipal folks don't necessarily have and maybe could use some support around.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That'd be great. I I would I would like to see that language.

[Maddie Kempter (Policy Director, NOFA-VT)]: Happy to. And I

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: don't need to debate this with you, but it just strikes me that a lot of this might happen in towns that don't have municipal staff. So I'm not sure it would you know? Like, it'd be great to have guidance, but I wonder about capacity and how you know? But that might get revealed in the study when we find out more about the problem. Absolutely. Others have questions? Representative Chapin?

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Since you are so dense with all of your information, has a lot of rest to take in and we have a couple more minutes. Sure. I'm wondering if you could provide a few examples, like a range of examples. And I guess the one thing that's still sticking out to me is people who want to raise their own food, including livestock. And this seems to, you know, put a big limit on that in in tier one b areas. And so I guess I'm I'm I'd love to hear just a few examples of conflicts you see that you feel would be appropriately dealt with at the zoning municipal level and some of Yeah. Anything in that range? Just a couple of examples.

[Maddie Kempter (Policy Director, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont)]: Yeah. Thank you so much. Well, first I will say that when it comes to the draft version that that you all have been considering this week, that's one of the areas that we do have an outstanding concern around also is one b, having expanded municipal authority over farms. So we, as the farming organizations that has been working with, have been supportive of, you know, a minimally expanded municipal authority for farms in tier one a specifically. And tier one b feels a little bit more challenging in part because of the point that chair made that those areas are not actually mapped yet And because it could that could end up covering a lot of land area of the state where we know there are existing farms. And I think I would also just add, you know, in response to the leak's testimony that I do have a little bit of pause around regulating farms in the same way that we regulate hospitals. I appreciate the sentiment around not functionally prohibiting, and I'm not sure that that would actually if that would actually functionally stop a town from regulating a farmer from driving a from stopping a farmer from driving their tractors at four in the morning, because it does feel like a different consideration when you're talking about an ambulance that is saving a life versus a dairy farmer who needs to do their work, you know, sometimes at odd hours. It's not necessarily a matter of life and death, but it could be a matter of business viability. So it feels like that line might be a little bit more gray in cases of farms than hospitals. So that's a little bit of a separate point, but just wanted to respond quickly to that. In terms of examples, I will say we do have farms in our membership who are raising livestock on less than one acre, who are not I don't know that we have anyone that comes immediately to mind who's in a tier one a, an area that's likely to be designated tier one a, but we certainly have those folks in tier one b. And oftentimes, you know, there are cases where those farms are raising food that is really culturally important food for their community, and we would be concerned about anything in this bill, particularly in the senate version, that would impede their ability to to continue their business. I'll say we share the sentiment that you heard from Josh and Samantha around having a much stronger preference for the house version than the senate version of this bill, and that is in part because of the way the agency's language proposes to treat farms in those smaller acreages, so between zero and four four acres. We find their language their proposed language around that to be confusing to interpret and potentially challenging for some of our farms.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin?

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. In the last paragraph, you talked about a significant degree of consensus and collective effort between the agency. How did you arrive at that kind of significant? Because that weighs heavily in terms of my decision.

[Maddie Kempter (Policy Director, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont)]: I'm just wondering how you arrived at that consensus. We've been talking with particularly the agency and the other farm groups since late summer or fall about this issue, because I think we were all aware of the potential threat that the Supreme Court posed to farms in our communities. I think we started talking with the league certainly later, maybe right in the lead up to the legislative session. And I feel really heartened by those conversations, honestly, particularly with the league who we haven't had opportunity to work closely with in the past. We haven't had issues that have really caused us to overlap. And I think especially when it comes to the issue of the right to grow food. In the you know, even in the limited scope that we're proposing it that it's proposed in this version, the right to grow plants, mushrooms, poultry, to do sugaring in a you know, at a backyard scale, that part felt that consensus has been clear across the board, across all parties from day one. And I think it gives us a really solid footing to start from when we think about other types of food production and sort of gave us an opening, I guess, to have those conversations about bigger bigger issues. I think naturally, and I think Steve said this in his testimony yesterday, we have ended up spending more time discussing the areas that still need work. And so I think our testimony ends up really reflecting some of those areas where we still have work to do rather than emphasizing the many areas in which we do agree that the Agency of Agriculture should have primary authority to regulate farms in almost all cases. I think that's a really important area of consensus. And I think that the Agency of Agriculture is the appropriate authority generally to do that and that don't necessarily have the interest or capacity to regulate farms. That's something that we heard from day one from the league that gave us a lot of comfort and ability to come to the table and say that that for us, I think, as an ag organization was really helpful to hear and made us feel comfortable sort of negotiating over the points that feel a little bit stickier. I hope that's helpful.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks so much for your testimony.

