Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Hi. Good afternoon. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. We are continuing testimony on s three twenty five with the League of Cities and Towns. Welcome. Thank you.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: For the record, Josh Hanford from the League of Cities and Towns.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: And I'm Samantha Sheehan, also from Vermont, the Mont League of Cities and Towns.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: We do have some slides to run through, but, just start off by thank thank you for having us in here. I know you've had, several days of of of pretty intense testimony, a lot of it. You've heard a lot of perspectives. I appreciate that time that you've given to this. You know, just as a reminder, Montlake of Cities and Towns is a membership organization. All municipalities in Vermont are members, big, small, urban, rural, all across the state. For the last several years, we survey our members about what their top concerns and issues are, the top concern has been housing affordability and availability. That directly addresses this conversation, Act 181, what we're here to talk about. What municipalities have repeatedly said is they want to allow for the housing that they've envisioned, they've planned for, that they've made legal through zoning to be built. We have appreciated the efforts over the last several years to look at our dense areas where there is planning and zoning, our designated downtowns, our growth centers, and provide that interim Act two fifty exemption. We've been working with the act 21 process across the board, with the LERB, with RPCs to look at the future land use maps, make those decisions, have those conversations at the local level. And, you know, I I guess before we jump right in, one of the challenges we've seen is in the efforts to expand the areas to allow housing with these interim exemptions that are offered through act one eighty one, which we support. We don't wanna repeal act one eighty one as a position. We have some challenges with aspects of it that we'll we'll get into, But there's also been some concern from municipalities that the areas they have sought for future growth. The areas they have water, sewer, they wanna see new housing being built, haven't always been approved by the LERB or supported by the RPC. And so that and the fact that they're separate process to look at the road rule impacts in the tier three have really been divorced from what the communities have envisioned for themselves, have put into their own zoning through hundreds of hours of volunteer work, and have really looked at tough issues of where do we wanna grow, where do we wanna conserve. We have zoning districts that are rural conservation. We have zoning districts that are rural ag. None of those local considerations in decades worth of work were analyzed when you looked at the tier three maps, the road rule considerations. They were divorced from each other, and they don't live on the same map. And that has helped create some of the outcry you are hearing. And trust me, as much as you've heard, we've heard from members for weeks now who are taking votes at the select board, who are sending us letters, and are asking for some dramatic changes, with act one eighty one. And so, with that, I'll just have Samantha move forward and I'll interject a few places along the way.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: So I want to I love a road map, unintended. So this is the plan for the test 22. So we wanna talk about where VLCT started in our support for the concept of location based jurisdiction for Act 50 review, talk through our experience with and our members' experience with Act 181 implementation so far as the sort of next round of deadlines approach. And you should know, so Act 181 assigned VLCT to all of the stakeholder study groups and reports. And Josh and I have filled all those roles. Sometimes we defer and ask members to fill them on the emergency response board or the E911 board or the current stormwater utility. We have municipal practitioners filling those. Josh and I have been the ones on these advisory committees and working groups created by Act 181 to talk through the implementation of the law. And then I would like to specifically discuss our concerns with the road rule and tier three and how they interact with each other and affect our members and their municipal plans and municipal regulations, and then talk about where do we go from here and what does an improved policy that keeps the heart of Act 21 of location based jurisdiction intact. So this is how VLCT comes to the problem. And so VLCT for a long while, definitely the whole time Josh was working

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: in state government and the whole time I was working in municipal government, VLCT has held the position that

