Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Morning and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are going to continue testimony on S three twenty five and we welcome Ed Stanick.

[Ed Stanick]: Morning members of the committee and thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about S three twenty five by way of introduction. I'm a resident of Barry City, and I was a state employee for thirty two years administering Act two fifty. I worked in all nine districts from Newport to Bennington Brattleboro to St. Albans, although the bulk of my career was spent in District 5, which consists of 35 towns in Washington County, Orange County, Lemoyle County. During the era I worked for Act two fifty. Many of the towns in Lemoyal County were so called one acre towns, either having just a zoning or nothing at all in terms of local control. So I had a lot of experience in towns which had no way of dealing with anything back in that era, including waste disposal storage systems. I like to tell my kids I worked for the state over the course of two centuries. I pre filed my testimony with with this committee, and I don't tend to read my testimony to you. Just to give you the highlights and answer any questions that you might have. I tried to put all of my comments in the context of three twenty five rather than act 181, which is a given its passage. So I'm trying to address only the provisions which are part of three twenty five. One section of both acts act 181 and the bill three twenty five deals with roads. As I pointed out in my testimony, roads and jurisdiction go way back with Act two fifty to the beginning of its passage. There was a rule known as the so called road rule. At that time, it was rule two a six. And in reality that rule was adopted by the environmental board to reduce jurisdiction, because the initial eight years of act two fifty any construction of a road associated with commercial purpose, which included the sale of lots triggered act two fifty. So in effect, the road rule was an attempt to tamper down the extent of jurisdiction to roads being over 800 feet in length, or serving more than five parcels parcels at that time was a piece of land of any size. This was the era when lots were only below 10 acres, but parcels were lots pieces of land of any size. Again, keeping it brief. I'm still ambivalent to this day with the road rule, was repealed in 02/2001 was part of the legislation that dealt with changing the definition of lots to include a piece of land of any size. A bit of a horse trade I think took place, and the reason I'm ambivalent about the road rule was that there were cases where it was extremely useful, and a good example of the road will being useful as a case called Kissel, which I didn't mention in my pre file testimony. Kissel is K I S I E L. Kissel was a project in Wakesfield, which had the maximum of local control, permanent zoning, permanent subdivision regulations, and nevertheless there were aspects of development in high elevation settings that the town could not get its hands around at two fifty review took place because of the road rule. So the environmental board decision in Kissel is a good example of things I think that the legislature is still trying to get at with respect to what roads and even tier three footnote to history. Kissel was appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court and reversed, but only on criterion 10 having to do with town plan. But Kissel is still a valid decision under all the other criteria, such as headwaters high elevation settings, habitat, etc. The other side of that coin is the downside of the road rule. It got to the point where designing around the road rule was resulting in really terrible designs. You know anything to do to reduce that road to seven ninety nine feet in length. Once upon a time in the last century I did a dog and pony show before this committee of an example of how the bad designs were occurring and again keeping it brief and involved a 1,000 acre parcel of land in the town of Cambridge, owned by two physicians in the state of Connecticut 1,000 acres of land on one side of Route 108 is the Smugglers Notch ski resort subject to act two fifty review many land use permits, a significant bear habitat on that parcel in a travel quarter. Of course, the bears don't respect property lines, so the bear habitat extended to the other side, this 1,000 acre piece of land. So again, keeping the story short what happened there was a classic example of seven ninety nine foot road dividing that 1,000 acres up into four humongous parcels right, avoiding act two fifty jurisdiction, same impacts on bear habitat but no review, and at that point, and to this day, Cambridge has really not much of any local control, no act two fifty jurisdiction. So on one side of 108, the state is doing great work protecting a bear habitat functions on the other side of the highway couldn't do anything about it. Running the movie ahead, subsequent purchases of those initial four lots broke those up into more lots. Seven ninety nine foot road for a lot you can see where this is going. A footnote to history before I came to testify to you I googled map that parcel to see what happened in the real world. And so far, nothing's happened on that parcel. However, and here's the big however, we often get into this discussion when I work for the state of vested rights. So all those site plans dating back now, twenty five, thirty years are still filed away with the state and with the town. The question is going to come up whether somebody can claim vested rights right to go ahead with all of those lots which avoided Act two fifty jurisdiction. So, probably too much at length but the road rule has come and gone. Roads were also addressed under Act two fifty over