[Maddie Kempter (Policy Director, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont)]: Thank you very much for having

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: On the same topic, we will invite Peter Gail and Brooke Dingledeen.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Good afternoon. Thank you for having us. I'm Pete Gill, executive director for the Land Use Review Board. And with me

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm Brooke Dingleby, member of the Land Use Review Board.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: And we were here asked here to talk about committee bill twenty six seven seven two, which I believe you're working on, and also h seven twenty seven. I think we can be pretty brief, but welcome to answer any questions that the committee might have on either of those. The board doesn't have an official position on the committee bill seven seven two. There is obviously, there's discussion within it about utilizing the tier one a and tier one b areas within it. But other than that, it's more focused on the municipal regulation side of things, not directly related to the board. And, again, the board hasn't had a chance to, take that in and take any official position on it, in that way. I don't know. Brooke, if there's anything else you wanted to add on that on that one or if there's questions from the committee.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have questions about the it's come up now a couple of times in larger conversations, and I just wanna solve the thing get through. I'm not speaking against or for or anything. I just need to As we think about moving to location based jurisdiction and the intentions of one tier to 1A in particular was that it did apply exclusively to Act two fifty. And so, I would think as we roll it out and people are starting to think about it, just I want us to be sure we're thinking as much as holistically as we can about the ramifications of that. So I'm curious if you have started thinking about that, and if so, if you're willing to share what you're thinking or process a little bit out loud with us. I mean, I think it's yeah. I just don't know that we were intending it to be used for kind of other environmental regulations, and that's what's come up a couple times now in conversations.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I guess I'll jump in just to say, you know, the starting point is act two fifty does not regulate farming below 2,500 feet. So the the starting point is for for the state regulatory programs program. We don't have any jurisdiction. In terms of the 1A areas or 1B areas, obviously, is where we're trying to encourage development, and it's assumed and, designed to be more population or density in those areas, I. E, the concern in terms of folks continuing that activity and who's being affected by it. I don't know as a board that we've had we have not had any specific conversations around this. In terms of our what we've been working on, we have been trying to make sure that those farming exemptions remain and are being implemented properly, especially with our work now trying to define road rule and conversion of some farming or logging roads and what that means and how to implement that. So I don't that may not be very useful. But other than the designation, it certainly would make sense, because these will be the more densely populated areas and the more opportunities for conflict, I would assume.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Sort of on the broader question in terms of the land use review board and the tiered and location based jurisdictional system. I think what Act 181 did was set up a professional level board with expertise in the land use area.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: And

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: I think it's appreciate what you what you were saying there, chair, in terms of thinking strategically and broadly about how that board may participate, may be utilized in land use decision making in the in the future. I think that's it is a board that has a variety of level of expertise from engineer to lawyer to three professional planners on that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I guess I just kinda keep coming back to, like, and I I share the concerns of the league around compatibility abuses, but I also keep coming back to the bright line of the tier one A area and the I don't know, somehow it's not working in my mind quite completely yet, but that there's gonna be, complicated to enforce, and I appreciate trying to simplify it. And, yeah, I think it could be very confusing for folks out in the world trying to live with it. Representative Chapin.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Just to build on this conversation, I guess, I think with a more narrow question maybe that you could maybe testify to is what are the potential unintended consequences of having a different incentive for towns to designate to request, particularly. Tier one B status. What if that community is having a major conflict around agricultural activities and they apply for tier 1B status, not really because they want to manage Act two fifty permitting, but that they really want this ability and this could be applied to future uses of these tiers by other regulatory systems. Is that? What's the active from your perspective managing Act two fifty process? What's the potential unintended consequence if municipality has this ulterior reason to request tier one b status?