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: we should end the duplicative permitting process. So where municipal standards and regulations are the same or better than the state standard or regulation, then the municipal regulation should be the one that a developer or property owner goes through. And so that is true for Act two fifty. It is true for technical DEC permits like potable water connection, think you're talking about later today. Great example. There's sort of a long history of municipal delegation of permits. Shoreland was one that many municipalities delegated for a long time. And so that is VLCT's position, not to erode the quality of the regulatory standard that the state has, but to end the duplicative permitting regime and to end the duplicative opportunity for appeal of that permit. So our members' top concern is the availability and affordability of housing. And what we advocate for is that the housing our communities, our towns and cities and villages have envisioned for themselves, have assessed that they need the housing types that they need, and that they have made legal in their own regulations be realized and built. And so that's why we supported CHIP. That's why we support language in H-seven seventy five and three twenty eight related to the opening up of a municipal plan and what should the municipal plans in the future say and assess. And that's why we support location based jurisdiction of Act two fifty, in particular, Act two fifty relief in our downtown and village force. While I have this on the screen, I want to point out that when we talk about removing Act two fifty review, that's this column. Are municipal permits and authorities related to development. These are state permits and authorities related to development that are not Act two fifty, and this is Act two fifty. These are federal standards. So even in situations like, for example, the Floor Amendment that is carried in 03/25 about priority housing projects in communities that don't have zoning but are mapped as a village area, that second column is intact. Like that housing project is still going through the DEC processes associated with potential environmental impacts for stormwater, for wastewater management, for potable water, for wetland and shoreland, etcetera. I won't like read through this whole slide. I think at this point, you've heard this many times over, and some of you participated in the drafting back in 2024. But just to quickly review, so the concept of location based jurisdiction means that in the future under Act 181, a project, a planned development could be required to go through Act two fifty review not based on the size of the project or the parcel, but the location of it. And in Tier one, those could experience total or partial Act two fifty exemption. In Tier three, there would be new enhanced protection of natural resources And new projects would newly be subjected to Act two fifty review. And then we discuss tier two as Act two fifty as usual, like no change to the sort of conventional and existing approach to Act two fifty jurisdiction there. And then we have the road rule, which is based on the distance of road and area that would be disturbed away from an existing road. I want to point out that, so as Josh said, these processes have been divorced or they are prescribed to be done separately from each other in Act 181 as it passed. And sometimes when you talk to your constituents or you hear testimony, you might hear a municipal, is Colchester in or out of tier one? Is Colchester going to opt in? And so I think we've sort of discussed tier one as being a municipal choice or a municipal authority, it's important to understand that it is not. So the municipality must take a vote to seek tier one approval in order for that to happen. But act one eighty one is really explicit. It says to become tier one, the RPC shall demonstrate to the LERB that the area mapped meets the following criteria. So ultimately, the mapping is done by the RPC. The LERB tests the mapped area against what is in state law required by state law to receive tier one approval, and then the LERB affirms the tier one b status or not. It is not within municipality cannot make or unmake a tier one area. The law is not differential to the municipal process. So this is a sample map. I wanted to start here of what it looks like in a when the process to create the future land use areas for tier one eligibility work well between the RPC and the municipality. So this is a community of Pittsburgh and Rutland County. Rutland County is the first regional map in line for LERB process and LERB approval. So it was the first map to go to the LERB and the first map to receive feedback from their member. And the areas with the red star are the four that are eligible for tier one b. And Pittsburgh is is fundamentally a tier one b eligible community. They have professional staff. They have a five member select board. They have municipal zoning subdivision bylaw. They have flood plain hazard bylaw that meets the state standard. And they have water and sewer and suitable soils for other types of wastewater systems. And if they chose that they could, in theory, receive tier one b approval and really leverage the opportunities for new housing growth created by the Be Home Act, required by the Be Home Act, and Act

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: 181.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: And so this sort of pink doughnut, these three layers of pink here, this is what would be Pittsburgh's tier one a eligible area. And you can see the town do you remember? I think this is are they 24 square miles, something like that? It's a pretty large community. So the potential tier one b eligible areas is pretty discreet compared to the whole municipality. It's not gonna be the whole town, and the only exemption would be for the up to 50 units of housing. And so this is the plan that the town of Pittsburgh worked on with their regional planning commission and brought forward to the LORB for approval. Before you leave that slide Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Let's talk for a second about that enterprise zone, which looks as big or bigger than the land growth area.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Yeah. I I can talk about that. The enterprise zones are not eligible for tier one status. We had this discussion with our RPC and my planning commission. There are areas where there may be some light industrial or commercial, but it's not suitable according to the LERB or the RPC to be eligible for Act two fifty exemption for housing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But so generally, what is that area you said?

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: So that area is the Vermont State Police Academy.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. But it's sort of light commercial or Yeah. It's Water and sewer. Does it have

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Doesn't have to.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: It doesn't have to, but it could. And it could be it could be mixed commercial and light manufacturing and sort of a common type of enterprise zone that we see.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: But not dense. You know, in Randolph, it's the Beanville Road area where there's some large properties, but there's also a few manufacturing properties on large open areas. But there isn't a walkable pedestrian oriented, residential oriented development. Okay.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Thank you. I think there's actually one here on Route 2. If you're driving south into Montpelier, it would be on your right. Excuse me.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: It's okay. What would be

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: like our industrial zone in Middlebury?

