Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

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

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Thank you. Good afternoon. For those watching remotely, this is a committee on environment that support FAST two, and we are commencing our testimony with Ellen. Thank you.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you. Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel. We're taking up where you left off this morning, reviewing S-three 25 as passed by the Senate, And we left off on page six of as passed by this. This is the section we're in section four regarding the housing amendments to the the amendment to the housing exemptions. So on page six, subdivision three. This is one of the interim housing exemptions. Currently, it says until 01/01/2027, no permit or permit amendment is required for housing built within a designated downtown district with zoning and subdivision bylaws served by sewer, water or soils. So this is a no cap on the number of housing that can be built in downtowns. The senate is proposing to push that from 01/01/2027 to 2030, and like the other interim housing exemptions, adding the language that it is an exemption not only for the units of housing but also for the subdivision for the housing and the mixed use development. On page seven, Subdivision 4 on page seven is one of the other floor amendments from the Senate. So it is similar to some of the language we were just discussing, but it is new and the grammar maybe isn't perfect. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, until 01/01/2030, no permit or permit amendment is required for the subdivision for or construction of 50 units or fewer of housing with at least 20% of the units with mixed income housing or mixed use development constructed or maintained on a tract or tract of land, located within areas of a designated village center and within one quarter mile of its boundary served by public sewer or water services or soils that are adequate for wastewater disposal. So I just want to remind you that at the bottom of page five into page six also has an exemption for housing in village centers. But that 50 units of housing, as we were discussing this morning, requires that the village center have permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, and this one does not. This is the floor amendment I wrote basically on the floor of the Senate. So I don't know if the grammar is perfect. It could probably use a little clarity. They were asking for essentially priority housing projects in village centers. So currently under the definition of priority housing project, as we looked at this morning, it does not include village centers. It includes the four other designated areas. So But the definition of priority housing project involves 20% of the units having mixed income or mixed use development. So using the definition of affordable, so 20% of the units affordable for at least fifteen years. And then I'm not entirely sure about the very last part of the sentence. This is where I think the grammar is a little awkward. It's within the village center and within one quarter mile of its boundary served by public sewer and water or soils. And I'm not entirely sure if the survey sewer and water is modifying the quarter mile boundary or the village center. I'm not sure where the infrastructure is required to be, I think, probably within potentially within the area, but I think it could be worded more clearly.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It sounds good. Others, Pritchard.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Ellen, it says so we have facts of land. Is is this, constraints on land of any particular size, or is this just any any size person? Yes. Well, I wonder if you can tell us what the connect how this section relates to the one that we spent some time on earlier, the top of page six, which also is about village

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. Village centers.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. So the one that already exists in statute is for 50 units of housing or or less. In a village center and within a quarter mile around it, if it has permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws and served by sewer and water. So the distinction with the new language is that and and sorry, before they had the floor amendment, the current law does have the requirement of 10 acres or less. So up to 50 units on 10 acres or less. Any type of housing. The new floor amendment is up to 50 units, no parcel size requirement, and they are at least 20% of the units are affordable, but there's no requirement for zoning. So there are more than 200 village centers. I don't have the exact number off the top of my head, but I think roughly half have zoning.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I know that a 109 towns right now don't have either zoning or subdivision by law. Okay.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, yes. So that's the unit it's somewhere in 50% range.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. So sounds like these two pieces are very closely connected. Even if we thought that these were all things we wanted to keep, we would probably want to revisit this and restructure it so it make more sense in statute. Does that

