Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm sad. Thank you, sir. Good morning, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. We are gonna continue talking about s three twenty five, and we have it was a committee bill, but the bill sponsor is, welcoming senator Watson.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Sure. Good morning. Well, thank you for having me. So s three twenty five passed out of committee on five I'm just gonna start with the end, I suppose. It was passed out of committee on a five zero zero vote, and there were some controversies along the way, but ultimately, on third reading, it passed unanimously in a voice vote. So that was very encouraging. I do have a handout for folks if that is useful. This is part oh, I'm just

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: gonna write this in the past, though.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: is this is a part of a handout that I passed out on the senate floor to help explain, what s three twenty five does. So this has been slightly modified. The main feature of s three twenty five is that it delays, some of the, important deadlines that are in act one eighty one, and specifically, extends the interim exemptions of which there are many flavors, and it pushes out the implementation of the road rule and the tier three. It also makes some adjustments to how tier one aspects are rolling out, for example, made it so that the municipalities, they adopt a tier one a a area, they don't have to automatically adopt the enforcement of all of the Act two fifty permits that are in that area. They just take them over one at a time as they come up for amendment sort of organically. So it's a sort of slower transition of of them taking over those. There were some other, I would say, smoothing out some bumps, again, with the rollout. There was one thing I'll point out. There was an extra word that Tier 1A areas would have to have ordinances that covered sensitive communities, rare species, and threatened and endangered species. Those threatened and endangered is a term of art. Sensitive communities is a term of art, but rare was not. So we removed the word rare because that would be above and beyond what Act two fifty does. So there were things like that that were intended to, again, smooth the way there. In tier three, we made it so that land use review board had the ability to apply less than all of Act two fifty to the road rule or to tier three. So making it clear that they could just apply the parts that perhaps made sense. So there's a you can read through the list there. Those are some of the highlights of things that the bill does. I'm happy to talk more through any of those points if that's useful. But then I would also I do want to point out that there were a couple of floor amendments that don't show up in here in this list. These were amendments that were brought to the committee by folks who were not on the committee, and we were able to find resolution. We were we were I would have said normally, if we had three weeks, we could figure this out. And fantastically, we were able to figure it out within, like, forty eight hours. So that was, I think, very encouraging. And so those two amendments, both pertain to, interim exemptions. And so they they were about, I mean, our our legislative council can, help, explain that, but it's in terms of building more housing in village centers, priority housing projects and housing in general. There are just a couple of flags that I want to raise for you. As I was preparing the floor report, I did notice that there's it's slightly more than a typo, but I think it's something that we did not intend. I'm just gonna tell you page 20, section 12, there's a phrase water or before water or wastewater that is illogical because it has to do with soils. The water to an area doesn't make sense. So just flagging that. And then I also want to flag one of the suggestions that came to us had to do with SMART Growth Principles. So SMART Growth Principles lived elsewhere or does live elsewhere in statute, but this 03/25 brings SMART Growth Principles into the chapter on the elements of maps or the the future land use maps. One of the suggestions that came to us that we put off was that there could be potentially an additional item added to the smart growth principles having to do with flood resilience. So just put that on the radar of things to potentially consider. And then other things that I guess I would say that's it for me as the chair of Senate Natural Resources. Speaking just as an individual senator now, not speaking for the group, I would flag that I we did not hear from the Land Access Opportunity Board. Recommend that it may be worth hearing from them. They have some suggestions, particularly, I think, around the process of hearing feedback and as well as they I think they have some legislation that that they were interested in. I would also again, speaking just as a legislator and not as the chair, I think it may be useful to have someone it doesn't have to be the land use review board, but someone look at potential overlays of current use maps together with tier three and conservation maps together with tier three. Think that would be useful information. So with that oh, there's one other thing that I would point out. This is data that we received from the Federal Reserve that just and I'm happy to send this to you digitally. But this is housing permits over time, over the last ten years, and you can see sort of the average of how many housing permits are were filed per month. And then act one eighty one goes into effect here, and you can see the couple of spikes on that front. So the average is quite a bit higher after act one eighty one goes into effect for specifically for Vermont housing permits, which I find encouraging. So happy to talk through any of the bullet points there. I realize I'm going relatively quickly. But if you have anything, like, questions or anything I can help further explain, happy to.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. I wanna a couple questions, and then we need to we haven't done a walk through, so I wanna make sure that we're gonna we're gonna walk through with Legis Council. I don't we don't need the legal questions from the senator. We need other relevant questions because we're gonna shift gears quite quickly to walking through the bill so we're on the so we all understand what's really detailed in it. Representative Pritchard.