many years under the category of infrastructure. Now infrastructure in my mind goes back to the original statement of findings by the legislature in 1969, and those are found in the footnote to 10 VSA six double o one, the history section, and if you look in the VSA version of the law, and the legislature spoke about concerns about uncoordinated, uncontrolled changes to the land and to the environment being detrimental to the needs and desires of the people of Vermont. So, again, keeping it brief, as Act two fifty began to be administered, particularly what we used to consider the big league of Chittenden County, this is the nineteen seventies. You know, roads, sewer systems, water lines, all these yellow flags went up about infrastructure, you know. So as those large parcels around what's now called tap corners began to be developed, you know, the stubby little sore line to the municipal system onto a 100 acre piece of land. I'm only building a widget store right now. Well, what else is that sewer gonna affect? So there was a decision by the Monroe called Levinsky, a declaratory ruling, and that sort of framed the concerns about again, which is Roe, brings me back to Roe. Now having said all that as background, I think one of the one of the the shortcomings of act one eighty one is the lack of public education. And I've been beating on this drum even when I was a bureaucrat, and I was proud to be a bureaucrat since the era of the Romans. Bureaucrats make government work. You know, I always wanted to do a bumper sticker, proud to be a bureaucrat. But, you know, the problem with Act two fifty has always been no PR, no positive PR. Fifty six years. That's that's the reality, and I think that even is more true now with the passage of Act 181, and you can see this playing out with the section about roads in Act 181. You know, wanted to correct to a certain extent in my pre file testimony. Said part of the problem was misinformation and disinformation. That's sort of like a negative approach. I also think it's more of the lack of public education. I'm sure some of you may be following on Facebook and other sources the act 181 comments, and it was a great comment by a fellow named Lou White. I meant to bring copies I didn't but Lou White I think is from Heartland incredibly astute analysis about what if this what if this with the roads, know, was this going to trigger jurisdiction for this and that. I think a lot of that could have been tampered down. It still could be tampered down if there was, you know, taking a show on the road public education, what is the purpose of roads and what could be the downside of roads. Tier three. Again, as I understand the current bill s three twenty five it extends the inflammation implementation dates of tier three. As I suggested in my pre hearing on my my pre file testimony I was concerned that the tier three provision was a bit doomed from the get go for two reasons. One is it was premised upon rulemaking by the land review board. And secondly, was it was premised upon mapping. So my comments on that rulemaking is an art, and I was lucky to be the benefit of knowing many people on the environmental board, some of whom were the original legislators for Act two fifty, such as Art Gibbs, John Ewing, Len Wilson, and rulemaking was really an art. You know, they would set it up as a collaborative effort going out. And the point here, it takes experience, a sincere effort for collaborative input from the public and what have you. So therefore, to create a new land use review board, appoint those folks and tell them to go out and do rules now, thought was, boy, this is going be a misfire, right? How in the world could these people set up a new land use review board, take the show on the road, without having had an opportunity to get some traction. So that was one concern I had from the beginning, you know, premature rulemaking responsibilities by the land use review board. But the other concern is mapping. I'm sure some of you were aware that problems with mapping an act two fifty go back to the inception of act two fifty. And by that I mean, the mapping that was done in the early 1970s and the effort to adapt the land use of capability plan. When I first started working for the state, there were copies of these maps of the entire state, colorful, what have you, and my understanding was that they were really going to be used for jurisdictional purposes. Well, again, they got off on the wrong foot. Everything erupted around the state. That was the end of those maps, and that was the end of the effort to adopt the lane use capability plan. We had that experience with mapping and Act two fifty. So now we're in the era of mapping, as I understand it under tier three being relied upon for jurisdictional purposes. When I worked for the state, you know, people would call up and say I'm going do such and such with my land or need a permit, and we give them answers like this 99% of the cases the answer was over a telephone we were documented with a in those days, you know, of these forms of carbon paper triplicate project review sheet. It was done, you know, real very quickly. I worry now about the use of mapping and again I'm an old dog, you know, with the use of computers, but I kind of wonder if I was still working for the state, would I be able to give people an efficient response response? Do I need a permit when I call up on the phone? When it seems to me heavily reliant upon mapping to determine whether or not you're going to need to get a permit. So with that as introductions, I go on to discuss a concern that the Supreme Court of Vermont articulated about Act two fifty. This was back in 1982. Ironically, it involved the building which is right over here now with the always called the Legislative Council Economic