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Yeah. That could be I think that would qualify as enterprise.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Yeah. It also doesn't have to be as developed as your industrial area in Middlebury.

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

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: And the other one that gets some confusion is the transition or infill, which is orange, which is also not eligible for one a or b, not eligible for act two fifty exemption. But it's recognizing the fact that it's kind of an area where there is a transition between more developed areas that that you see that neighborhood structure and more density and rural undeveloped areas. But it doesn't receive any benefits, either the either the lavender or the orange.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Yeah. And the changes in 03/25 to title 24 definitions that you heard Katie talk about earlier today before lunch, those all relate to one of these four FLUs with the red star. And so those changes in s three twenty five were brought forward by VAPTA. They're supported by BLCT. We provided feedback and testified and sent it natural when they were discussed, and we would like to see them pass. They would provide better deference to the municipal plan and a sort of tighter relationship to the municipal plan. And I believe it was representative North who was discussing the sort of idea of new town centers and and planned flood retreat for communities like Randolph, like Plainfield. If think you of Waterbury Center, that's a new what we used to call a new town center. That would be eligible for a planned growth area and the changes put forward in s three twenty five to those definitions to remove at the requirement to have a historic site would help that go forward and be eligible for the tier one b benefit. Another example in the Burlington district is Cambrian Rise. Cambrian Rise itself does not contain a historic site, although it's right next to a very old, beautiful redstone cottage that's preserved. But in the original feedback sent to the Chittenden County RPC, Burlington sought downtown center designation for the Cambrian Rise development, the largest housing development in Vermont state history, the largest affordable housing development in Vermont state history, currently the tallest building in Vermont, and it was denied as not meeting a statutory definition. So I didn't actually really mean to even go there, but I'm glad we did. We find those Title 24 changes really critical to making tier one work better and meet the real local needs of each community. So this is where we have concern. This is where you're hearing a lot of concern. This is where our members are reaching out to us with frustration comment and calling for change and reform in the law as passed. So again, I know you've heard this a lot, but I just want to orient us in fact and in the discussion about where the tension is between these new jurisdictional areas. So the road rule is in the law. The LERB does not create the road rule. The LERB does not have to write rules in order for the road rule to be applied. That is done by Act 181 and would take effect this July, so in about ninety days from now. And then we have tier three. Act 181 created the LERB, it granted them the authority and it directed them to write the tier three rule. And it also asked the LERB to consider a number of specific natural resources for protection under the tier three rule. But it did say that the LERB will write the rule, that the LERB will define development that would be subject to the rule, and that the rule would take effect in December 2026. So that's what Act 21 did. In its draft rule, draft two of the tier three rule, the LERB put forward an approach to protecting habitat connectors by saying that where there is a road with 75% tree canopy on both sides of the road, that would be a Habitat Connector. The Habitat Connector would receive tier three protection. So this did is that when you So what this picture is showing you, if you go back a slide, this road, Sugar Hollow Road, I'll point to it here, is right here. This is Sugar Hollow Road. So you can see in Pittsburgh's process, this has some conservation area, some rural general. The rural general, you can see these are existing homes and properties. Some are in agricultural use and some are not. And this is a very old and it is a municipal road. It's a town road. It's a public right of way. And this is a part of Pittsburgh that has been developed and lived in and taken care of for quite a long time, but it's not part of Pittsburgh plan for growth for the future. And then this is Sugar Hollow Road again, but what we're seeing here is the sort of opaque gray is modeling for you what could be triggered by the road rule at 800 feet from the existing road. And then in the middle, the fried egg shape is showing you the habitat connector. And so what we see here is a real sort of loss of opportunity for these existing homeowners and property owners to add infill housing, to make changes or improvements to their existing property without tripping up or triggering this new Act two fifty review requirement created by tier three. Here is it, we're zoomed back out. We're looking at the whole town of Pittsburgh Burg again. And on the left of your screen is a model, just a model and not an exact representation, but a model of what the tier or sorry, the road rule jurisdiction would be. And then on the right is, again, the Lerbs model based off of their draft two of the tier three rule. And there is just not I hope what you see here, I'll go through I'll take like two seconds on each slide and just look at Pittsburgh. This is Pittsburgh's plan. This is the road rule. And then this is tier three. And they're not working together and they're not speaking to each other.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Satcowitz has a question.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Go back a slide. Yeah. This one or the okay. I'm just a little confused by the colors. Mhmm. So I can see I think the green, what says habitat connector, is the outside band of green on there.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: This is the headwater. Yep. So this is, I think it's been described, is these are steep slopes with shallow soils. So this is the headwater connector, this color. I'm sorry, the headwater area that's protected. This zoom in does not show any of the natural communities, So I left that out, but that is also in the tier three rule. This gray color, this is the road rule. So here's the existing road. This is showing you a parcel boundary. So if someone who owns this parcel were to build a road here, it could trigger Act two fifty jurisdiction per the road rule. So that's this gray opaque area. And then this, we call it the fried egg. That's the habitat connector. It's showing you where it's more opaque is 800 feet, which is under consideration. And this is showing you 2,000 feet, which is also under consideration. And then this is Sugar Hollow Road. So if you see Sugar Hollow Road, this is it. It goes here.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: So I'm So they have since the rules haven't been finalized on tier three, there's been a debate whether it's 800 feet or 2,000 feet, and so we're showing you both. The inner circle is 800 feet. The inner darker yellow is the 800 feet habitat connector.