Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. Good afternoon and welcome to the House Environment Committee. We are going to continue testimony on S-three 25 with Alex Weinhagen from Land Use Review Board. Welcome back.

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Thank you. Yes. So I'm Alex Weinhagen, Land Use Review Board. I saw all of you yesterday. I've got to pick up where Kirsten Sultan left off. She provided you a pretty comprehensive review of how the Act two fifty program works. I'm going to provide you a much shorter review of some of the Act 181 components that the Land Use Review Board is responsible for and what the statuses of our work on those. So I'm going to share my screen and show you a few slides. Okay. So thanks for having having me back. So picking up where Kirsten left off yesterday, Act 181 implementation involves a whole host of different facets. There are interim housing exemptions, those are mentioned in S-three 25. There are regional planning, future land use areas, those are also mentioned. There was a wood products manufacturer's report and some exemptions related to those. Those are actually not contained in s three twenty five. They're in some other bills being reviewed this session. There's location based jurisdiction with regard to the tiers, which I'll describe in a moment, and new road construction. And then there's a new Act two fifty review criteria. Yesterday, Kirsten mentioned the 10 basic Act two fifty criteria. This is a new one under criterion eight. It's 8C regarding forest fragmentation. All of these provisions have different implementation and effective dates. So what you see in S-three 25 is important because there's a desire to extend the timing for some of these. Here's what our board has completed to date as required in Act 181. We submitted the wood products manufacturers report last summer. That talked about ways that we could make it easier and more streamlined for sawmills and other types of wood products manufacturers to go through the Act two fifty process. We submitted appeals report in the fall of last year. That was our recommendations on how the Act two fifty appeals process could be made more efficient. We actually recommended that the appeals be shifted to our board instead of the court thinking that we could adjudicate them faster and more efficiently. That have made its way into some legislation that I don't think is moving this session. And the regional plan review process, which Peter Gregory spoke to yesterday to some degree. And the land use review board is very involved in that because for the first time, because of act 181, the 11 regional plans that cover all of Vermont actually gets scrutinized by an independent entity beyond the Regional Planning Commission, and that is the Land Use Review Board. So we're very much in the middle of that process. It's underway. And then tier 1A guidance, I'll talk about the tiers in just a moment. But we needed to have some guidance so that municipalities could make their applications for that this year. That guidance was finished up at just the end of last year. So we're ready to go when they are. Part of that regional plan review process involves the future land use maps, which are really important. This is a big deal. One of the big deals that Act 101 did was to really empower regional planning commissions to develop future land use maps, which they did in the past, but to do so in a more consistent and uniform way across the state, and to have those future land use areas help decide where tier one areas would be. So areas that are mapped as downtown centers, village centers, village areas, or planned growth areas, those four future land use types are all eligible for one of the tier one status, either tier 1B or tier 1A. And so the regional planning commissions are in charge of that effort and and the land use review board then reviews that and and make sure that they are following the statutory guidelines and and approves them. And again, we're in the process of doing that. I wanna say that we've had seven regional plans come before us in draft form. And then they come back to us in final form after they've completed their writing and they've had their public hearings. We just got the first regional plan final version just last week from Northwest Regional Planning Commission. So all of that has to happen by the end of this calendar year. So it's a heavy lift and but we are on track as are the Regional Planning Commission's. So I mentioned that these Regional Planning Commission future land use maps are really important, particularly for determining where the tier one eligible areas are. Tier one is, I think you probably all know now, are those areas where there will be less Act two fifty jurisdiction or potentially no Act two fifty jurisdiction. These are in those four future land use types that are really designed and planned for growth. These are areas that typically have infrastructure and to some extent have municipal regulatory processes. And so those are that's what tier one is. We