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. I think I think you've brought one up there. Along that same thinking, though, I will say that it has been a challenge just making sure that people understand what the various tiers are and what those what those mean. And so I understand where you're where you're coming from in terms of broadening that, and then that could layer in additional confusion with those terms and how they're how they're applied.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Right. And remember, there's a big difference between one b and one a. And, again, you know, that there are the premises that there is municipal regulatory zoning to when act two fifty goes away in one a for everything or one b for housing. The expectation is that one of the reasons why we're allowing that is because there is robust or satisfactory local regulation, that local zoning aspect. And perhaps there's a condition. You know, when we're looking over one b applications now, we have the laundry list of you know, we have to make sure that the zoning regs are up to snuff and flood hazard and all that. And so maybe specifying the specifics about, you know, what regulation is allowed by either one b or one a areas, that will establish the standard by which they are allowed, because it's an enabling statute, so you're giving a certain amount of jurisdiction to those already assumed regulatory bodies that are sufficiently staffed and have the right training and background to be able to do the zoning properly. That helps at all. I mean, look at one a and one b as, okay, Act two fifty is going away, but only on the condition that there's other regulatory protection at the local level.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks. Well, we welcome the board's thoughts as you maybe mull us over. If you have future considerations, we'd love to have you back and hear about them on this one. Yeah.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: And I appreciate that opportunity because one of the things that we are encountering as we're now going through the pre application review of the regional plans and the tier one b elections. We are it's a work in progress, and we are finding the standards that we have to apply. We're getting more into the minutiae of here's the example, here's the factual scenario. How are we interpreting this for this particular town? They may not have an actual historic building that's on the registry or capable of being placed on the registry. How are we interpreting the word historic? So there is some work in progress in terms of our application of the law as it exists now that may be beneficial to us being able to inform you folks, from what we're involved in right at the moment. Because the devil's in the details, and now we are finding those, needs to make sure that we're being consistent between different regions and even within regions for what standards and how we're applying them and what the context is. So we will absolutely, I will bring it up with the board, we will discuss and get back to you if we have any further information that would be useful.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. That's great.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: The next item was the data center bill seven twenty seven. Just working off of a slightly older version earlier, but I think we've got the the correct one here, 1.2. The just a step back for this committee because I know you probably haven't been quite as involved as the the committee of jurisdiction at the moment but the house energy and digital infrastructure had asked the board to look at gaps within the permitting review process for these 20 megawatt projects and requested language from the board about how to fill those gaps, including act two fifty jurisdiction in those instances. We supplied that language to the committee. It is in this current current draft. I think it's in section two. Correct? And it creates a jurisdictional trigger for these 20 megawatt projects under act two fifth sorry. Yeah. Creating a jurisdictional trigger for these 20 megawatt projects to be viewed by Act two fifty. One point that we would like to make on on this is one, I guess, worry the language that's in the bill in section two would would do that. It's fairly straight straightforward there. That's the committee's intent. The piece that I wanted to mention in terms of how that might work or the implications for the rest of the bill here is that there is also a requirement in the bill for a contract to be reviewed by the PUC and as part of that, they're required to make a finding on the various Act two fifty criteria that are currently under the two forty eight process. Looking through that list, sort of starting on page Yeah.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm just You can jump in just for a minute.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. Go ahead.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I can just jump in for a minute. So the normal the two forty eight and two forty eight a reviews at the Public Utility Commission import most of the act two fifty criteria into that, certificate of public good is what they call their permit. And then they have some other things beyond what the act two fifth mostly act two fifty criteria. So criteria one through eight are automatically at the PUC, as is nine ks. So the language in the version that we were looking at, I guess it changed overnight. Page The early portion of it is talking about what the contract needs to include. The problem is when it gets to page The version at five. There it is. Okay. So pages five and six or page six, really, what it's doing, it's going down a laundry list of, the project can't have these impacts. And so number three is will not have an undue adverse effect. And then it has a whole bunch of laundry lists of aesthetics, historic sites, air and water purity, the natural environment, and it even goes on to include, section ten sixty eighty six A1 through eight, that's Act two fifty. That's the criteria. So what we wanted to alert people to is that this is creating a duplicative review. And if if what they're talking about is intending that we want this in the contract, that's one thing. But the language indicates that the commission, before issuing a CPG