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: That's 800.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: The next layer out would be if they applied the 2,000 feet habitat connector.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Very confusing. So that's what you're confused about. Yeah. I mean, when I think of this feels kinda new. When I think of the 802,000 foot numbers, I think of them in terms of the road rule, not the habitat connectors.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They we need to circle back and find out why they did that.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: They just they discussed it, I mean, in multiple meetings over the last, like, three months in particular, which is because they don't they did not want to create a jurisdictional gap. So that's why they're considering 2,000 feet for the because they didn't want someone to build a road through the habitat connector, have a house that's non jurisdictional when the road rule is on the other side. So that was the reason for the two distances that are being discussed and that they're seeking comment on. This is what was shared by the LERB. This is from LERB materials so that folks can provide feedback. Should it be 800, or should it be 2,000, or should it be a different number? Yeah. This is why it's important. This is why we're talking about it. This is why we've been talking with our members about it for over a year. Under these regulatory conditions, Tier three cannot reasonably meet our housing needs. What? Tier two. Tier two. One, two, three, one. Right? Because you have the road rule which seeks to protect the interior forest block from maybe, well I'll use the word casual development. It it would put development in going in 800 feet or 2,000 feet with a driveway through Act two fifty review as a mechanism to prevent forest fragmentation and to protect the interior forest block. Then in between that, you have a municipal road or a state highway. And then the tier three rule calls out a habitat connector and creates the same location based Act two fifty jurisdiction in between what would cover and protect the forest block. That is what would have been tier two. That is what would have been left out of the tier one a, tier one b area future plan for growth. And these are mostly privately So let me continue because we have more data about this. So according to the RPCs and VAPTA, the current estimates based off of the maps that exist for draft tier one eligible area, all tier one eligible areas statewide would be just over 2% of the land area of Vermont. That would range significantly. So Chittenden County would have the most eligible area at 11% and NEK would have the least at less than half a percent throughout the NEK. And again, that's not what would be tier 1B, that's what would be eligible. And then each community has an option to opt in or opt out. So ultimately, if we stay on the path we're on, if we don't accept these Title 24 changes in S3 twenty twenty five, and if we don't do more in the future to leverage, incentivize, promote and ease the path of tier one communities, then what really would be Act two fifty exempt for the purpose of housing in the future would be far less than 2%. It's like, that's just true. And then in tier three, looking at the draft rule, the LERB says that tier three would cover between 4.58% of the total land area of the state. So no matter what, tier three would be two times or four times larger than the tier one area. We have new data that was provided by the state's Center for Geographic Information. And they looked at the draft to from the LERB, and they looked at the existing jurisdictional trigger for elevation, and they deduplicated those and pulled the parcels that would have triggered both out, and so they were only counted once. And then they looked at the temporary exclusion areas and the likely tier one areas for the future, and they removed those. And so what the state mappers find is that the total new land area that would be subject to act two fifty would be above 60% of the Vermont land area, would have a location based trigger for act two fifty review that's not based on the acreage of the project or the size of the development that's planned, but it's just based on the location. So where do we go from here? And again, VLCT will never support rolling back tier one. Our members have been very clear whether they may qualify for tier one in the future, but they don't now, whether they have already chosen and made a plan for tier one b and are seeking approval, or whether they are one of our major cities and our TIF districts and they are seeking tier one a status, Our membership has been really clear that these are critical housing opportunities. And as I said, we come to this discussion really years ago, before Josh and I worked for VLCT with a goal to remove the duplicative permitting processes of a comprehensive zoning permit, municipal technical water and sewer permits, building energy, etcetera, and then full duplication of that at the state level. So we totally support the path towards tier one act two fifty exemption, but certainly acknowledge and have heard over and over and over again that there are some really necessary improvements to that tier one process. When I reflect on the conversations we've had and the trainings and the events that we've had with municipal members about Act 181 and all the testimony that we've heard throughout the legislative session, I definitely think we went wrong when Act 181 chose to separate the future land use planning for growth and the future land use planning for conservation. And in doing so, really left our time honored statutory local processes that are led by citizen planners out of both conversations. So I think moving forward, what good process and good outcomes looks like is putting those back together. Our municipal planners are really sophisticated conservation planners. They really are. They use real true brown truth data. They hold the land records. And we have to trust them and let them exercise their authority that they've held for decades and decades. They're also the place that you go. We were talking to planning and zoning officials for over a year about Act 181 and asking what questions they need and what they need from the LERB to be successful and how we should shape our policy going into the legislative session. And it was not really a policy driven debate that we were having. It was just like, how can we help you comply with the law? And then Vermonters went to their planning commissions with their concerns as Vermont landowners and renters and families. And that's when we started hearing a real policy debate happening at the local level about Act 181. Because your town planning commission is the known place where you go to make local decisions about land use. So as soon as someone saw on television or they heard through a VNRC newsletter or whatever about what Act 181 was and what it might mean for their own property and for their own financial planning and for their own plan for their family, the place that where they went with that was to their town hall. And that's because that's where they should go. Right?