anticipate that it's likely a little less than 5% of the state, maybe 3% of the state, maybe three to five will be in these tier one areas by the time we're done with all 11 regional planning commissions. And that's tier one. So tier three, as the slide shows, is the other side of the spectrum. Tier three is where there will be enhanced Act two fifty jurisdiction. So some additional developments will go through Act two fifty that would not have prior to Act 181. Tier three are those areas that are critical natural resources that where development can happen. But if it does, it deserves to be designed properly to have good design and go through a review process. And Act 181 sets up the Act two fifty permit process as that review process. Tier three has nothing to do with the regional planning commissions or the maps that they're making, the future land use maps. Tier three areas are being mapped and the rules are being set by the land use review board. And we're very much in the middle of that process now. We released an early draft in October, and we're making revisions to come up with a second draft shortly. Tier two is everything else. Just like Tier one represents maybe three to 5% of the state, Tier three is anticipated to be similar, probably a bit less, maybe two to 3% of the state. And tier two is everything else. So that's fully 90 plus percent of the state will be in tier two. All of these tiers relate to act two fifty jurisdiction and tier two is essentially the status quo, which is what Kiersten described yesterday. So projects triggering the need for an act two fifty permit based on their size and the scale of the project with one additional provision. And that is this new road construction jurisdiction provision, which I'll talk about in a moment. So again, in the tier one areas, there are two flavors of tier one. I think most of you probably already know this, so I will just gloss over this. Tier 1B is where housing projects of 50 or fewer units would be exempt from Act two fifty and just covered at the local level. These Tier 1B areas are going to be automatic based on the regional planning commission's future land use map. So they map them in those four future land use types I mentioned. My board just reviews the overall map and the regional plan, make sure it conforms. And once we grant it approval or conformance, then those tier 1B areas exist and are available. Tier 1A is a greater exemption. So it exempts all projects from Act two fifty review in these Tier 1A areas. These are not automatic with the Regional Planning Commission's work. So they require municipality to make an application to the Land Use Review Board and demonstrate that their regulations and their planning meet the statutory requirements to have this designation. And once it's granted, all projects, housing, industrial, commercial, whatever's in the tier one area would be exempt from Act two fifty. We anticipate that this is a work in progress. Even though the tier one B areas will, the initial draft of them will be set by the end of this calendar year because all of the regional plans will have been reviewed and approved. There are plenty of municipalities that are interested in tier one B, but can't get it because they don't currently have both zoning and subdivision regulations. Lemoyle County was a really good example of that. In that county, I believe it was just three communities were looking for tier 1B. Several others were interested, but in Lemoyle County, many communities have either zoning or subdivision, but not both. And under the statute, both are needed in order to qualify for a Tier 1B area. So even if the area is mapped as a village center or mapped as a planned growth area, those municipalities need to do some more work on their regulations in order to qualify for the Tier 1B status. The picture for Tier 1A is similar, but maybe more extreme because there are more requirements for tier 1A because it's a higher level of exemption. There are municipalities that are quite interested in that, but can't apply immediately because they need to do some tune up of their local regulations. And so we're really enthusiastic about all the tier one B areas coming into existence this calendar year, but we're also cognizant that in 2027 and 2028, we'll getting applications for quite a few more. And the picture won't really be complete with regard to those permanent exemption areas for a couple of years.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Like we have a question from representative Satcowitz.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I want to get a little clearer on what you mean by opt in for one b, because I thought that all communities that were could be mapped for one b, but the municipality would have to actually say, we want the exemptions that 1B gives us. But from what you just said, it makes me think that that's not correct. That if basically that if communities qualify for one B, that that's enough for them to be in one B, that they're that they have the zoning and subdivision that that they're in.