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: sound right?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think the last caveat, like the last clause could be a little more clear because I think probably it should just match ish the language on the other page. Like I The sewer and the sewer and water, I think it It's a little confusing the way it's phrased to me, but it's is it that this the only the village center has to have this the infrastructure? Is or is it that the whole quarter mile radius around it also has to have the infrastructure?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: K. Representative Pritchard, did you have a question?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. It was my understand you said this was amendment on the floor. It was my understanding that it it has started in committee and had the support of the chair, and they just wanted to they they chain I guess there were some changes that they wanted to make, and that's when it came to the floor to be amended. Is that correct? I think chair Watson supports this.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I'm on page seven. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. I'm showing it right here.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Whether or not chair Watson supports it, I these obviously got voted in, but neither the top of page six or the top of page seven were in committee. They were both I I wrote page seven, like, on the floor of the senate. So their committee took up the amendments, and I do think they supported the amendments in the end, but they were not part of committee discussion before the day of the floor.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. And representative Chapin.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: I guess I just I personally don't wanna spend time more inspecting this because I can't see how we would support it. It it's it's areas that don't have zoning, and I it would be such a departure. We have other more important things to work on with Act 181 than considering making exemptions for housing projects outside of areas that have good municipal oversight. So personally, I hope we can just move on and let this go. This and and I will just say this is the piece that Lerb said yesterday, puts lower income property owners at risk for flood impacts and that they do not recommend wage office. Yes. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I I agree with representative Chapin. I also this is also reminding me that some of what we heard in the last couple weeks of testimony and actually prior to that with municipal regulation of of of agriculture. So that these little threads, I want to make sure we carry them through and insert them appropriately. These are potential areas of pretty big conflict with agricultural primac soils. What I hope that we do is, in addition to accommodating natural function in our more heavily populated downtowns and village centers, we've been asked and I support, looking at how we support the production of food in those areas. And I think this would potentially conflict with that. I

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: just want to say thank you for saying that, and this also could make major forced fragmentation. It's both add and This would be a humongous departure. Lovely. Thank you. Actually, could you both explain what you mean a little bit more? It's not quite sinking in for me yet. I am assuming I'll agree with you after you explain yourself a

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: little. Well, for me, where Representative Chapin started, which I also noted, we have 109 communities that don't have local development review because they don't have zoning or subdivision bylaws, and they're counting on act two fifty review, to address larger developments that happen

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: in their communities. Including designated village centers.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, that that to I think it's it would blindside our smallest communities who have, dependent on it for the last fifty plus years. But then in addition to that, the, yeah. I mean, I guess you're right. So this is village center focused. But I guess I'm still going back to we need to be sure that we are integrating food production even in our built environment and considering that sort of I'm almost going call it both livable communities or even in the most densely populated areas. So, do you

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: want to?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah, and I'll just add that Primac soils exist right in and around village centers, and this is why you need good review to make sure development happens in thoughtful way to preserve those uses. Right. And so I guess then I understand that my question is really like, so there are, in fact, designated village centers that don't have zoning and or bylaws.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, I think it's a good question. How many? Yeah. I mean, that's all of these. What's the problem we're trying to solve? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we could use good mapping, but we don't generally have access to it.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. Well, so it took two weeks of testimony, and nobody asked us. Oh, I Nobody commented on this except for when I asked the LERB. Is it possible for us to find that out?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It is. Maybe we don't get a lot of access

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: to This the was an environmental justice nightmare. Right. This is the one where they did say, yes. This is the

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yes. They said that about me.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah, that's fair. Well, that's a huge expansion too.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Alright. Page seven, section five. Section five is amending the tier three rulemaking provision, the section law provision that is in act 181. The Senate was proposing to make, to add an additional consideration for the tier three. So it's in addition to the other review that the Land Review Board is doing to determine the Tier three areas and what should be considered as part of them. At the top of page eight, they also added that the language review board shall determine which and under what circumstances criteria under Act two fifty should be part of the tier three area review.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So one thing I am gonna put out for discussion and perhaps a request for you to think about, Ellen, is if we just stop using the tiers and kind of rename one a and one b what they really are, which is delegated areas, and then we are the rest of Vermont all of Vermont, in fact, because unless there nobody so far is a delegated area. So with the exception of the temporary housing exemptions, the whole state is under some level of act two fifty review right now. And so I put that out a little bit yesterday. I'm seeing some nods. Before we ask Ellen the ex the extent of that like, what the ramifications of that ask are, steps totally, how big is it of of an ask? I'm just wanting to make sure that we agree that that's a direction we want to head. Representative Logan?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yes. Thank you. As a member of a community that would undoubtedly, end up with most of our town our city under delegation. I think it's a much better description of what's happening and that the term has been, like, unnecessarily divisive. Because I do think it's really important for Vermonters to understand that delegated means that we are paying tax money ourselves to provide the same higher level of oversight of our community. And I'm paying state taxes to pay back two fifty. So we're taking on a larger share of the responsibility for land use management in fiscal terms and freeing up our state's resources so that they're more available to rural communities so that they can get the oversight that they need without having to do all this taxation and bylaws and all that kind of stuff. So I feel very strongly that like figuring out some way to better communicate what we're actually doing is important. And I've also heard, I've received comments from folks saying, sounds to me like there's some like, you're considering removing delegation. And because it's getting confusing to talk about an exempt area makes it like, we need to stop using that exemption terminology because we're not exempt. Burlington is not gonna be exempt. We're gonna be doing all of that work and we're gonna be paying for it ourselves. That's how Just So to clarify the fact, housing provisions that we've just been looking over earlier, those are exemptions. Yes. Those are filled the delegated authority that's in place.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Hoyt? Just