[Tim Taylor]: JFO Building.

[Ed Stanick]: That's right. That used to be called the Pink Lady. Yep. And the agency administration was all about back then they were going to tear it down. I don't think they were going to do a parking lot but they were going to tear it down for something. So, that's what the agency administration case is about, is that that building. But the Supreme Court warned that Act two fifty really cannot be turned into an administrative nightmare. That's the language in the Supreme Court decision. It should not be an administrative nightmare. That gets me into discussion of Vermonters with regarding protection of natural resources. Tier three is intended to cover critical natural resources. And I have a lot of faith that the majority of Vermonters do want to protect these resources. That's why people live here. That's why people want to protect and hand that on to their to the folks that come after them. As I expressed in my pre filed testimony, I was remembering this words of an old song, You don't know what you've got until you lose it. I think it might be interesting. I talked about the basic world supply and demand that the land with these natural resources on them will actually increase in value as time goes on. There's only so much of it right. People will be looking for this down the road. The concern right now is that there's a downside economic impact. If I have to get an act two fifty permit, it's somehow going to devalue my land. It's going to cost me money. I think it would be interesting if there was a legislatively commissioned study to determine would there be a positive impact on the economic value of land as a result of increased environmental regulation. I work with Tom Covet, you might know that name as an economist in nineteen ninety nine two thousand, when district five was reviewing the $300,000,000 expansion of Still Mountain Resort, and the district commission at that time had concerns about the overly rosy economic impact analysis done by the bean counters for AIG, which owned the company. So the district commission retained Tom Covet to do an analysis. Smart guy. And it'd be interesting if Tom or someone like that took a look down the road. Is there gonna be could there be a positive economic impact on these lands protected, having these important resources, such that the people that own it now who really want to pass it on to their kids. There's a benefit is a win win from having the increased regulation. So back to the administrative nightmare. The environmental board dating back to a decision called Blodgett Supply Company company, which was a declaratory ruling on jurisdiction Blodgett about the bright line on jurisdiction. And this goes back to being able to give people a quick black and white and answer if they need to get an act two fifty permit. So in that context, the bright lines for jurisdiction, I wanted to be so bold as to make some suggestions to try and accomplish the same goals of tier three, but not the complications of the mapping and all that analysis. I have two suggestions to change existing law. And again, this is about what we're trying to get at with the critical natural resources. My feeling is a lot of those resources are located above the 1,500 foot elevation. Bright line 1,500 foot elevation. So I would suggest that 10 Vsa 6,003, a, which is the definition of the word development that that be amended to say that section of development applies to all tracks of land above the 1,500 foot contour and development for commercial or industrial purposes. Above that elevation will be treated as if all towns are one acre towns. Now let me explain. Right now, almost all those towns above 1,500 feet are one acre towns right minimum of zoning or subdivision regulations. A lot of them such as Stowe Manchester have lands about 1,500 feet. Those are the 10 acre towns. I did some poking around a couple of years ago to the content and quality of decisions in I won't mention any towns, but three of the major will call them ski towns maximum of local control to see exactly what they did with some of the important natural resources. Had a specific interest in habitat impacts of what have you, And I was discouraged because the decisions of the DRBs really didn't get into it. And I understand the reason for that because going back in time I can't tell you how many cases I dealt with in Warren, Weightfield, Facedon Stowe, where when it came to dealing with impacts on bear travel corridors, or what have you, the DORBs would say, Act two fifty will take care of that. The state has access to wildlife biologists. The state has access to a lot of that stuff. So when I took a look and I didn't do a detailed analysis of some of the decisions over the last few years, I really don't think the towns are yet picking up the ball to deal with that stuff. So in a long winded way, I suggest amending 10 Vsa six double Oh, 13 a to say that above 1,500 foot elevation commercial or industrial development in all the towns above that line are considered one acre towns right so what that means is a 10 acre town gets the same review as a one acre town. The focus is on those important critical natural resources. And the second amendment I would recommend is to 10 VSA 6,001 parentheses 19. That's the definition of subdivision. That's where we talk now in current law about the subdivision of land into 10 or more Watts. I would suggest that it'd be amended again lands about 1,500 feet that are going to be divided into three or more lots within a five year period. Now people would say, woah, wait a minute, I can't divide my land, you know, can only do three lots in five years well in my alleged retirement I do a lot of work with folks in rural districts. We're dealing with permit process I do all this pro bono, and they're not anti regulatory. They really do understand the importance of protecting the natural resources. I rarely run into a Vermont resident that has done, you know, more than a couple of lots within four or five years. So, you know, by reducing jurisdiction on lands or increasing jurisdiction on lands about 1,500 feet to trigger jurisdiction for review three or more lots in five years, I don't think is gonna really put a burden on most Vermonters. The big time developers, yes, they'll have to go through the permit process. I also wanted to mention, I should have mentioned the beginning. I'm not tooting my horn here, but during the course of working for the state all those years, I probably processed hundreds of land use permits. The number of denials I was thinking on the way over today, in all seriousness, in all honesty, less than 20. Less than 20 denials in thirty two years, hundreds of permits issued. And the point here is that Act two fifty was and is a permitting process. That's how it was set up from the beginning. Yes, some projects get reshaped. Yes, they are mitigating permit conditions, but there's not denials, and the vast majority of the projects go forward. So back to my song and dance here, and I'll try and wrap this up. You know, how can we accomplish the goals of tier three without administrative nightmares? How can we improve the bright line, the jurisdiction, those two suggestions about statutory for changes. And I also suggest back to rulemaking that you know the land use review board I think could take on rulemaking with respect to breathing more life into the administration of the 10 criteria. Having read act 181 and understanding the intent of what we want to consider critical natural resources. I couldn't come up with an idea of a critical natural resources that hasn't already been covered one way or another with Act two fifty. So I think that by revising the Act two fifty rules, having the language with you board do that, looking at precedents of the environmental board, the environment, environmental division, superior court, we can provide a lot more direction to putting traction to putting teeth into the protection of critical natural resources under the existing criteria. I think the main issue board could do that and I think the maps could be used for that. I'm not down on maps completely maps were extremely useful, not for jurisdiction, but for the substantive review. So if a project needed act two fifty, the maps were very helpful determine, you know, where the smoky the bear live, where are the deer yards and what have you. Those for the substitute review. But I can tell you in the 50s in the thirty two years of work for the state I can't remember anybody really arguing over maps. You know, they were talking about the quality of the impacts or what have you but mapping seemed to work okay. So the wrap it up, appreciate again the opportunity to share these insights with you for what they're worth. I'd be glad to provide citations to some of the environmental board decisions that I mentioned on bright lines on jurisdiction, the Kissel decision. And likewise, I'd be glad to share with the committee. I have access to maps about lands about 1,500 feet, and also a breakdown, which is very interesting about the ownership of the lands above 1,500 feet. How many of those lands are under private ownership and public ownership? Now leave it at that answer any questions you might have for me.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you for being very aware of the time. We have a number of witnesses, and we want everyone to have the same amount of time, and you did really well. So everyone gets probably about twenty minutes to speak, and then we'll have a few questions. Do members have questions? Representative North and Ela Austin.