[Rep. Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you. On the on the digital wrap that you just said, is there a way to say is there a way to know with that sort of like what what the breakdown is relating that to tier one.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: This is Federal Reserve data,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: so I am not sure

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: that we have that. But that's a good question. Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Ela Chapin, office of legislative council. I'm here on s three twenty five as passed by the senate. S three twenty five was a committee bill that was originally called an act relating to a study on the creation of model bylaws. They took that bill. They stripped it of everything that was in it and turned it into an act relating to regional planning and Act two fifty tier jurisdiction. So on page one, section one, there is an intent section. The general assembly finds that 2024 action resolve number one eighty one, act one eighty one, represented a substantial reconstruction, a stand substantial reconstructing of Vermont's land use review framework. This act is intended to provide technical clarification, transitional certainty, and implementation alignment consistent with the intent of act one eighty one and without altering its underlying policy goals. Section two starts with the amendments to act two fifty. So first, section two is amending six thousand and one three, which is the section that has the jurisdictional triggers in it. And the first change is to, Romanette 12, and it's the construction of private road roads jurisdictional trigger. And so you will see at the top of page two that for this jurisdictional trigger, for the purpose of determining any determining the length of any road and associated driveways, the length and of all other roads and driveways within the tract of land constructed after. Currently, the loss is 07/01/2026. That's being extended to 01/01/2030 shall be included. So this is saying that roads constructed after 01/01/2020, 2030 will trigger an Act two fifty permit if it meets the rest of the qualifications of this section. So this jurisdictional trigger was set to start in July. It's being pushed out.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We got twenty second pages. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So at the bottom of page the next part of page two, this next jurisdictional trigger is for priority housing projects. So the interim exemption for priority housing projects removes any cap on the number of priority housing projects that can be built. And currently, that date is until 01/01/2027. It's being extended to 01/01/2028. And these are for priority housing projects, meaning that at least 20% of the units have to be affordable as defined. And those are within downtowns, neighborhood development areas, or growth centers, and within one half mile around those designated areas with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws served by public sewer or water services or of adequate soils. There's additional language added to this section at the top of page three, and this is language that is currently in the other interim exemptions that we'll talk about. It adds that this exemption shall not apply to areas within mapped river corridors and floodplains except those areas containing preexisting development in areas suitable for infill development as defined in 29 dash two zero one of the Vermont flood hazard area and river corridor rule. So this language does appear other places in statute, and it appears in all the other interim exemptions, and so it was proposed to be added here as part of the priority housing project to say you should not build priority housing projects under this exemption if they're in the river portal or floodplain unless they've been identified as for as suitable for preexisting development in ANR's rule. It doesn't make sense, Denise. I I don't understand this.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Ellen, would you try to explain it again?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: No. I'm just the infill. I don't understand. Does that mean people can build in a floodplain If it has if under it meets the definition of suitable for infill as defined in ANR's rule. So there is language in their rule defining what is suitable for infill in a flood hazard area.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: This is I mean, that just doesn't make sense to me, but

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, there's the history there is that folks who are on this committee generally stumble on this. Okay. And that other committees really want this. So I think that this is this is, you know, when when you sit here and learn about the risks of doing that Mhmm. You realize maybe that's not a great idea, but other people disagree.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: But just who pays for it? That's the thing. I don't care. If you wanna build in a flood plain, I just don't wanna pay

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: for it. Yeah. Well, I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the concern. I don't want Vermont to fall asleep