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: No, you're correct. I glossed over that. So thanks for clarifying that. Requires a community to have zoning and subdivision regulations and to be in the area to be part of the future land use map in those four types. It also requires that the community opt in, that they affirmatively state that they want tier 1B status. So yes, it requires both. And there will be some communities that will choose not to opt in. We've talked to some. But I think we've talked to a lot more communities that are interested in opting in, but can't because they don't have both zoning and subdivision regulations. That's why I highlighted that.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Great. Thank you for that clarification.

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Absolutely. So tier three, as I said, is the other end of the spectrum. Tier three are those areas that are sensitive, where development in the past maybe didn't go through any review. And so act 181 says, let's identify those areas and let's make sure that if it meets the rules developed by the Land Use Review Board, that an Act two fifty permit would be required. So as I indicated, we released a first draft of both the mapping and the rules back in October. We did four listening sessions around the state at that same time, and we got a lot of feedback, enough to know that we needed to do a lot more work on this. Honestly, I went into those listening sessions thinking that people would talk specifically about their property or their community and the areas that they felt either should or shouldn't be in tier three. That's not what we heard. At those listening sessions, we heard, I don't really know what ACT 181 is. I don't know what tier three is at all. You need to back up and explain to me like, what's the vision here? What's the overall framework? And how does tier three factor into that? And a lot of those folks are saying, I need that information first before I can engage with you on the specifics of whether this area or that area, this resource or that resource should be included in a tier three designation. So since October, we've been getting even more feedback. I've been attending a lot of community meetings across the state, generally organized by select boards and planning commissions and conservation commissions to try to explain what we're doing and get some questions and feedback. We're refining the map, and we hope to have that next version of the tier three map and the next version of the tier three draft rules ready by the end of this month. And after that, my intention is for us to go out for another extensive round of public engagement across the state in May and June. With that said, we just need more time. We're trying to hit the deadlines to have this ready for when it becomes effective on December 31 year, that's going to be really hard to meet. And I think it would do a disservice to both the process and Vermonters if we were held to that time horizon. And that's why the provision in S-three 25 that extends this effective date for Tier three to 2028 is really important to the board. But I'll talk to you a little bit more about S-three 25 at the end of this. Some

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: of

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: the considerations that you should know about for tier three, like I mentioned, it's going to be a small section of Vermont. We're really trying to focus on the most sensitive areas and really refine those as best we can. It does rely on the road construction jurisdiction provision, which I'll talk about in a moment in more detail. There's been a lot of angst across the state, especially in the last few weeks about these provisions, the road construction provision and Tier three. And I just need you all to know that they are connected. The reason Tier three was designed to be very targeted and only focus on a small portion of the state, the most sensitive areas, is because we understood that the legislature's intent was for the road construction provision to cover much larger areas of the state, particularly interior forest areas. So you'll see with the tier three mapping, we don't include interior forest areas. We're focused on habitat connectors between them, not inside of them, because the road construction provision essentially So addresses there is a connection there, just one to be aware of. If the road construction jurisdiction were to go away for some reason, we would basically need to start over with the tier three mapping and decide to what extent other areas should or should not be included. Some of the other tenants that both the 25 member working group that was formed at the beginning of this effort last year and my board discussed is that we're not interested in including sensitive resources in tier three that already have their own dedicated permitting program, mostly through the agency of natural resources. Wetlands are perhaps the best example of that. Wetlands have very strong protection in Vermont, through the Vermont wetland rules that ANR manages. So there's no need for a development that's in a wetland area to trigger an Act two fifty jurisdiction automatically because it's dealt with through another permitting system. River corridors are similar. We don't have a permitting process for development of river corridors today, but we will in a couple of years as required by the legislature, it's being stood up by the agency of natural resources. So we haven't included river corridors as tier three areas. That's Another

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: question in this area, representative. Yes.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So this is really very helpful. Building upon what you just said about how interior forest blocks are not considered tier three because you're expecting those to be mostly or maybe entirely covered by the the road construction jurisdiction But what about some of the other lands that are being considered for tier three? So, for example, if there's a really important habitat corridor that would be mapped in tier three. Is it mapped even if it would be in an area that would be outside of the the bounds of for for the road construction jurisdiction? I don't I don't think I said that very well,