[Ed Stanick]: Thank you, madam chair.

[Rep. Rob North]: Just a quick understanding of the your proposal on dividing land into three or more lots across five years. So if somebody has a 100 acres and they identify two subplots, two little 10 acre plots that they want to divide off, does that then create three plots with the now the The 80 that are left plus the two little 10 acre plus, and now

[Ed Stanick]: you have three. So you're in jurisdiction then? That's correct. Under existing, precedence of the former environmental board, the retained land is considered a lot. Okay.

[Rep. Rob North]: So really, it what's what's that rule? Piece. And you're you're really dividing it into the the remaining 90 plus the the 10. Right. That's so so any more than dividing off one piece, and you're triggering active transcription.

[Ed Stanick]: Right. But here, I'll be honest with you. I've been I've been

[Rep. Rob North]: in this building many times. Yeah.

[Tim Taylor]: I'm sorry. I may be Dennis.

[Ed Stanick]: Just a follow-up on.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You'd have to stay muted too, Tim, even when you're presenting.

[Ed Stanick]: I'm suggesting three lots, and I'm sort of hoping for five lots.

[Rep. Rob North]: Five lots in total, including the remaining left,

[Ed Stanick]: correct? So that we so it would be four lots plus the the fifth lot would

[Rep. Rob North]: be the retainment, which would mean you'd be allowed to divide off up

[Ed Stanick]: to three at most four lots within five years. So so I'm suggesting three, right? Yeah. I'm hoping that once compromises are done, it's five. Yeah.

[Rep. Rob North]: But even at five, you can divide off at most three because then you're left with four in total.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Over five years.

[Rep. Rob North]: Yeah. Over five years. As soon as you divide off four separate ones, then you're left with five total and you trigger the jurisdiction.

[Ed Stanick]: Right. Well, I guess we

[Rep. Rob North]: you gotta subtract the number to be identify the the number of lots you can divide up. Correct.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin, did you have a question?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Yeah. I found it very interesting the that over thirty two years, looking at hundreds of permits, 30 denials. I'm just one my assumption with Act two fifty is it's not a death now, you know, if you have to go through that review. And my assumption is people want to work with you, you know, to allow you to use your property. If there's, like you said, a deer yard or a 100 year old trees, the compensation would be, is there any other option for you to build it? I think it's a working with a landowner, you know, to find a Upgrade. Okay. That that's what I'm assuming. And I I'm just wondering the denials. Can you just talk a little bit about when things were denied? What at what what triggered a denial.

[Ed Stanick]: Some were denied under criterion aid a for habitat. A couple of I thought very interesting decisions were under criteria nine L. The mystery criteria rule growth area. Thing I wanted to hasten to add to is under 10 Vsa 6,087 C.

[Rep. Rob North]: You can

[Ed Stanick]: come back for reconsideration of a denial within six months, and some of those 20 denials came back. So in other words, the decision was a roadmap to the developer. Here's an opportunity to how you can correct or change the design and come back so not every denial was project dead on arrival, some of those denials got the permit on the rebound. So it is a collaborative process. And it is a permitting process.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I find I have a lot of questions, but I need we need to stick to them. And so we may we may invite you to come back. Okay. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Rob North]: Thank you very much. Thank you. Next

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: up, Susan Taylor.