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: here.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: These are areas that are already developed. So yeah. No. I I I get it. Yeah. Let's keep going.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Next is section three on page three. This is amending the definition of priority housing project that is in act two fifty. So, there is this interim exemption that's being created for that has been created for priority housing projects. But the definition of priority housing project that has existed since at least 2010 is tied to designated areas, and those designated areas under act one eighty one are transitioning from designated downtowns to now the centers and neighborhoods. And so you should think about and I think the senate natural resources committee started thinking about if that definition needs to be updated to reflect those designations that are going away. And so they've added language here, to reference tier three. So a prior a priority housing project means a discrete project located on a single tract or multiple contiguous tracts of land that consists exclusively of mixed income housing or mixed use or any combination thereof and is located entirely within a designated downtown development district, new town center, growth center, or neighborhood development area under chapter 76 a, which is being phased out, or within an area mapped and approved by the board, so the land use review board, as eligible for tier one b area status and is not currently approved for tier one b area status under section 6,033. So the senate committee was looking to have this be an option for where, priority housing projects, allow for a number of units to be exempt under act two fifty if they have mixed income housing. It needs to have at least 20% of the units be mixed income and affordable. So, they're also adding that now. If it's an area would be eligible for tier b tier one b but is not tier one b, priority housing projects could be built there.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This was an amendment, or were this in the bill as passed senate natural?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: This came out of senate natural.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Senate so would this mean then that so this would be permanently in statute, and so communities that opt not to enter into one b would still Be entered. Be entered sort of on for this for these particular kinds of housing projects. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Rob Chapin?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Further meaning that they would be exempt from getting an act two fifty permit regardless of whether the municipality had adequate or adequately regardless of whether blurb had deemed the municipality had adequate zoning in plan?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: No. It says mapped and approved by the board as eligible.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I do think you should ask the board what they think that means. Thanks. Yeah. I think it is more about that the town itself has not opted in even though they're eligible. But this is a new concept that's being introduced.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative North and then Morris.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Thank you. I'm just trying to understand why the end is not currently approved. Are is there any place that's already currently approved for tier one b? Believe you're still working through that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: No. But this is a permanent statute, so it won't go into effect until later this year.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Morris? Madam Chair.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: So there are areas outside tier proposed, tier one b, that haven't approved yet, but could include tier two communities that aren't approved for a tier one b yet? Don't know. Would that open up tier two for possible development in the same statute?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I Can't be two tiers at once, I don't think. Yeah. I think you can.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: But they're not currently approved.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's pretend it's six months from now when this law will be in effect. There is a question about if towns five years from now want to be tier one b and they haven't become one yet. I think there there has been discussions about an area that could be tier one b, but the town hasn't it hasn't opted in. So if it hasn't opted in, it would be a tier two area. I do also think you should you should discuss what role priority housing projects will have moving forward if there are exemptions for non affordable housing throughout the state? But you're kind of eliminating this definition of priority housing project. So what will priority housing project, meaning affordable housing, mean, and where should those be once the tiers take effect? Because priority housing projects may go away if you don't change that this definition at all. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Why didn't they change it? I don't know. Moving on.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Section four is amending the exemption section for active fifty six thousand eighty one. So on at the bottom of page three, that's just a small sort of grammar change. But the first change is on the bottom of page four. So the bottom of page four, this is this is an exemption that was created under the Home Act. So before act one eighty one until, it currently says 07/01/2028, but pushing it out to 01/01/2030. No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of one accessory dwelling unit within or pertinent to a single family dwelling. Units constructed here should not count towards other totals. So this is an ADU exemption that's being pushed out until 01/01/2030. And then similarly at the top of page five, this is also from the Home Act. Until 07/01/2028 is being changed again until 01/01/2030. No and then this exemption currently says no permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for converting a structure used for commercial purpose into 29 or fewer units of housing. So this predates the other existing interim housing exemptions. And this is a proposal to say not only is it no permit amendment needed no permit amendment or permit is needed for converting a commercial building into 29 units or fewer of housing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But also commercial development. They're adding that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. It's it's the change here was that no permit or permit amendment was needed. This was more narrow previously for things that had already had an act two fifty permit but wanted to convert.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. I was on page five.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yes, sir. Yeah. And then on page five, DD starts with the changes to the interim housing exemptions that were in Act 181. So they are being moved out until 01/01/2030. Previously, the dates were not all the same, but they were in 2027. So the first one is related to new town centers, growth centers, and neighborhood development areas. So until 01/01/2030, no permit or permit amendment is required for the subdivision for or the construction of housing projects such as cooperatives, condominiums, dwellings, or mobile homes, and mixed use development with 75 units or fewer, and then located in a new town center growth center or designated development area served by public sewer or water services or soil that are adequate for the disposal of wastewater. And then this shall not count towards other totals. And then here's the language again that was added to the PHPs about shall not be within a McRiver corridor area unless suitable for infill. So the language that's in this one is also in the next interim exemption. The date is changing, and then it's also an exemption for the subdivision for the construction of housing. Subdivision permits also sometimes trigger Act two fifty. And then, yes, it is also adding mixed use development that can be exempt as part of this as well.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Specific to tier one?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: This is no. This is not tier one. This is an interim exemption. So it currently uses the language of the existing statute, not the tiers. We're talking about new town centers, growth centers, and neighborhood development areas.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It might be a good time to just say that one of the transitions that are happening is happening with act one eighty one is that we had started using the ACCD program designations for land use. And this act one eighty one is is trying to trying to separate those two because those were primarily, like, for tax incentives and just, like, a historic preservation, like, a different thing. So that that's what we're hitting on these in these the definitions of the areas that we're talking about.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: And some of them will potentially correlate to what becomes tier one because they are sort of the core areas, but not specifically tier one. So the same language is added to the next exemption, which is at the bottom of page five, and this is for 50 units of housing. So, until 01/01/2030, no permit or permit amendment is required. The subdivision four or the construction of housing and mixed use development with 50 units or fewer onto page six. And then they're striking, constructed, or maintained on a tract of tractor land, 10 acres or less, and located entirely within a designated village center and within a quarter mile of its boundary and with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws and served by sewer, water, or adequate soils. So the language at the top of page six that's being struck was one of the floor amendments. So currently, this is an exemption for up to 50 units of housing in and around a designated village center that has zoning and wastewater disposal available if they're maintain located on a tract or tract of land that's 10 acres or less. So it's getting rid of their the requirement that it'd be located on 10 acres or less so that it could be on any size parcel.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That seems kind of not in line with the rest of goals, but we'll talk about that later.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: And then I this is also the exemption for sense for urbanized areas with 50,000 residents and within one quarter mile of a transit route. So that's, again, 50 units of housing. They're not changing specifically that one, but the the 10 acres or less requirement would apply to that as well.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Sorry. Can you say can you say that again?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So Subdivision 2 in the interim exemption is for 50 units of housing on currently on 10 acres or less. And there's a choice. It's either in a designated village center with zoning and disposal or within an urbanized area with 50,000 residents and within one quarter mile of a transit route. Those areas are also up to allowed to have exemption of up to 50 units of housing on 10 acres. And next, on page six, the next interim exemption is the one for downtowns, and so there's no cap on the number of units that are exempt under this one. And so it's until 01/01/2030, no permit or permit amendment is required for the subdivision for or the construction of housing and mixed use development on a tractor tract of land located within a designated downtown with permanent zoning, subdivision bylaws, public water, sewer, or soils.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Segments.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Ela, would you mind us the definition of a mixed use?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you, Larry.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Sorry. I I asked Ellen if she would remind us of the definition of a mixed use development.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: The construction of both mixed income housing and construction of space for any combination of retail, office, services, artisan, and recreational community facilities, provided that at least 40% of the gross floor area of the building involved is mixed income housing. Mixed income, mixed use does not include industrial use, So there needs to be at least 40% devoted to housing, and it's mixed income housing, which means that at least 20% of the housing units meet the requirements of affordable and for at least fifteen years. So it is the definition of affordable. So mixed use does include affordable housing, but it can be up to 60% commercial business.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And we had a lot of data. And did we land on square footage being the 40%?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Gross floor area. So I think so. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Gross floor