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: but I No. I think I understand what you mean. That's a really good question. Right now, in the first first draft that we released back in October, the Habitat connectors are very much focused on the connections between those interior forest blocks and focused on where those blocks are broken. And guess where they're broken? They're broken along roads. Way Vermont Fish and Wildlife maps the habitat blocks across the state of Vermont and prioritizes them, They map discrete blocks and they generally end at roads. They tend to be more significant roads, not class four roads and that sort of thing. So tier three right now, the Habitat Connector piece of tier three is really focused on an analysis of of roads and which road segments have intact forest cover and and which road segments help connect the highest priority habitat blocks as as mapped in Vermont conservation designed by Fish and Wildlife. So we're largely with those habitat connectors, glued to the roads and the areas around the roads. We are looking at connectors at sort of a landscape level that have been within regional plans or by, you know, other statewide efforts. But we haven't wrapped them in yet. Hopefully the next draft or perhaps the next draft after that will help refine those. So right now they're largely separate. What the road construction jurisdiction would sort of cover versus what these habitat connectors would cover.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: The other item I should mention here before I move on is we are very interested in applying only the relevant Act two fifty review criteria for projects that trigger jurisdiction in these tier three areas. It was several members of our working group, including the Vermont Natural Resources Council said this would be a good way to make the Act two fifty review within these sensitive areas more efficient, more focused on the conversation that needs to happen. And BNRC actually thought we had the statutory authority to do that. We don't. We've had our attorneys look into it and Act 181 did not structure it that way. Tier three is purely a jurisdictional question, not what criteria will be used. So the 10 criteria that Kirsten outlined yesterday, many feel that several of those are not relevant when we're talking about development in a habitat connector, let's say, or in a significant natural community. And so we would like the authority to go through a public process through rulemaking to be able to whittle it down. And for projects that trigger in these sensitive areas, have the not not create new review criteria, but be able to eliminate some review criteria that just aren't relevant. And we think that that will give some solace to folks who are really concerned about this expansion of Act two fifty because we can show them like, hey, the the review is different. It it will be more focused on the relevant information. You don't have to worry about your neighbor or some other group coming in and arguing that the project has an impact under a criteria that's not relevant in this particular situation. S three twenty five does that, gives us that authority. So we're we're we're really, hopeful that you guys will agree. The road construction jurisdiction provision, sorry, was there a question?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes, there's a question.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, one more tier three question before we go move on. When you're mapping the areas for tier three, are you mapping just the physical outline of the characteristics in question on the ground? Or does it include like the entire parcel that it's included in?

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: That's such a great question. Yeah, I'm not giving you all of the details of tier three, so I'd be happy to come back and go through that at another time. But to answer your specific question, it is just the area that we're mapping as a tier three sensitive resource. It is not the entire parcel that that resource sits on. And this is a this is a new thing for act two fifty. Our board is adamant that we do not want act two fifty jurisdiction in tier three areas to somehow attach to the rest of the parcel. We want that act two fifty permit that would be granted to be relevant only to the impact that was within the critical natural resource area, not to the back 40, not to the portion of the parcel that's, you know, further down the road frontage. We want it focused on the resource that is important. And we've written the rules to do that to be very specific in that regard. Thank you. Alright, so road construction jurisdiction. We've mentioned this before. Boy, it's gotten a lot of media attention and frankly a lot of concern by folks across the state. So I imagine you're all pretty familiar with it. But just to reiterate, it's a two part test. It depends on what kind of access it is. If it is a road of more than 800 feet, that construction, new construction, sorry, new construction of a road more than 800 feet, that will trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit, both for the construction of the road and any development served by that that new construction. If it is a driveway, the the trigger is much longer. So for new construction of a driveway, it has to be over 2,000 feet to trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit. And the purpose of this is outlined right in the statute. It is to encourage clustered subdivisions and development that don't fragment our interior forests. And these are areas in both tier two and tier three areas. This rule does not apply in the tier one areas, which are sort of designed for more growth. So that's the intent. The board has published some draft guidance to help folks understand what we think the difference is between a road and a driveway since there are two different trigger numbers and the difference really does matter. We just released that last week and we're taking public comments on that through the month of April. Under Act 181, this provision takes effect July 1. That's the wrong date. Need, A, we need more time for all of us to wrap our heads around how this is going to work. But B, that date needs to be in the middle of the winter, not in the middle of construction season. We've fielded a lot of questions from folks who are like, I won't talk to you about whether I agree or disagree with this provision, but I'm building a project this summer. What happens on July 1 when I'm, you know, my road is a third in, in my jurisdictional at that point? And we were trying to answer those questions. But frankly, we shouldn't be, that shouldn't be a question. We really need to move this date to a winter date so that that issue doesn't come up anymore. That's the road construction jurisdiction. I'll briefly mention criterion 8C. This is not related to projects triggering the need for an Act two fifty permit. This is for projects that do require an Act two fifty permit. It's a new criteria that tries to make sure that when there's development in these sensitive forest areas, that it's clustered, that it's on the edge, that it's having the least possible impact on those core interior forests so that there's less fragmentation of the resources. We are working on a first draft. We can need more time to get this right, even though it doesn't go into effect until the end of this year. That's criterion 8C. So these were the requests that we've discussed as a board. Most of them are contained in S-three 25. So I just want to be on record, we very much support S-three 25, particularly date extensions, but also what Peter Gregory talked to you yesterday with regard to the requests from the regional planning commissions to do technical corrections with regard to their future land use mapping and some consistency between that program and the Community Investment Board program for actual tax credits. But from our standpoint, what we're really pushing for is more time to get it right, more time to have robust public engagement with communities, and more time for Vermonters to sort of understand what this means and prepare for it. There are plenty of people who have projects that they are actively considering, whether it's building their first home or maybe subdividing their property. And they deserve more time to sort of have the rules be finalized and then be able to take action. And anyways, these extensions would allow for all of that to happen. There were a couple of minor inconsistencies in S-three 25, so we'd love to propose to you a couple of minor fixes with regard to when the rule needs to be delivered by us to the legislative committee on administrative rules and when it takes effect. But that's minor. The big thing is we really do need these dates extended. That's really all I have. I'm happy to take questions.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Thanks for your testimony. When will you have those minor suggestions to us?