[Tim Taylor]: See, I doubt I'll be as efficient. Farming for all these years, got pretty efficient. Well, nice to be back. Kat, can you get me up there? Or how do

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I need to do this?

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: So you'll hit share on

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Share where Stay muted.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Yeah. So you're gonna stay muted.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Right there.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: So actually, right in here. Tap, maybe use your iPad as

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Share. Minute number.

[Tim Taylor]: It says only you can do that?

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Yep. So I'm gonna accept you over here.

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

[Tim Taylor]: What could I tell you in

[Rep. Rob North]: the interim? You got such a great name.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I know. I've had to deal with that for a long time.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Do you mind if I

[Tim Taylor]: No. Get her going. Anywhere you can. I'm 74, but I'm 75. I'm doing pretty well just out of this thing.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Do you know where the document is?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Screen yeah. It's just floating around. So you hit I know I learned this yesterday. John hits broadcast, counts down, and then we swipe the feed button, and then we can share

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: it Yeah. Right this is the part you'll have to There we go. There we go. So that should be up there.

[Tim Taylor]: Okay. Here we go. So

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: I'm just gonna turn this back down.

[Tim Taylor]: Okay. Yeah. There go. I'm Tim Taylor. Happy to be back. I haven't been back in a few years, which I don't know is such a good thing. I mean, I think it's a good thing I have been in some ways. But, have you looked at the screen there and, you see the old comment that active 50 is a little scary? Well, I can tell you climbing in that balloon at ten in the morning with my neighbor on his second beer could be a little scarier. Or facing you all, it might even be scarier still. So anyhow, so the farm was born in 1980, it's checking you all out a little bit too. That's my daughter there. We spent forty two years farming. The little guy there just had his fourteenth birthday, so this is a few years ago. Just so you know me a little bit, my wife and I were 2006 Orange County Farm Bureau Farmer of the Year. I'm a past president of the Vermont Vegetable and Dairy Growers Association, which I was on for a long time. And I even taught a semester of sustainable agriculture at UVM. We the 56 acre farm grew from a, you know, a card table into where we grow about 30,000 pounds of tomatoes. And we've, over the years, sold, you know, several million dollars worth of stuff to the Upper Valley, principally restaurants, summer camps. We have a stand out down next to King Arthur. So that's the farm in a nutshell right there, right next to Lake Fairlie, if you know where that is. A lot of you folks bring your kids down to Camp Billings over the years, some of you. And so you get to know us. I was chair of the District three Environmental Commission from 2021 to '22. I would have loved to stay on. I had been appointed by Governor Shumlin, reappointed twice, reappointed by governor Scott twice until he fired me in August 2022. And I think I was very good at my job to tell you the truth. Issued over 200 permits in that time period, denied perhaps 10 in that time period of which including Exit 1, at Queechee, and Exit 4, we never did deny because that got taken care of in a different way. Also on the Fed for DRB back in the eighties and then came back on in 2003 and I'm presently chair there. Fed for representative to TROC. And before I farmed, I was a 1978 graduate of BLS, the first class to know that you were going to get certified. And when I started my clerkship, I had the privilege of coming to Norwich and sitting at a very big table, about half this table, next to a man named Norris Hoyt. My dad. Your dad. Yep. And I sat right at the end of his table for about six months until he could find a room for Peter Demurels and myself. And Jonathan Brown now was his partner, and he was one of the authors back February. So you had he was, your dad was Harvard. Yep. And Jonathan was Yale, and they were a lot smarter than me. But I learned a lot. And I could tell you so many stories. I remember your mom bringing you in. And, by the way, Jamie Hosley says hello.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Three minutes, Tim.