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think it's just timing issue. They put the act two fifty they changed the definition of act two fifty after they'd already put this in. We'll figure out if they're about to take this out.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: So when we left Digital Infrastructure Committee Today? Just now

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We talked about this a

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: little while ago. We brought this up. It was very confusing because we didn't have the most recent version. But when we departed, I ran into Greg Faber with the Public Utility Commission, and he had been listening to the testimony and was going to follow-up by because he was about to testify but couldn't fit in the room with us. And he and I chatted about it, and he is going to drive home that point because he agreed that the way it's written, it's creating a duplicative process, not saying what should be in the contract.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You cut that too, I think.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Just yeah. May and maybe you've got them, but just to highlight, it was number three, which is the one that Brooke was just quoting. But then as you go through it, it also appears that six, eight, nine, and ten also would be a duplicative review under act two fifty criteria that are addressed under each of those. So six, eight, nine, and ten.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: And they may not be the precise language that we have in act two fifty, but we in looking at this, we believe that our existing criteria cover those items that Kate was just mentioning that should would also benefit from being eliminated.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you happen to know if the the way that the PUC uses section two forty eight in the two forty eight a, is this mirroring their language, or is this do you know?

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: I think I think it is. Yeah. I haven't gone side by side, but it's pretty similar.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Well, the number three is definitely I'm familiar with that language. The other numerals four all the way down to 12, I don't believe those are from the POC, but I'm not the authority to tell you about that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Any other thoughts on this bill?

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Again, the board wasn't requesting additional jurisdiction or anything. It was more looking at the the gaps and how to fill that and letting you all as policymakers decide where to do that. And the language that is in that bill would allow for that jurisdiction coverage.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I would mention one other thing in that item number three on page six, the language about outstanding resource waters. That is not something that's specifically called out or a criteria per se in act two fifty, but the other water criteria we think do cover this. We have, you know, water supplies, that you can adversely impact. We have, you know, the stormwater runoff kinds of protections. Protections. So So

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's That's an an incorrect incorrect citation. Citation. I mean, it's sort of

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Ruby fourteen twenty four AD.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. I'm not I'm not sure.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You can look it up. Yeah.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I was not familiar with that language, but we were asked about it by energy and digital infrastructure, and the water resources are covered in criterion one.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. Yeah. The outstanding water resources is something that the agency of natural resources is able to designate. I don't think there's a large number of them, but you could ask agency about that. But the important point, as Brooke mentioned, was that that would be a subsection of act two foot it would be encompassed within act two fifty review water criteria.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Questions for representative Nora? This may be just more for my understanding of the situation than an actual question, but it seems to me the way it's written currently, and it may be duplicative, but are we intending for citing of data centers to be subjected to both the two forty eight slash two forty eight a process and ACQUA 50?

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: For different for different my understanding of the intent of the committee was that it was for different purposes. So there would be two separate processes and not a duplication of processes, And that's why we're highlighting that to see that there's such duplication.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Things to address in which In which the intent is still to have a a POC run February.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, they have to do the electrical part of it.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And then this would be the land use, and water

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: and environmental. And so where is citing? Citing falls within the LERP other than

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: 48. Right. What do you mean by

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: citing? Siting of the facility. Whether or not a facility is allowed or should be built at a particular location.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: So we would under Act twelve fifty, we would we would be able to review the as it is proposed by the developer on that particular property. But with limitation, we're not gonna be saying in terms of sighting on a broader scale, like, move to a different property or, you know, choosing a number of different properties or anything like that. It's it's act two fifty review is what comes in the door towards us as a proposed project when we review it under those 10 criteria.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But you do look at the municipal zoning? Yes. To look for conformance with zoning, that

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: would be the only place Under criterion

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: whether citing was appropriate. And I guess one of reasons why Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's true. Yeah.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: The reason why I asked that specifically about citing is because