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Whenever you want them. I can have our staff prep them and have them to you next week. They they are minor, so they won't take long to flesh out and get to you.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. That'd be good.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Representative Austin.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. I'm assuming all these roads will be private roads.

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Correct. The road rule or the road construction jurisdiction provision does not apply to municipal town highways. The only exception are class four town highways, where the improvements that are happening, the new construction that is happening, is being done by someone other than the municipality. So that's a minor exception. But otherwise, yes, we're talking about private roads and driveways.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And could the muni if requested by, let's say, the landowners for the municipality to take it over, would that be permitted?

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Oh, that is a good question. Let me get back to you on that one. My recollection is that the construction needs to be done by the municipality. But I'm not a 100% sure if there could be, you know, a private work done with the understanding that the municipality was taking it over. I'd I need to check on that in the act one eighty one.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Okay. And just one more question. If the municipality did take it over, and let's say there was flooding and damage to the road, who would be responsible for the repair of that?

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Right. Well, as a former municipal official for a couple of decades, that's complicated, right? So once the municipality takes over a road, generally speaking, the liability then transfers to the municipality. But there were plenty of cases in my municipality where folks were doing work on a class four road to access private property, and the town entered into an agreement with them that said, we're letting you do this work. It is our road, but you're responsible for all future repair of this segment of the road that you improved. So it sort of depends.

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

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yeah, thank you so much, Alex, clarifying some things for us. Have one question related to the road rule and the map. When we go to the map, the tier three map, and and turn on the road rule jurisdiction, how are we to interpret the shaded areas that we see there? I mean, if if the shaded area, you know, cuts right through somebody's house or the shaded area includes their barn, that mean that they What does that mean relative to what are the effects of that currently shaded area on existing properties?