[Rep. Rob North]: Yeah. Sorry. Well, I worked

[Tim Taylor]: I probably put twenty hours into this thing. So give me a break here. So I started this off with just I ended up putting this in. So this was from Dean Davis in Act two fifty in an interview with the in in environmental report. And I just wanted to read one thing. I'm actually amazed at what we did get. Really, this whole thing, act two fifty, runs counter to Vermont's tradition with reference to the use of land. I mean, Vermonters feel land is sacred. We don't want anybody messing around with our land, much less the government. And it goes on, and you can read it later if you like. The point was that something had to happen. And I think now, once again, we're at this critical point. It's a it's a point where, once again, he comments about economic depression is maybe challenging it. So what I'm here to focus on since I am a farmer, I am really gonna focus on these exemptions that just passed on the floor of the senate, which I think pose dire consequences to agricultural land, and I think are so important to be considered. And also, they're the interim exemptions, and they're also part of the one b exemptions. And two things were done on the floor. One of them was to take away the restriction on 10 acres or less. So these 50 houses that could be built in these interim during this interim period in these village centers, they had to be on 10 acres or less. Now they don't, if it if you all if it gets to the house and becomes built. Right? What that means is the concept of compact villages right out the door. Right? It's we can sprawl all over this, what I will show you in a minute. The second thing is that all the one acre towns now qualify for this 50 exemption, and there is no local zoning. There's no act two fifty review. There's essentially nothing, which they have right now. They can put in five units before they trigger act two fifty. Okay? So I'll move along. So here, I happen to take Crasberry, not because I don't love Crasberry. I do. Judy here. I love the resource up there. But I happen to see these three little designated villages. And they're a population of about 1,352, which sort of fits into our one acre town populations. And do you realize that 46% of our towns are one acre towns and they don't have zoning or subdivision? They might have one, they don't have the other. Okay. And this is true of this this fine place. And the one on the right is East Crasberry. So that's a map of East Crasberry. And, you can I just chose to focus on it for a moment? They have a community center, but you see around this little village all this agricultural soil. Right? So now that shows you the designated boundary that you can find on ANR. And from that, we pop out a quarter mile with the exemption, interim or one b. And look what we're starting to take into account there. Look what we're hitting. Well, when I pop that over, you'll really see it. It's prime agricultural soils. All of it some of the most important production soils in the state. Okay? I know we need houses, but we need to eat too. So if the amendment becomes law, then there will be no I'm gonna just review this. There'll be no clustering, no site planning. I think 50 units is too big anyway. When this first came in, as Terry the DRB in Thedford, we have five villages where this can happen. We could have 250 units being built right now. I think I'm pretty good at what I do on the DRB, and we have a pretty good zoning, pretty rigorous. But the concept that we would be able to actually do site planning without that kind of review that Act two fifty does, we have pretty comprehensive, but it's not enough. Anyhow, let's bounce back. Here we go. See, I'm moving along pretty good now. Post Mills, where I live, there's a lake fairly over to the right, has 128 people. It's the home of Crossroad Farm and the Vermontosaurus, which by the way is under act two fifty. That was a very interesting hearing just before I became came on the board. A lot of hue and cry about that one. That was an interesting hearing. So what you see here is that that red circle shows you how part of that Crossroad Farm this is 18 acres of Agawan soil, which is perhaps the most productive in the state, arguably. You can in the drought last year that everyone worried about, right, that we have irrigation that goes out there. It had to be irrigated so little. It has when you pick it up and you mush it in your fingers, you can feel all these clay particles. So that would be captured by this. And were it not for the fact that this is a conserved farm now through VLT, and I think I might have you partly thanked for that. I think you might have been on the housing concentration board at

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the time.

[Tim Taylor]: I might have met too. I'm not sure. Statewide soils, people don't think are quite as useful. This is based on production of corn silage and egg. I can tell you that statewide soils that drain even more that are a little more gravelly, fantastic for vegetable farmers because we can get on them early, We can irrigate them, and we and bring crops to the market much, much sooner, usually two to three weeks earlier than we might be able when we get on the aguan. It's a little wet spring. So here we are back, and I wanted to show you this because just wanted to show you how Act two fifty has actually worked in the past. And, you know, when all these changes came about when the commission report came out five, six years ago, I said to myself, which why? I mean, this thing has worked pretty well. It's supposed to go after large developments. It's not supposed to really go after the little guy particularly. It's worked pretty well just as it was. So in the late nineteen eighties, there was a proposal on this circled piece here for 56 units on 79 acres in the Post Mills Village. Well, we had a little over a 100 houses. Okay? Schools were filling up, by the way. We were about to have to build a middle school. People forget that. You know, the younger folks forget how close we were to full population in our schools. Okay? So they came in and there was an Act two fifty hearing, and this is what happened. Okay? It was the balancing act, I like to call it, of long term sustainability. So what you see is that in green, you had 23 units that were it was, first of all, allowed to be divided into 16 lots. 23 units were put off into the woods and then down along Route 244 past the church. And that was going to have actually four duplexes on it. We won't get too detailed. The next part was the agricultural field, that field that's in white. And you see the little round red circle there. That was where the wastewater system for these 23 units would be pumped to. And that is all existing today. It's still functioning. I walk on it every day. Over to the left is what is now called the Taylor Floodplain Preserve. It's a piece of land that when we acquired it, we offered it to the town of Fedford. They took it, and it's one of, interestingly, one of the few wooded floodplains in the state of Vermont. Most flood plains, as you know, either got because they're long rivers, got commercially developed or got farmed. Okay? That was a 37 acre piece. So I guess my point to you here is, look, this was way back then, and look how it worked. We got housing, maybe not as much as the developer wanted. We got farmland that allowed a certain farm to grow as it turned out. The parcel just north to it where the green is, that once was gonna have ten two acre lots in 1982. George Huntington was gonna build them. That got denied by them big under nine b, which is the it the nine b has to do with soils and and farming. He hadn't shown that he couldn't build on the other side of the road. So he actually turned around and sold it to us, became the cornerstone of the farm. So here we go. My suggestions with this amendment is remove the entire amendment. Just take it right out. Reduce the if reduce the number of housing units from 50 to 10 in the one acre. If you want, I know there's a human cry going on right now. Throw them, you know, or I won't let them do on a larger scale what they can do. They can do five units now before they trigger Act two fifty. But in the 10 acre towns, I would suggest reducing that to 25 units or less. We have, as I said, we have five of these designated villages in Thedford, right? I went before our select board and said, please don't give one B. You know, don't ask for that. 50 units is too much for us. 20 or 25 might be one thing not to have the Act two fifty review. But this 50 is nuts. We're good at what we do, but not that good. Restore the 10 acre or less requirement for setting the units in all designated village centers. I think that's really important. Come on. If we're looking for sustainability, we need to keep some of those agricultural soils. I've been worried since day one that because our village centers are generally along rivers, that's where our glacial till soils were built up over the years. Right? Okay. And then reduce this interim exemption. I mean, 2028 is enough, another two years. If you guys get elected again, who knows what's gonna happen. Right? 2028, you can do it in the next plan. So I'm gonna jump for a moment to the road. How am I doing?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm You need to kinda wind down.