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Yeah. I wanted to add, Samantha mentioned we were on the stakeholder groups, the working groups, the LERPAD. I was on the tier three working group. Samantha was on the appeals working group. I'm also on the eights criterion eight c working group. And it was very clear that we were just there to advise. There's no role for these working group members to actually force the LERB to take our consensus. There's a matter of fact, plenty of records that the very first meeting on the tier three working group was shocked at sort of what the proposal was of the Habitat Connectors and provided substantial feedback. And there's notes from that meeting that show that the Alex running that incorporated that and said, I've heard this. My recommendation would be to allow a single family home to build, to back off. But then the next meeting, that was we started back over here. That was rejected by the rest of the LERB members because the stakeholders aren't participants in that. We were just there to give our voice, but the voice didn't need to be heard.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So you weren't participants in which part? The lurb rule meeting.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: The rule lurb rulemaking. We were a working group to offer our thoughts, but there was no obligation Advisory. Advisory only. There was no obligation for lurb to take what we said under advisement.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And so you guys made a recommendation to Alex, who was the head, and then he took it back to the board is what you're saying? And at the board level, they didn't take You're right.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: It's the July meeting, if anyone wants to watch it. My my rec the the early I watched all the meetings and participated in a couple, but Josh was our appointee. The first consensus recommendation was to allow an exemption for development under 15,000 square feet. And that figure was reached by looking at a single home plus a garage plus a yard and a septic and something I'm forgetting. And the lurb unilaterally dismissed that, and it was brought down to 200 square feet. Also, was added I don't a lot of people don't realize this, but this is in the draft rule that's like it's linked in this PowerPoint, so you can read it if you think you can't believe me. It would not exempt utilities or transportation infrastructure, including municipal roads and ditching, if the area impacted is 50 feet off of what's already there. So in these sort of 300 not sort of. In the more than 300 acres of mapped Habitat Connector that is only state highways and class one and two roads

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: A 100,000.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Yeah. What did I say?

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: 300.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: 300,000 acres. 300,000 acres, 20,000 parcels of Habitat Connector, just Habitat Connector. Potentially, without legislative intervention, this is why it's really important and urgent for us to be here and we appreciate it so much, Telephone poles would need an Act two fifty review. The deployment of fiber infrastructure could need Act two fifty review. These receive permits. The replacement of an existing septic in an existing home if that homeowner lives in the Habitat Connector under draft number two would require Act two fifty review. So I understand this is draft material, but it's what we have to react to and to understand. And I think it's important for you to understand it as well. And so it's not just about would the Hills Of Pittsford have 50 units of housing. That's not Pittsford plan anyway. They didn't make that legal at the town level. But there are 50 homes on that road. And if those folks add an ADU, add a garage with an apartment for a parent, just replace the septic they have, they could be subjected to act two fifty review for doing that.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: And it was there was multiple meetings we've had with our members and others that thought the Habitat Connectors being on roads, we were wrong, the interpretation. Mhmm. Many we