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: area. Yeah.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Minus certain kinds of spaces like storage and I can't remember what it was. There were couple of exceptions that were not included in the floor space.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Gymnasiums. Yeah. Okay. Representive us.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So affordable is 30% of someone's income gross income? Is that how we're Cannot exceed 30% of the gross annual income at 120 of the highest of the following: county median income, area median income, statewide median income. So, yes, 30% of 120 of area median income.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So then on page seven, Subdivision 4 is added as a new interim housing exemption, and this was one of the floor amendments. So notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, until 01/01/2030, no permit or permit amendment is required for the subdivision for or the construction of 50 units or fewer of housing with at least 20% of the units with mixed income housing or mixed use development constructed or maintained on attract or tracts of land located within areas of a designated village center and within one quarter mile of its boundaries served by public sewer or water services or soil that are adequate for waste water disposal. So I wrote this on the senate floor. I don't know if it needs to be it needs to be rewritten grammatically, I think. What is it doing? It is attempting to create priority housing projects for village centers because village centers are not eligible currently for priority housing projects. So in a village center and then within a quarter mile around it, affordable housing can be built and be exempt from Act two fifty as long as it's mixed income housing or mixed use development, which is affordable housing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you know if there's instances where village centers are in towns that don't have zoning and subdivision bylaws?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, can you say that again? I'll ask. I can explain.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We have here, so we'll keep going.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So yes, this is the distinction between the prior interim exemption. There's no requirement here for zoning.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Yes.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Ellen, did the the senate take any testimony we talked about 20% of units with mixed income housing. Did they take any testimony that could be detrimental to some communities or some projects not expanding?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Not what?