[Tim Taylor]: Okay. Road, rule, law, and guidance. So there's the law, and this is the definition, and this is two road rule examples. And I've gotten these passed by the powers that be that I'm I'm accurate on this. So you have an entryway. I like that. Don't call it a road. Don't call it a driveway. Into one to three lots, which could have two duplexes. That's six units now, plus three ADUs, which don't count. So a duplex counts as one unit. Right? You're allowed three in this exemption. Okay. Total nine units could be there. It does not trigger act two fifty as long as the total access is not over 2,000 feet. Not too bad. Not a bad, you know, carve out. Whether it's legal or not remains to be seen. It's in the guidance. It's not rule at this point. It doesn't really reflect the statute that accurately. I would suggest you might want to put it in there and make it more accurate. So entryway to four or more lots or units, the entryway is now a road and must be 800 feet or less. And the total of the road and driveway must be less than 2,000 figure feet not to trigger jurisdiction. Okay? So now we're going into four. So now that entryway is a road, has to stay 800 feet or less not to trigger act two fifty. Okay. I like my bobcat picture a lot. So tier three. I had a lot of talk with some folks from Pomfret. Many of you might know them. And they are generational owners of farm and woodland there. And they have conserved this, their soils and their land for years and years. And just like me, they don't really like too many people. Well, we're very public. Never mind me. But there are experts who have studied this for years and years. And it's not to stop someone from going into these tier three areas. It's to help them give a little guidance to these tier three areas. Okay? Not only that, very particularly jurisdiction is gonna be limited to the involved land. You know what that means? It's if you've got 500 acres and you have this one little tier three spot, right? Headwaters if it is. Access to that. It's only gonna be that involved land. It's not gonna carry over just like it doesn't in farming. It's jurisdiction's only on the involved land. It won't be on the whole parcel. So if you do something else, you won't have to go through act two fifty or deal with them. Incidentally, I'm we're under act two fifty. And, also, the criteria looks like it's gonna get limited impact right from the start. So we would do that in act two fifty anyway. We would only address the criteria that were under consideration and might have some conflict about, but this will be very specifically aimed at that. Summary. Here we go. Nice picture. Two years. Still a steward. I'm a steward of the land. Right? And I've enjoyed my friendship of learning from experts such as Vernon Grubinger, who's been here before, I think, our vegetable extension specialist. I've recognized the need to be educated and regulated by the agency of agriculture, as is soil health, for example. Sometimes every five years you need to do a soil test. Well, that's important. You need to check on your organic matter, need to check on your pH, that kind of thing. I'm grateful that I could make noise in the evening to irrigate my crops because of exemption for farming, which hopefully will be straightened out this time, or spread manure and make a little smell. So I appreciate all that kind of freedom too. I want you to understand that. And guess just finally, after all, we're all together in this complex society, trying to work together a little bit, and I think that's where we're at. And I just wanted to mention, I think to you, you're correct. Right? Yes. I am. Okay. I was the captain of my rifle team at Scarsdale High School in the late sixties. I saw you were a lifelong member of the NRA. You know what? Now that you bring that up, I welcome that coming back at schools. Thank you very much for bringing that I just wanted you to know that. We're all a mix of things, I guess. So that's my testimony.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. I hope that

[Tim Taylor]: made some sense. Yeah,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: that was great. I noticed your summary slide didn't make it in your submission to

[Tim Taylor]: Oh, it didn't make it. Yeah, that's because it came from yeah. Resubmit Yeah, I'll send that to you individually. I'll take a screenshot. Yeah, I did it this morning and, in between visiting the bathroom a couple of times.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And we do have time for some questions. So do folks have questions?