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: were confused.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: And so you have to pull up the map, and then this is what is being selected. This is what a habitat connector means. It means a road with forest on each side. And some of these roads are state highways. Some of them are town roads with 50 mile an hour speed limits. They are, not the places you would think. I understand we're concerned about habitat crossing those roads, but that was the choice of the LERB to apply Habitat Connector in that way based on data, and information they had, at the same time receiving considerable pushback from the stakeholders that this was not going to work and was too much and was too intrusive, into thousands of Vermonters' properties and that, there should be a change of course or some ask to do that. Hence, the extension of of the road rule in the tier three that came out of the senate back when we developed policies this summer to come into the legislative session with our members and seeing this rule, that was our position. We we have to delay this. This can't go into effect. As you can imagine, over the last several months, that position has changed. There are calls for a delay will do nothing other than continue this uncertainty and ambiguity and and sort of trust that feels broken. So that's that's no longer acceptable position for us. We're also asking for the road rule in tier three to be repealed, now, understanding that maybe we should still look at, what they were trying to address from a conservation standpoint, but start that process over. I think you've heard from some other witnesses that the regions of the state are different. You know, we have some bottom up, conservation planning at the local level, conservation districts. You know, we have, zoning that looks at, rural conservation, floodplain for there are some work that could be a basis for some of this. There's also considerable, permanently conserved land in many of these corridors, whether it's private with development rights sold, whether it's national forest, state forest. There could be a way to look at what we're already doing to protect these critical areas, the habitat, the common goals that Vermonters have, and start there first. And that could be a direction that could keep this work going, the critical work, but not continue this path that is that is sown this mistrust and this concern where we are now. I would leave it there, I guess, to see if you guys have any any detailed questions, but that that's where we are at this point.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for this walking us through. It's really very helpful. Oh, okay. I was concerned you didn't get to everything and you didn't. There's more.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Oh, that's actually, let me give you a tour. I wasn't going to go through that material,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: A brief tour would be helpful because it looks I think it's worth folks going back and looking at that.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Yeah, I hope this is helpful. This has been my little moving library as we testify around the building. So I skipped over some slides that I've used in other discussions about where municipal planning authority comes from and how you get it and whose job it is. If you would like to refresh yourself of that, I have some slides at the very end. And then these are resources and reference documents that are particular to Chapter 117 municipal so the Vermont state statute that relates to and directs municipal planning processes. And then also the list of 10 acre towns and how you become a 10 acre town for the purpose of Act 50 jurisdiction. And then this is a list of reference documents related specifically to Act 181 implementation, including the map viewer and the various guidelines and draft rules and draft guidelines that are current and available through the LERB. And then also some of these RPC documents that show the RPC methodology and requirements for the future land use planning for the planning for the growth areas. And then these I found really instructive. Maybe read one, read like a couple pages of one of these. I actually really recommend it. This is the LERB responses back to the RPCs on their first draft of their future land use maps. So if you serve in one of these regions, I definitely recommend reading a couple responses to some towns in your area. And that really helped me learn a lot about how ACT 181 was really unfolding on the ground. And then this is what would be subject to development under the draft tier three rule or sorry, the type of development subject to Act two fifty under the draft rule. And then these are pulled from statute what how you become tier one a or one b. So that's all just provided to you in the PDF. This is all clickable, and hopefully it's helpful.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Very helpful. Thank

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: you. Thank you. It's really great.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Do members have questions? Lots. Representative North.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So, you talked about road rule in tier three. Is it your experience working with the various towns that lower and middle income people actually do build roads longer than 800 feet or 2,000 feet or 2,000 foot driveholes? I mean, historically, has that