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Not being developed.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They Didn't take testimony to list of them at all.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I suspect there may have been committee discussion when I was not there. I I don't I I think they possibly discussed it when I wasn't there, but I don't know.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: I understand what we're trying to accomplish. My point is, if there were any projects out there that would not move forward if

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: they had that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So that ends the interim exemptions. Section five starts with tier three. This is the rulemaking directive to the Land Use Review Board on tier three. So page seven, section five, this is from Act 181. The Land Use Review Board in consultation with ANR shall adopt rules to implement the requirements of tier three. It is the intent of the general assembly that these rules identify critical natural resources for protection. The board shall review the definition of tier three area, determine the critical natural resources that shall be included in tier three, giving due consideration to river corridors, headwater streams, habitat connectors of statewide significance, riparian areas, class a waters, and natural communities. They shall determine any additional critical natural resources that should be added to the definition onto page eight. Include any measures to ensure that no municipality or region is disproportionately impacted by tier three designation that would limit reasonable opportunities for tier one or tier two designations. Determine which and under what circumstances criteria under Act two fifty, sixty, eighty six, criteria one through 10, should be part of tier three area review, and determine how to define the boundaries. So the tier three rulemaking development is already underway. You gave them a list of critical natural resources to look at first. And the senate is proposing to the next subdivision under this pushes out the deadline for those rules. Currently, it's June it's 02/01/2026, which has already passed. This is pushing it out to 06/30/2028. But they've also added to the the set of natural resources has added to the list of things to go into the rulemaking to determine which and under what circumstances, criteria should be part of tier three area review. So, additionally, farther down on page eight, section six amends the the Land Use Review Board's rulemaking authority. So consistent with the intent of the the subdivision three a 12 is the road construction jurisdiction and the tier three rule making requirements. The board shall have authority to adopt rules establishing a process to limit the criteria that would apply to road development pursuant to the the jurisdictional trigger and development within tier three areas. The rule shall define which criteria will be reviewed and under what circumstances. So the Senate Natural Resources Committee has amended, the Land Use Review Board's existing statutory rulemaking authority to give them the authority to use fewer criteria when doing review for road rule projects and projects in tier three. This is a change from how Act two fifty has worked in the past. Previously, there hasn't been this distinction between what criteria apply to what project. All criteria apply to all projects. If something isn't relevant to a site, they just don't need to they just need to say in their application, we do not have any earth minerals to be extracted on this site. That's an example of, like so we don't need to address that in our application. But this is changing that so that for tier three and the road construction, different fewer criteria can be applied to projects. And there and then it that goes with the prior section, is asking them to identify it as part of the rulemaking what the criteria will be. Alright. Page nine, section seven. This is amending the effective date section from one from act one eighty one. On line seven on page nine, section 12, and section 13. So section 13 is the new criterion eight c, force blocks and habitat connectors, and section 12 are the definitions of those things. So they go together, the definitions for criterion eight c. The current effective date for those are, 12/31/2026. Those are being pushed out to 01/01/2028, so a year for, criterion eight c to start being used. And then on line nine, section 21, which is the definitions of tier two and tier three, those shall take effect and so start being used 06/30/2028. And then section 19, which is the road construction jurisdiction, is being pushed out to 01/01/2030.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Wasn't that already done in the beginning? Why is it in here twice?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So these are two different things. The effective date of something is when the law and therefore the need for a permit triggers. In the road rule, you also have this implementation, so which roads qualify or would trigger act two fifty jurisdiction. And so it's saying roads constructed after, 01/01/2030. These two dates could be different. In this bill, they are the same, but it's identifying in statute that roads built prior to 01/01/2030 wouldn't trigger the need for a permit. Like, you couldn't make section 19 on passage, and then under the statute of implementing, it wouldn't trigger the need for a permit until after that. You could do either. Section eight is amending 10 VSA 6,034, which is the tier one a area statute. And you've heard from senator Watson, this is a change that was proposed by ANR. So under the requirements for what you need, what a town needs to have in their zoning to qualify for tier one a. At the top of page 10, the municipality has identified and planned for the maintenance of significant natural communities and its striking rare, threatened, and endangered species located in the tier one a area or excluded from those areas. So ANR testified that they did not think rare made sense in this context.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That was set of