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. I'm so glad you asked that question because I should have alerted you to the fact that map, that layer on our tier three map viewer isn't there anymore. So because we are drafting this road construction guidance, and because that guidance you'll see if you look at it is more nuanced, the map is sort of meaningless. Let me explain. We put the map on there to give folks sort of a basic understanding of where areas more than 800 feet away from existing roads, where those areas were in space, right? It's a it's it's way too simplified to say that's those areas would be subject to the road construction jurisdiction provision because, as I said, it's either 800 feet or 2,000 feet depending on whether it's a road or a driveway. The map that you used to see on the website in the gray shaded areas was a simple buffer from existing roads. Real roads and driveways don't go straight back from the town road. They have to serpentine. There's topography involved. So for a host of reasons, that map was not a great way to depict where road construction jurisdiction provision would take effect. And that's why we've removed it from that viewer and put in lots of provisos saying, it's more complicated. Please look at our guidance to better understand when this trigger will actually come into effect. So it's case specific. It depends on how much new road and driveway is constructed. It really depends on what the access is going to. If it's a single house, it's a driveway. You know, it's gotta be more than 2,000 feet. If it's 10 houses, it's a road. If it's over 800 feet, it triggers. And we've proposed to, in our guidance, you know, a point where we differentiate the two, which is three. Three or fewer homes or parcels accessed by that would be considered a driveway, four more would be a road. We're waiting for feedback to tune that in properly. So, yeah, I don't know if I fully answered your question, but I wanted to make sure you understood that that map layer was not the best depiction and it's no longer on the viewer.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Right. So existing driveways that are greater than 2,000 feet, those are, I don't what the right term is, don't use the word grandfather anymore,

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Really? They would be considered pre existing. Yes, we don't use that term anymore when we can avoid it due to the history of it. In any case, preexisting driveways and roads as of the effective date of this provision are fine. And so you can do maintenance. Can, yeah. They they they will not trigger Act two fifty review. And in our guidance, our draft guidance, we've tried to explain what we think that means. So there's there are a host of resources to understand there there is in fact an existing driveway and whether if you're in the middle of constructing something or perhaps you've just finished, does it sort of count as an existing driveway or road? And one of the basic sort of tests is is it that we're proposing in the guidance is is it drivable, you know, by a passenger vehicle? So if you're if you're in the process of building an access and you've wrapped it up, but maybe you still have some tidy up work to do on some of the ditching around the edges or what have you. We feel that by that effective date, you can if you can drive on it on a normal vehicle, it counts as an existing rotor driveway that would not be subject to this provision.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So if somebody has an existing 2,000 2,500 foot driveway, and they're allowed, even after the date, could go from the end of that driveway another 2,000 feet or 1,900 feet and not trigger the room.

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: Correct. Correct. If they were if they were, yes, accessing a certain, you know, certain small number of of new homes. Yep.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: You mentioned that the the map layer for the 2,000 foot was removed because you thought it was, what was it, deceptive or was not a good depiction. Why then is the 800 foot layer not falling under the same criticism that you had for the 2,000 foot layer?

[Alex Weinhagen (Land Use Review Board)]: It's a great question. So let me clarify. What we had on the map viewer was the 800 foot layer. It showed in gray all the areas that were more than 800 feet away from an existing road. We never had a layer that showed the areas that were more than 2,000 feet away from existing roads. Maybe we should have, that might have been a clearer way than we originally chose. But we were kind of, sorry for putting it this way, but we were kind of trying to show what's the worst case scenario. What is the greatest possible area that would be covered under the road construction jurisdiction? And hence, tried to show this everything more than 800 feet. But as you're picking up on, it's more complicated than that. It's not one number, it's both 802,000. And it really depends on how many units are being the access is serving. And so for all those reasons, we felt like once we have our draft guidance out, which we just published last week, we got to take that map layer off the viewer because it's confusing people as to when their property would trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who have said, Alex, I wanna build a house for my kid. The best place to put it is about 900 feet off of the town road on this portion of my property. Like, that's the right place because of soils and all those things. And they say, I see on your map viewer that's in the road construction layer, so I'm gonna need a permit. And I tell them, Is it just gonna be one house? Is it just gonna be a driveway to one house? And they say, Yeah. And I say, Sorry, it's actually 2,000 feet. That's when the trigger kicks in and your property doesn't even have 2,000 feet of depth. You'll never trigger it for your property. So for those reasons, we've taken that layer off and tried to point people to our guidance instead.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. Thanks for your testimony.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Oh, you're very welcome. That concludes our work for the afternoon.