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Sometimes. Sometimes. And part of part of I can I can actually, like, even produce if you wanna see it? Know, like everyone, we use Zoom, and Zoom records everything, and then we use AI to tell us what what happened in the recording. And so we have this list of questions from zoning administrators to the members of the LERB about the road rule guidelines. And their questions are like, how do you measure a linear feet? What is the definition of a road? What is the definition of an improvement of a road? Is rock line ditching a road improvement? Is adding gravel a road improvement? What if a road is class four and is extended but not created past 800 feet? And these all reflect real questions and confrontations that zoning administrators have when people are making land use decisions in Vermont all the time. And so many parcels in Vermont are landlocked. And so you may own under an acre, but you may have to build a road several 100 feet to access that. A lot of times, those landlocked parcels there's one behind me. I have an easement on my a driveway easement. My deed is encumbered by a driveway easement to a landlocked property as many of our monitors' deeds are encumbered because those are often an organically affordable property to access or are the result of subdivision, inheritance, tax sale, conservation. Sometimes these sort of abandoned interior parcels are the result of subdivision for the purpose of conservation and easement for working lands uses, and then something sort of gets left behind and left out of the conservation plan, but could be used to build a house on. So I take your point. It's expensive to build a road.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: My point was just, does

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: this actually happen? Yeah.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Even arguing about or for something that's what

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: It happens in both ways.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Yeah. Happens both ways. Wealthy people build homes to where the best, most desirable place to build them is. Less wealthy people build a road to build the house they can afford where they are allowed to build it. And both plans result sometimes in a long road. Yeah.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: And given your interaction with the LARP and then through this whole process, what's your understanding of of how the tier three maps came into existence? What was the source basis of them?

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: The most controversial being the habitat connectors was based on data that fish and wildlife provided of aerial imagery, GIS imagery of forested landscapes. To sum it up, far as that technical review of did those areas have habitat that's crossing it? Is there endangered habitat in that area? Is there a lack of movement? We we didn't discuss whether those habitat areas along every road where it had 75% tree cover near the side had a, a prioritization to them. They all were caught up in that, the way they were developed. I remember having comments the very first meeting of where I live. I see my my area has no habitat connect. I happen to live in a more agricultural center, Randolph Center. Although I see lots of wild habitat connectors, there's a brook down behind my house and it's forested in either side. It's got a great repairing buffer. It's a massive habitat. All you have to do is walk down in the winter and see the you know? But that wasn't a habitat connector. And so I'm not a ecologist, a scientist, but, someone that spends a lot of time outdoors questions some of the theories behind it just from my own experience, and knowing that we also have, you know, repairing buffer. Before

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: you go any further, though, so it's it's all based on imagery of particular couples, particular rules. Forested 75% along the road where there's forests on either side.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: And it's a connectivity block from the Vermont Conservation District.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: There has to be other forests beyond that. Yeah. Yeah.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: So I can actually can I show you this?

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: But who proposed?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Where did that come from?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: It was mine.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: I'm not gonna defend. I I don't agree with how it was produced or why it was produced. I I think that if we wanted to have connectivity for critical habitat, we could have looked at other ways to to accomplish that such as repairing buffers. Yeah.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: This is one place. This is online. You can find it. It's on the tier three page. So on this column, if I scroll, I'm happy to submit this to Kat too, so you have it. So on this column, this is what Act 181 says the LERB has to look at and make a plan for in tier three. So Act 181 lists these and says to the LERB, you have to understand these and whether or not they should be protected by tier three. They don't have flexibility in that. And then this is their original gap analysis that my understanding was done primarily with ANR.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Fish and wildlife.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: In fish and wildlife. Yeah. So you could read through this. I'm not gonna read the spreadsheet, but it tells you, like, to the extent that Vermont has a process or a lack of process to protect this, how big it is, where these places and resources are located. And so then this analysis predates the tier three working group. They discussed this and other concerns, resources, and tools. They made a recommendation that was brought to the LERB, and then the LERB made the tier three role.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Yeah. So another simple answer is there was dozen or more criteria that we considered at one of our first few, working groups. And we went through each of those and determine there were there already was a permit or a protection regime in place. And if there were, decided we didn't need to capture it in the tier three. And what was left was habitat connect connectors, natural communities, and headwater streams.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: The yellow one.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Because there wasn't an existing perfectly aligned state permit that already protected that. There are, you know, class one, class two streams that have protection, but headwater streams, which are not streams, they're wet ground on steep slopes that was added. Then the Habitat Connectors as a natural resource area that had its own special protection didn't exist yet, so it was required to be added.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I know I know there's other questions. I I think one of the most interesting things that you've brought up is the disconnect between the local plans and this this state level that we are talking about. And I don't know if you're prepared today to make ideas or recommendations for that, improving that or connecting those, but I'm really interested in following through on that with you. That would be really helpful.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Yeah. No. I I appreciate that. That's been one of the most frustrating parts when we talk about this is going hearing communities talk about their future land use maps and know, feeling good about the work they did and understanding and excited. And then they realize that map doesn't contain the future proposed restrictions. And would they have made different choices? Would they have tried to have their tier one area area be bigger if they would have saw it all on one map? You know, like, when you go traveling or exploring, you don't have two different maps. You try to have all of your factors on one map, and that's not the process that was set out in that 21.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: And I think it's important to acknowledge that it's not about connecting the plan, the municipal plan, to the regional plan. That happens already. The RPCs have a process for that. It's the planners. It's the citizen planners who have worked with their community for years to have really hard, sometimes very controversial, community discussions to reach consensus and and make a really slow, deliberate path towards what their consent you know, what that consensus is. Is it you know, in my community, we are going through a process for planning for housing, and we learned, like, there's a big need. This was, like, not on my bingo card. I live in Hancock. There's three three hundred ish people, a 147 residential parcels, and one bedroom and studio apartments is what we found is just not available anywhere near Hancock and that we really have a need to build. And so that's our version of a difficult consensus building conversation is, are we going to let someone come in here and build an apartment building in Hancock? Is that really what we're going to do? But is that the housing we need? Is that the housing we want? Is that the housing we make legal? That's what VLCC is here to advocate for happening. So I know