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: oh, no. It's actually no. Alright. Section nine also relates to tier one a. So this is about what towns do once they become tier one a. There is a a requirement in the statute in 4460 g that when the municipality is tier one a, if there's already an existing act two fifty permit on a site, if they're if the permit is going to be if the if that same parcel that already has an act two fifty permit is applying for a municipal zoning permit, the municipality shall go through the existing act two fifty permit conditions and bring them into the municipal permit so that the act two fifty permit will not be enforced by the municipality because in tier one a, there's an exemption, but the municipality will take over enforcing those conditions. And so, apparently, that was not fully clear. So it now reads in starting on line 14, have the appropriate municipal panel reviewing a municipal permit or permit amendment pursuant to this subsection shall include conditions contained within a permit previously issued under act two fifty so that the conditions may be enforced as part of the municipal permit unless the panel determines that the permit conditions pertain to any of the following. And it has a list of types of conditions that do not need to be part of the the municipal permit largely under these criteria that they're out of date or no longer relate to what is gonna happen at the site. So act two fifty has permit conditions on the site. Now that there will be an exemption from act two fifty jurisdiction, the municipality needs to pull in any relevant criteria into the municipal permit so that they can then enforce it instead of having the land use review board enforce it. That was the proposal under act one eighty one. A change is made further down in the statute as well.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard? Thank you.

[Rep. Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: Helen, on page 10, can you just give me an example where it says the municip municipality is planned for the maintenance of of significant natural communities? What does maintenance mean? What would that describe?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So, No. I cannot off the top of my head. I think you could hear testimony about that. Just

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: seems funny to put that word in.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So on page 12, still in this section, subsection h is being struck. What the initial proposal out of act one eighty one was that in tier one a areas, there would be no act two fifty jurisdiction, including enforcement. And so this bill is proposing to change that. So it's striking the language that said within a tier one a area, the municipal panel shall enforce any existing act two fifty port permits that haven't had its permit conditions transferred to a municipal permit. So that's being struck, and, also, the authority for the natural the, agency of natural resources and the land use review board to, enforce those permits is being restored. So the municipality is only in charge of enforcing their own permits When, a permit is being amended by the municipality, its Act two fifty conditions will transfer into the municipal permit so that the municipality can enforce them. And then existing Act two fifty permits within tier one a area will still be subject to enforcement by the state agencies. Section 10 is a report. On or before 01/15/2027, the Department of Housing and Community Development, after consultation with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, Let's Build Homes, BNRC, and the Vermont Planners Association shall report to the General Assembly on recommendations for how to reduce the negative impacts of discretionary review of residential development. The department shall consider the following, whether the state should establish a Vermont model code to assist municipalities seeking to replace discretionary review with clear and objective standards, the potential value of the federal right to build zone legislation, and steps the step the state can take to maximize that value, incentives and planning assistance the state can offer municipalities seeking to limit discretionary review. Onto page 13. The report shall also include a status update on the eight zero two Homes pilot program and recommendations for how to improve the efficiency of appeals of municipal zoning permits for housing. And the report shall be committed, submitted to the committees on environment, general, and housing, and then the senate economic development committee and natural resources committee.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You what does discretionary review mean in this