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: so I should draft this up, Ellen. So, basically, if we get rid of tier three and we basically just go to delineate it and essentially everything else, like so you're just gonna have to go in here and with every reference to tier ones, can we change tier three sections, two sections, you can probably just do section reveals. Right?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So there aren't a ton of references, luckily. So for tier three, there is no other individual statutory section, just the definition of tier three. So that'll be pretty easy to clean up. Then just 6033 establishes the process for what is currently tier 1B and 6,034 is the process to apply for tier one a. So I think primarily those are the only sections that will need to be cleaned up.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. And perhaps they are kind of full delegation and housing delegation. I don't know yet if we're ready for picking the terms. Just want to know about folks' opinion on the concept.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: And tier two? Go away.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's tier two, really.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, so the only mention of tier two is in relation to tier three, so I think there aren't too many things to change on that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Rename the study and express Yes. Make it more specific, whatever question we're asking. So things I want folks to be thinking about.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: As we walk through this script, some of the stuff you've got, tier three. Yeah, I guess that was sort

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of my next question. I mean, because there are in here changes related to tier three.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. Well, yes, unless they're just dates, we can definitely skip them. If they are inspirational substantive things, I don't know. I don't think there's too many of those, but there were. Section five. Section five. Yeah.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Section five was making a change to the tier three rulemaking process and then also pushing back the date. So, if you're interested in getting rid of it, this whole section would be repealed.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, this is where the language of what is a critical natural resource is. So, that's the kind of thing I wanna put in the bucket so we don't lose them. Okay. Not to say that we would use them the same way, use them differently, but make sure we're keeping track of them.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. And then Section six is also related to this because Section six amends 10 VSA sixty twenty five the rulemaking authority for the Land Use Review Board, specifically giving them rulemaking authority to reduce the number of criteria that would be involved in review for both road jurisdiction projects and tier three projects.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Don't you need that anymore?

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

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just to clarify, outside of tier one, tier one a and tier two a, what will be the process? Let's say the accounts that don't have any support.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Act two fifty. Same as it always been. It won't change.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just Act two fifty? So even if you just want to build a single house on two acres, it would be Act two fifty?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No, that's not what would trigger Act two fifty. So

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: who would be in charge of that house?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's an interesting question. Think that there are subdivision laws that people have to follow that are state, and then there's wastewater and water, and that really is the limit on those houses.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So that's what I was

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: wondering. Up to six units in those towns, I think, or six subdivisions.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So are you concerned about that at all in terms of I don't like a lot of regulation.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's why we're going to study the effects I'm of sorry, I'm just kind of No, it's good question. It's a fair question. But it's what we've been doing for the last umpteen years, fifty five years.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And there's a study in 03/25 about about discretionary review of housing at the zoning level. And then there was also a few reports in Act 181 that are around this topic that I think we're going talk

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: about more later, too. You're probably asking for strike all and putting these pieces back in. Some out. But definitely the language around the tier two study, which we'll rename.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So on page nine, section seven is amending the effective date section of Act 181, and it was pushing out dates related to the section 21 on line nine, that's tier three, the effective date for tier three. And then section 19, which is on line 11, that's the road jurisdiction triggers. So these will be changing moving forward. The date on line seven for sections twelve and thirteen. Those are the definitions and then the criterion section related to criterion 8C. And currently that effective date is December 31 of this year, being pushed to 01/01/2028.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: That's the force block connectors, right?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Force blocks and and habitat connectors. Next is section eight. This is related to This is the procedure and requirements for section sixty-thirty four tier one areas. So, I think we're you were proposing to change that to. The designated areas, The only change in this section currently is on the top of page 10, which is changing is striking the reference to rare species. So this is about the type of bylaws or policies that need to be in towns seeking this. So it's striking reference to planned maintenance of significant natural communities striking rare and then threatened endangered species.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Everybody seems fine with that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I would like to know more. But I can't remember what do you remember what the