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we have do you have a question, representative? I also, Michael just walked in the room. We're running quite far behind. Are you still gonna be able to think we'll

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: He's here every day? Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: He'll be able to justify after this if we talk to Michael tomorrow, for example.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. I've got all day tomorrow.

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

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: see you, Michael.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Did you

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You do and we do need to wind this down, but there's a few more questions. Representative Labor.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair. I don't know who to direct this one to. I sat on the slut board at town, Morgan. And when the maps came out, a few individuals came in and said, who designed this? This mapping's border that were inaccurate according to my survey map. And so I guess my question is, during the max mapping exercises, were there any boots on the ground?

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Sorry. Can you say the town again?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Morgan.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Morgan? And then are you're asking about the future land use maps, the RPC map? Yeah. Sorry. There is nothing to repeat. Okay.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: The line just got me.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: The we've heard experiences like that happening.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Yes. Yes.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: We've also heard the opposite, really positive good partnerships with the regional planners based off of accurate parcel information. And and we've heard more negative and confusing experiences. And I would say I've heard that mostly maybe from smaller and more rural towns that have maybe not gone through robust growth planning before.

[Josh Hanford (VLCT)]: Yep. There was some examples in my town and planning commission with the RPC, looking at the future land use map where part of the future growth area, Folks said, you know, we left out. There's a development plan there. There's water and sewer and there's a sidewalk. Did you leave that little corner out? Fortunately, we had a time to speak with them and them to hear that input and correct it. But it wasn't a lot of time. There was a long process where there wasn't any action, and then there was a short window that we needed to get this approved and in to make the deadline. Otherwise, the regional plan would expire. And so I think you've been mixed reactions across the state, how that went and the timing of each. Same with the tier three maps. You know, I happen to everyone on this the working group zoomed into their area, tried to understand it and trying to understand the headwater streams map, the headwater stream. I was very confused because our headwater stream sensitive area where I live was Vermont Technical College. And the new the new ag and r lab testing building was in the dead center of that. It's not a headwater stream. What you know? And so there was many comments that, you know, these are representative. They're not field tested, but that's the best data we have. And there will be cases like that, and folks will need to make the case that the maps aren't accurate. I think you've heard a little bit about that.

[Samantha Sheehan (VLCT)]: Yeah. Sorry. It's not just make the case. It's seek a jurisdictional opinion. Yeah. And so we've we've raised this. Our members have raised it, reported to us. I've been in meetings, and I've observed this conversation with the lurb. That's pretty consistently the answer. Like, we know there's anomalies in the map. They're not a regulatory tool. The property owner would have to seek a jurisdictional opinion if they think they should be left out of the tier three rule. I don't find that acceptable. I think if we're gonna apply such a serious regulatory with such a robust regulatory standard to someone's property, post development, like these are already developed homes, businesses, and communities, I think it's the state's responsibility to understand why that it's necessary and if it if the real if the characteristics of that property really fit the requirement of the role.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You so much for your testimony. Thank you. That, let's take a break till five past the hour, and then we'll get to Go ahead.