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: context? In municipal zoning, our statutes do not phrase it this way, but there is a concept broadly of by right zoning and discretionary review, which we, I think, generally here think of as conditional use review. And so the opposite of that is form based code in zoning, which does not have discretion at the panel level. So if you meet if a town adopts form based code and a building is being proposed to meet that code, there isn't a discretionary review. There's just an okay for a permit application. And so this is about looking at the way Vermont municipalities and their zoning review residential development and if there should be a change to a model code or a model code established that towns could adopt.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Representative, Tabliavia? Can you tell us what federal right to build zone legislation is?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Only very high level. There's a bill at the federal level about the right to build zone right to build zones where I think there would be I I can't say more than that. I just know that it's federal legislation that isn't law currently. Alright. So page 13, starts with some amendments related to the regional planning process. So there this language is proposing a a new process for permit, for regional plan amendments.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: section 11 is amending 24 BSA 44, 40 three-forty eight, adoption and amendment of regional plans. First, it's adding that the Land Use Review Board shall coordinate with the state agencies and the Community Investment Board. So sixty days prior to holding the first public hearing on a regional plan adoption, the RPC shall submit a draft regional plan to the Land Use Review Board for review and comments related to conformance with four thousand three hundred and two and four thousand three hundred and forty eight a, and chapter 139, which is the community investment program, which is what is the successor program to the downtown designation program. And so it's adding that the board shall coordinate with the state agencies and the community investment board because their work is related to these designated areas. And then respond within sixty days. The RPC shall hold two or more public hearings within the region after public notice on any proposed plan. And then on to page 14, and it's striking amendment because they're going to create a new amendment review process further down in this section. And so it strikes on page 14 the references to amendment. And so these requirements here about the public hearings and the notice requirements are only gonna be for the plan readoption, which would happen every eight years. And I can read through that if you'd like, but the next change is not until page 16. So, and I did just wanna flag there already exists in the statute subdivision J, which is the process for a minor amendment to a regional plan. And what is being proposed on page 16 is the procedure for non minor amendments. Michael Holchester is now starting off our town plan. How is that going going to be into impacted as a regional plan?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You or will it? I don't I don't think it will be. It won't be.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Is something we should be considering