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: issue was?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Billy Coster, I believe, testified that ANR doesn't have policies specific to rare species. They only, reg they only have authority regarding threatened species and endangered species.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Nina's in our room.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I believe that ANR just said they didn't necessarily have a specific policy around rare.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They have a they used to have a database of RTE, rare threatened endangered.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: That tier one a will just be replaced with designated.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Logan. So do they

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: have a policy about significant natural communities?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure, but currently, that is the language in Act two fifty, criterion eight.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. I mean, they're mapped. I mean, it's Yeah. They're all mapped.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: But there's nothing about rare

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: in the group? I am surprised too.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Okay.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I was wondering So currently, criterion eight in Act two fifty has language regarding a permit shall address that a project will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic site, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. I was You're

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: hearing eight now?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Yeah. And so I guess I was I couldn't remember. I was wondering if rare is maybe in the wrong place in that sentence. Right, rare, perhaps it's rare and irreplaceable natural areas.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: It is confusing language actually, because it starts out by saying significant natural communities, rare, threatened and endangered species. So you're right. It doesn't actually, like, it's not referring to the right. Well, it could be a rare species, but it could also be a rare something else that we're talking about.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right? I mean, rare threatened endangered species is a pretty common way of referring to that. Yeah. We need to find out more.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm putting that in the universe that rare and irreplaceable, because I think you were trying when you drafted this section to match as many of the Act two fifty criteria as you Yeah. Right. Sure. Alright, page 10, section nine. Section nine, municipal zoning is maybe not the best title for this either. This is about what have been tier one areas and are going to be delegated areas. It's adding clarifying language to be clear that the reason permit conditions would be transferred from an active 50 permit to municipal permit is so that the conditions would then be enforced as part of the municipal permit.

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

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And the other change in this section is on page 12. It's striking the requirement that towns would enforce existing Act two fifty permits that haven't had their conditions transferred to a municipal permit?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The first part of this amendment transfers them upon an amendment. Is that true? Yes. Since maybe enforced as part of the municipal permit.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So on page 12, this is one of the This is a new report that is in S3 25, Section 10, Discretionary Review of Housing. So this is asking the Department of Housing and Community Development to consult with VLCT, Let's Build Homes, VNRC and the planners on how to reduce negative impacts of discretionary review of residential development. So, here meaning zoning discretionary review. I'm also asking them to look at establishing a model code to replace discretionary review, looking at some language that is proposed at the federal level and a right to build zone law. Then steps the state can take to maximize the value, incentives to offer municipalities to limit discretionary review, and then also asking them to report back on their eight zero two Homes pilot program and how to appeal the efficiency how to improve the efficiency of appeals of municipal zoning permits for housing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Person have a question on this?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: I I just remember in the testimony, it

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: just seemed like there was a lot of inconsistency, in different boards and how they determined eligibility for a permit. I have to say, felt like there was some clonyism also that people were talking about, you know, kind of who you knew or, you know, just and I just wonder how we make this more consistent as as possible in terms of determinations. I mean, maybe that could be in a report or something. Don't know. I think this section deals with grant, but I'm not exactly sure. Section It's rationale, you know, the whole thing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, I think some communities I know Middlebury for a while at least had, form based code, which I think is what this is also referred to as, at least in our downtown. Then, think Burlington does in

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: some areas. And Chester does in one area.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, I guess I wonder model bylaws are out there already. There's examples in Vermont of communities doing that. And the universe of appeals is certainly something known. I know it gets under people's skin, but it isn't really very many. Yeah. Representative Longing.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Thank

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: you. I don't have any questions, but I I I do have a comment. I mean, this sounds like an interesting report. I I wanna read this personally, but I do think it would also be helpful to expand the scope of a report like this to talk about, I think, some of the other concerns that we're hearing about our permitting processes at the state level. I actually hear just many, if not more, complaints about the experience of trying to navigate the permitting process at the state level as I do about development review at the municipal level. So that seems to me like another area of interest for a report on housing related regulatory transformation that we might wanna consider.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So we know that we've and we've taken testimony and more testimony was offered on the permit portal or whatever they're standing up at ANR, so we can can hear more specifics about that. They are working on their part of that. And I also feel like, we've gotten reports on this and or there might be one underway somewhere. Is there, Ellen?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Some of this overlaps with the appeal report that was issued at the beginning of this year. I don't So the eight zero two pilot program has already started, and so I'm not sure if they have a report, a specific report due for that itself because I didn't work on that language at all. So it's possible, but I do think there is overlap with the report you got recently, but this does address a couple other things.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I guess before we add more on that, I mean, this has improved efficiency of appeals, which