[Tim Taylor]: No questions?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Actually, I mean, I have question. It's one of the ones I was gonna ask, the previous witness. You know, one of the challenges as Vermont develops and grows is the incremental change piece of this. And Act two fifty does a pretty good job of capturing larger developments, but our smaller developments are adding up. What thought what thoughts have you I'm sure you've thought about that, and I'm curious if you could share them and if you're not prepared to now. Well, sure. I've thought about it.

[Tim Taylor]: You you can't help but wonder about it as you drive around and see things you have permitted and things you haven't. And, of course, in one acre towns, very often, we'd go into a town and say, hey, you know, I don't need to be here if you would just get subdivision zoning because this is commercial development is, you know, on one acre. But you if it was a 10 acre town, I wouldn't be here, and you all be dealing with it. But then you'd see all this other, development. And I guess I have to reflect on I mean, I've been up here since law schools in the seventies and '69. I agree with I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure that this incremental development isn't just part of the way life is at this point. I know that's not a very good answer. Just think that I believe in the mom and pop subdivision. I believe in the mom and pop development. And so I I want jurisdiction. I want to make sure we preserve agricultural soils. And but I'm just not sure how far to go with that. And that's your job to figure it out.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, it is.

[Tim Taylor]: Yeah. And it's a tough job. Don't get me wrong. When we had a choice of when our Bedford Planning Commission, ZBA, in the 2000s could split, I went with the quasi judicial DRB, not the planning, because it's really hard what you have to do, I mean, as you know, and balance it all out. Maybe a little more jurisdiction on a few of the things, but mom and pop's important. You know, it really is.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin. Yeah. Thank you. So

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: you you you're aware of how much housing we need in order to keep Vermont affordable. You know, the legislature is looking at three things. I think health care, education and housing. So we have to have housing. We have to have people move up here to replace our workforce, not the taxpayers that much, but our workforce is aging up. So my assumption without any kind of background knowledge is that there's enough ag land, there's enough open space and there's enough room for the quotas of housing that we need. Because if we can't build that housing, Vermont's gonna be really hurting. Vermont is gonna be really hurting in terms of economic development. So I'm just is that assumption correct to think that way? This

[Tim Taylor]: is one of the most difficult balancing acts I think we face right now. Perhaps if this 56 units had been built in this agricultural field, Bedford wouldn't have had a problem. But I can tell you also the taxpayers would have been paying for a middle school. So that's the flip side of the coin at times. When we all came up here, we kind of didn't stay in the village centers of baby boomers that came from the burbs. We kinda went off into the woods. We bought little lots that were kind of affordable still, and we kinda worked with the local folks. I mean, that was my impression. So, like, a poor farm road in Thedford, if anyone knows where that is now, is dead ends, all these houses, it's a perfect example of rural scattered growth. I actually am not a big believer in the, believe this is may sound terrible. These smart growth principles that you're gonna jam everyone in the village centers. I don't think people who live here, that many of them wanna be here. I think they like the rural areas. But I do feel that so so, for instance, that's why I showed you what happened at Crossroad Farming. You know, I have this parcel. You have woods that you can put these units in and still have agricultural fields. But right now, with these exemptions, they can go anywhere, and there's no control. Not no one's gonna say anything about it. You know, we before we issue a permit in Fed for to someone who owns a lot, if they plop it right in the middle of an agricultural field, that's a violation. We don't have to issue that permit. We can shove it off to the side and have them move it a little bit so that that field can still behave and whatnot. But they get their permit. Remember, this is all about not denial. This is about conditioning, either whether you're on a DRB or on an Act two fifty commission. We're working with people. I wanna say one last thing about that too, because Act two fifty has gotten criticized for years and years. And one of the things that I found with our coordinators was they worked so carefully with folks who did not have the means to hire the consultants and do the big thing. And that's the same thing we do in Thedford. You can figure out who they are very quickly. I'm not sure I like the online application because that isn't that hands on that goes on with the coordinators. Just like everything is done by email, I used to sell all my props by the phone and by knocking on doors. To answer your question, obviously, we've got to have some more housing, but I don't think we're the problem so much, Act two fifty, or regulation. I think it has to do with everything else. We didn't when we raised our kids in the eighties, we didn't have them become you know, we wanted them to sit at these stupid things rather than get out and become carpenters and plumbers. All my friends who came up and were high school and college educated, so many of them, they skipped law. I mean, they did law or whatever. They became contractors, plumbers. You know? Now they're all retiring. So we need to push that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't have all

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: the answers.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: No. Maybe we have a lot of

[Rep. Rob North]: background Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks. Thank thank you again for your testimony.