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: the Act

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: two fifty process is the one that is more easily accessible to the general public to raise concerns about something being nearby. If, so I'm just wondering how much say will will neighbors have given that some criteria are allocated to DOC and some to Act two fifty LERD process. How much how much say are neighbors gonna have over the site of a data center nearby them? In other words, will that siting stuff be enough of that being within the the learn process so that neighbors will be able to say, look, we don't want this thing here at all.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Have that action have effect. Sure. When refer to siting, I consider that the siting you know, for the natural environment, all of the criteria under act two fifty. So my understanding is that the siting of these data centers will be with the LERB. What's with what stays with the PUC are all the, you know, electrical grid and the interconnection studies that they have to do. And, you know, how does is this the right location? Or is there upgrades to the infrastructure? And, you know, that they have to demonstrate different things, and I'm not an authority on that area. But that's where I see the line of demarcation. We are the physical environment. This is the norm for Act two fifty. It's just adding a particular type of project that may not be on a 10 acre parcel to trigger normal act two fifty jurisdiction in a 10 acre town. So those are the holes that we're trying to plug. And but there's been a clear determination that the siting of this should should be at the Lurb, and the PUC keeps all of the technical, electrical, all of that stuff is is what I understand how this is

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: being worked. Trying to do that separation out of the various pieces of analysis to make sure it's in the right under the right jurisdiction. Okay. That that I can understand.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. And we and we were just I was trying to make sure that some of the language that is not the typical language of Act two fifty that we we have that stuff covered is what we're just trying to make sure to ensure that that duplicative process wasn't happened.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Could could we or is it impossible in legislation here to to make these types of placements always a major delineation as opposed to minor?

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Do you have the tower

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: we can specify that's not something that's actually not allowed to say that.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Right. Because We don't have

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: a process to do that currently under under our law, but we do have a my major process and a minor process. And if the legislature so choose chose to demarcate certain projects would have to go through major process, that would be something that you could choose to do.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Based on the magnitude of book.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: And I I might not I think I jumped the gun and and went a little fast at the beginning, and so I appreciate Brooke taking things and pulling them back a little bit. And just to go go back on the gaps section, it may be that most data centers would already trigger Act two fifty jurisdiction under the current jurisdictional thresholds. The intent, I think, of the committee of jurisdiction was to fill that gap and if there was a data center of this size that was below our jurisdictional triggers, whether that was because of water usage or because of acreage or whatever it might be, that it would still be covered under act two fifty review for the sort of environmental siting purposes.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: It's a very interesting thought. I'd love to think about that. Yeah. I guess along those same lines, in terms of jurisdictional triggers, maybe

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: I probably have the

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: right people to answer this, but one went like 20 megawatts of those journals, they went about 19 and a half. That Well, we

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: brought that up earlier today. Yeah. So, not layer of expertise.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: But we

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: brought that, and we didn't yet get a clear answer. But we will ask the sponsor of the bill, who has

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: been in the room a fair amount. Yeah. And think I was in

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: a room at one point

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: where you were talking about, well, what about augmentation of an existing

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: data center?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: If they go from

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: a quarter of

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: a megawatt up to five megawatts,

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: may be

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: preexisting exempt. Yeah, right. We need to get an answer to those and a couple others. It's good. We'll keep track of them.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, that's a good point. This trigger is for original jurisdiction.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Are you aware of any other similar type of facility that has come under Act two fifty review? Or what's the nearest comparison of today? Maybe that Essex thing that I think fell through or an Amazon thing that

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I think they're all Yeah.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: In terms of other data center type We're just really objects. Really big

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: kind of electrical, industrial. I don't

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: know. Yeah.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: You know, I mean, telecom towers.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Which are not F two fifty.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Well, they are. We have jurisdiction over them, but the PUC does as well. Oh. You can you can choose. There. So everybody goes there now at this point.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: But other, like, warehouse type buildings or things like that, large structures, may we have permitted those? In terms of the electric use, that's that's fine. I wonder

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: about the biggest one. Yeah. Right. Anything else?