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: in terms

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: of the down plan. Not here. Okay. So on page 16, subdivision n, regional plan amendments, non minor future land use map amendments, and tier one b area status requests. So regional plans may be reviewed from time to time and may be amended in light of new developments or changed conditions affecting the region. Non minor future land use maps amendment shall be processed as part of a regional plan amendment. Tier one b area status requests may be made separate from the regional plan approval or amendment process. Process. To amend a regional plan oh, I guess I'll just flag. It says that they can be made separate from the approval or amendment process, and I'm not in there's there's only one other mention about that later in here. So I'd I just I kinda suspect more detail might be needed on this, but I might be wrong. So, at the bottom of page 16, line 15, to amend a regional plan, which may include non minor future land use map amendment, a regional planning commission shall hold, one public hearing. For general adoption, there's currently two public hearing requirement. At least fifteen days in advance of the hearing, the RPC shall provide notices of the hearing to parties listed in Subdivision D 1 and the Land Use Review Board. The public hearing notice shall include a description of the changes to the plan, onto page 17, including non minor amendments to future land use map or any changes to tier one B area status. After adoption of the regional plan amendment, the regional planning commission shall submit a request to the Land Use Review Board for affirmative determination of regional plan compliance for the regional plan amendment. Standalone requests for tier one b area status shall be submitted to the Land Use Review Board after the public hearing required under subdivision a. The land use review board shall hold a public hearing within thirty days after receiving the request for an affirmative determination of regional plan amendment compliance or approval for tier one b area status. The board shall issue its determination within thirty days after the hearing. Adoption of a regional plan amendment minor nonminor future land use map amendment or tier three b tier one b area status or amendment shall not change the expiration date of the regional plans. Maybe that works fine.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Representative Thanks. Are minor and nonminor, those terms, are they defined, or is that something that we'll sort of get?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So in the definition of so on page 16, it does say that the land use review board may adopt rules to implement the the minor amendment process for RPCs.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: K.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: And it says that minor amendments include any change consisting of fewer than 10 acres. So there's an implication that that means anything larger than 10 acres would be a nonminor.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: But they do have some rulemaking authority on this. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Tagliavia.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Nonminor and minor. It seems like they were avoiding word major. Why?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I even asked the RPCs if they proposed this. Section 12 is amending the elements of the regional plan, and so these are the land use categories. So on page 18, subdivision 12 establishes sets out what the land use categories are going to be, and it adds a reference that they will be consistent with the smart growth principles of 4343 of this chapter. And that's so that the smart growth principles will apply to all of the land use categories. Because previously, it was listed in some of the categories and not in all of them, so it's being brought up to the top so all the categories shall comply with the smart growth principles. And the smart growth principles are further in this bill if you'd like to look at them. They do already exist. They're in chapter 76A, but they're being added somewhere else as well. So then on page 18, for the downtown or village center land use category, it's adding that municipalities may have more than one center, including planned, new or emerging centers that anchor planned growth or village areas.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: And it's of Chapin. Does that change something or just make it clear that that was already a possibility?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't I I think it is to make clear because previously, it didn't say anything related to that. It's also adding language at the top of page 19. It is the intent that most towns in Vermont have at least one village center in which additional housing units are supported. Post.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Technical terms. It's just it's just in testing, dude.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. I mean,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it was asking us to question people who make these maps.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. We're gonna explore this idea of The

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: next category is planned growth areas. It's striking from this category reference to new town centers, downtowns, village centers, previously designated under chapter 76 a. And then it's also striking that the areas meet generally the smart growth principles, but that's because it's moved up to the beginning of the chap at the beginning of this section.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative North.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: In these sections, we're still talking about these using these terms, village center, downtown center. I thought we were trying to get away from that and and separate those terms from tier one a, tier one b, but still we're adding them in here.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: That's because this is an entirely different section. So the state designation program did use similar terms as the regional plans, which is pretty confusing. And so

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Validating my confusion.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: There's a lot of confusion, I think, in the designation program generally. And the fact that they use the same terms as this is, I think, confusing. Yes. So this is these are the regional plan land use categories, and they are different than being a designated area.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: So Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So in chapter one thirty nine, which is the successor to chapter 76 a, the designation program, they the areas eligible to receive a designation and therefore additional incentives including tax credits, You do look first at the regional plan mapped area of what it is mapped as, and then there are additional requirements for those areas to become a designated area. And you probably should spend time looking at this because this program is starting to the the new designation program is starting to get underway, and I do there's a few amendments in it in here, because there have been some use, inconsistent use of terms. I have to go. I wanna flag also that, the house last week voted out h nine forty, which was the miscellaneous bill that came out of house energy, and that bill amends the section we were just talking about on regional plans about clarifying the process for enhanced energy planning at the regional plan level. And so it amends the same section as this bill is amending. And so you may want to consider and make sure that any changes you make will line up with the those changes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Mhmm. Alright. It's conceivable we could finish this talk soon this

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: afternoon if you're available. I am available.

[Unidentified committee member (multiple voices on this ID)]: Remind me one more time over the two. The RPC, are they designations or designations of the state? One was designation to the other one at a different time. The

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: land use map categories, those are the those are what the regional plan the regional planning commission includes in their plan are the land use categories, and then the state designates areas for incentives.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. So is your schedule open this afternoon? Yes. Okay. We will schedule a time to walk through the rest of this with you this afternoon. Thank you, Ellen. Members, let's take a break until 10:10 minutes past the hour of being very aware of time because