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I'm not sure we'll ever agree on.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Chapin. It's just it was my understanding that this is in part really driven by this federal right to bill concept. We're gonna hear about that as it applies to Vermont and Vermont

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: stakeholders. That's what we would need.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Would need this.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, to see if it was

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: something relevant. Yes. Or or something else. Just seemed like that was a key

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: reason. This is in here.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: And why isn't that referenced? It's in the next Vermont model code. Line 17. Potential value of the federal. Oh, yeah. Okay. My guess is we'll hear about it either way, but getting all of those entities to weigh in on it might not happen.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Keep going.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Page 13. So section 11 starts with some amendments related to, regional planning and regional planning commissions. So, section 11 is amending 24 VSA 40 three-forty eight, which is the adoption and amendment process for regional plans. And so this is, I did want to flag, I'll walk through the changes here, but subsections B, D and H are also in H nine forty that you passed out of the house over to the Senate because there was proposal in there about lining up the enhanced energy planning process to be fully integrated with this so that there aren't separate meetings on just one part of the regional plan, the energy plan, so that it can just be part of this. And so it might be a good idea. And if that bill were to pass soon and then you pass this and it conflicted, it would undo that bill potentially unless this language matched that. So it's just a couple of small things and it doesn't the language doesn't specifically conflict, but it's amending some sections that you're amending here also.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I think they took testimony on that this morning.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Think so. Yep.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. Moving parts.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So here, though, in this bill, it's separating the plan the regional plan adoption process from a regional plan amendment process. And so, in a few places, amendment has been struck so that it's moved to a later subsection engineer. The first change is adding reference to the Land Use Review Board shall also coordinate with the state agencies and the Community Investment Board because the Community Investment Board's work is related to the designated areas that are also identified in the regional plan as the LERB is reviewing it. The bottom of page 13 into 14 is striking reference to holding two or more hearings on a regional plan amendment. So, currently it's required if the plan is being readopted or amended. This is pulling it out here because there's setting up a process later in this section. And then again, on page 14 in subsection D, removing amendment here from these steps so that it's captured later in this section. Same in E and F. And then page 15 into 16 is subsection J has that already in this process, there's an ability for there to be minor amendments to a regional plan that don't have to go through the full process. That's if it's considered a minor amendment if it affects less than 10 acres. So Is that 10 acres in here? I think it is actually at the it's at the top of page 16. It's on the next page. So currently, so for a minor amendment, the Regional Planning Commission submits a request for a minor amendment to the Land Review Board with a letter of support from the municipality only made after an affirmative vote of the municipality effective and affected and the Regional Planning Commission. They shall provide the the Land Use Review Board is supposed to provide guidance on what constitute a minor amendment, but at the top of page 16, it's any change to a future land use area consisting of fewer than 10 acres, And a minor amendment to a future land use area shall not require an amendment to the full regional plan and will just be included in the next round of readoption. And so then that's to point out that subsection n is trying to address non minor future land use map amendments.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Minor.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's a problem. Mhmm. I mean, say.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I'm not ready to ask my question yet. Okay. I can't.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. So we did hear from the RPCs on this, but strikes me that Do we

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: have a definition of minor? I don't know what's in here, or is this the definition of J? Is this the definition of it?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that's the only definition of it. It does say that the land should be worked has authority to issue guidance on it, but it does say it's any change fewer than 10 acres.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So nonminor would be presumably larger than 10 acres?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. Rather than the term nonminor, people just say not section J.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Actually don't mind nonminor because minor has a definition. I'm not sure that 11 acres would be a major amendment, but it would be a non minor amendment.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Logan. Okay. I think I'm finally ready. We I I think I agree with other folks that nonliners the language is kind of awkward. Like, the yeah. Kind of like a double negative a little bit. I'm wondering if we could just if we could amend the section on minor amendments to say anything that is not a minor amendment is a major amendment and then just use major amendment everywhere else?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think you could do that.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: That Section J is clear. Anything that isn't that is a major amendment. I guess the only feedback we've gotten from the LERB and the RPCs is that they want this option. Personally, I don't love the word major because I think it has big connotation. And non minor is very specific to related to this thing called a minor amendment. So I don't know. Personally, I think it works the way it is. I'm just