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: The only other thing that I would mention that is also kind of a change and that may not be real apparent is they've taken out a bunch of language about orderly development. And orderly development looks at the town and regional plans, so it's sort of like criterion 10. The PUC looks at orderly development, to those two plans, but maybe emphasizes more of a regional impact. You can point to language, for example, in criterion 10 on aesthetics and say, Oh, here's a clear community standard. This orderly development criteria was, it was a little different, a little broader than criterion 10, but very similar. So just to give you some, I don't want you to have a concern about that particular language, That was removed as well. But, again, we do have that criterion 10 that is, very similar and covers the same, notion of whether or not this is contrary or supported by the town and and regional plans. So just not to be concerned about the striking of that language because activity has that criterion 10.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Thanks so much for joining us and for your testimony.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Thank you so much for having us.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So we will need to follow-up. We'll have a discussion tomorrow on both of these bills. Yeah, we have it scheduled. And then the vote on Fish and Wildlife Bill. I'm not sure if everyone is aware that there was a change after Bradley left. And Sarita, are you leaving? You're part of what I'm about to talk about, though. Simplification, and I guess what I want to do is make sure people have a chance to look at both options. You could just summarize what your concern was. I just sent it. I'm asking you to share with the viewers Sure. Who are not aware of

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: It was just of

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: cleaning up some language.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Let's get to it, stick this email sent to it. So this is on the fish and wildlife tech corrections.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: I forwarded it to everybody. Well, the corrections are straight along.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Who sent it?

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: I sent it to you. I sent it to all the committee members except Mike's got bounced back. I can't get I can't I can't get your legislative emails go through.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: So this is just

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: language. I'm trying to I I think it's on page six. I just had it. So this is what I just sent to you, Amy. Just so this is a revised language four twenty six-seven 83 on page six line 14 oh. It is if the board determines that it is necessary to issue or require additional big game tax or permits that are not otherwise identified in this section. There was another sentence in there that we took out that was repetitive. The department may issue such tags and permits and may assess a fee for such tax and permits of no more than the prevailing fee for big game tax.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's a little bit more succinct.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. So I just, you know, I wrote

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: it in the email to you that I'll assume you'll send that on to Bradley.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: I did.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Oh, you did? I did. Okay. Well,

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you sent it to Bradley? Yeah. So that actually Those kinds of communications need to come through me. That's just what needs to happen.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. I'm sorry. Sarita told me she had talked to you and wanted to send it to Bradley, so that's what I did.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. That's fine. But Yeah. It's it's confusing for staff. Yeah. And, anyway, I just also wanted to give these folks a chance to process it in

[Maddie Kempter (Policy Director, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont)]: the same

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: way before we bring it up tomorrow so we have a little more time. Does anyone have initial concerns? So I will send it on to Bradley if nobody has concerns right now. Okay. Great.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Works fine.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Hoyt.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Were we gonna tie it to the big game tags or that big game tag? It's $23, the second argument.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. It's not more clear. You're right. What did Bradley say?

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Oh, he said send another email trying to differentiate permits from tags. Wish

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: think the list of the big game permits went from $5 to a $100. The second archery second gear archery one was 23.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Seems to be what There's difference between permits and tags. That's what I'm trying to There's difference between permits and tags. So Bradley sent a thing back, and and I forwarded it to him. I can assume everybody else got it just to ask for clarification. I'm assuming everybody got what Brad sent. Bradley sent.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This one says the prevailing the one that I got from him was the prevailing rate for a big game tag. K. Well, he's he

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: sent me one. Thank you for sending this. I have a quick clarifying question. Is the term big game meant to modify both tags and permits? I do not see big game permits in statute. So if this is subsection, is it meant to just be about big game tags and big game permits? Do we need to keep permits at all? Probably sent that to me, and I forwarded it to Hannah because I I didn't you know, I'm looking for clarification for her from her.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And did you hear back from her?

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: No. Okay. Oh, wait. Yes. I'm sorry. It just popped up. To Bradley's question, yes, the term big game is intended to modify both tags and permits. We tend to use the terms tag and permit somewhat interchangeably. For example, the deer management rule refers to both antlerless deer permits and antlerless deer tags. They are the same thing. And 10 VSA forty two fifty five refers to a moose license, But in the moose management rule, you refer exclusively to moose permits. Yeah. You want to include both terms in the proposed language to cover any inconsistent verbiage used by the board in the future.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Clear as my and Bradley copied on that. That that's to him.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: That is he just he sent it to Hannah just sent it to me. So would you like me to forward both Bradley's and

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Hannah's? Okay. This is why

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the communications are anyway, so I can keep it simple. Alright. So everyone who's here at least is alerted. We should let, Kate and Kristi know and, try to get it clear with Bradley. And with that, we will adjourn for the afternoon. I will do that.