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess so we're talking about changes to the future land use map will be processed as part of a regional plan amendment,

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Which is how? The process in the rest of this subdivision, the new language. Below?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Haven't gotten there yet.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. New

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: process. Okay. Let's get there and see what we think of.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This applies to regional plan amendments, non minor future land use map amendments, and tier 1b area status requests. And so probably we're gonna change the reference to tier 1b, but the plans are reviewed from time to time and may be amended. Non minor future land use map amendments shall be processed as part of a regional plan amendment. Tier 1B area status requests may be made separate from regional plan approval or amendment process. To amend a regional plan, which may include a non minor future land use map amendment, a regional planning commission shall hold one public hearing. Currently in statute, they're required to hold two. At least fifteen days in advance of the hearing, the Regional Planning Commission shall provide notice to the public notice of the public hearings to parties listed in Subdivision D and the Land Use Review Board. The public hearing notice shall include a description of the changes to the plan, including non minor amendments to future land use maps or any changes to tier one b area status. I'm on page 17. After adoption of the Regional Plan Amendment, Regional Planning Commission shall submit a request to the Land Use Review Board for an affirmative determination, regional plan compliance for the regional plan amendment. Standalone requests for tier one b area status shall be submitted to the Land Use Review Board after the public hearing required under that prior subdivision. The board shall hold a public hearing within thirty days after receiving the request for an affirmative determination of regional plan amendment compliance or approval of tier one B area status. The board shall issue the determination within thirty days and adoption of regional plan amendment, non minor future land use map amendment or tier one b area status request or amendment shall not change the expiration date of the regional plan. So I find I I do think there is an awkwardness here. I don't I think perhaps at right in the first subdivision, and you could just define that here we are defining amendments as either a regional plan future land use map a regional plan amendment, land use map amendment greater than 10 acres in a tier 1B area change or housing delegated area change instead of referring to all three throughout.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. And the tier one b status request, I mean, are that's defined somewhere else, but the town has to vote on them.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Can you just remind us what that process is? The regional, when the regional planning commission is doing their their general readoption process, they are to identify areas that are eligible as tier one b areas or delegated housing areas. And then the municipality the legislative body of the municipality has to vote to opt in to have that area proposed for approval at the Land Use Should Be Board review. There currently isn't a specific time identified of when they need to there isn't a time that they have to do that by. It is, I think, phrased currently that a town could make that vote at any time currently, whether or not their RPC is going through an update or not.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So for that process, I think I'm fine with it, but I'm wondering about what would the other instances of amendment be to a regional plan. Like, if a if a local authority has voted affirmatively and gone through their public process for one b, or I'm gonna say for the housing delegation authority, that seems very well vetted and people know. Fifteen days for, I don't know, the example of these nonminor amendments to the regional plan or the future land use. I don't know what I'm curious what those would be.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I think, it could be if a town re rezones an area that would then necessitate a change to the regional plan to reflect changes that have happened at the town level. Zoning shouldn't be in the future landings. Wouldn't it be more what their town plan map will say?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This could be changed by the zoning, but Yeah. Possibly. Okay. I think we need to ask the RPCs what this is going to help with.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Bottom of page 17 into page 18, section 12 is amending 40 three-forty eight, which are the elements of a regional plan, and the first these are this these amendments are only related to the land use categories of the future land use map. And on page 18, the first change is just adding a specific reference, cross reference of the smart growth principles so that it's in the first intro paragraph instead of being addressed in multiple other land use categories. So the smart growth principles shall be part of all of the categories, by moving it up higher in the the statute. Then next on page 18 into 19, there's an amendment. There are a cup two amendments to the downtown and village center area. I guess there are three, actually. Sorry. So on page 18, line 17, downtown and village centers are the traditional or historic central business and civic centers within planned growth areas, village centers, or may stand alone. So change from an and to an or regarding traditional and historic You or historic because some of them don't have historic centers. And then also adding a sentence that says municipalities may have more than one center, including planned new or emerging centers that anchor planned growth areas or villages village areas. And then at the top of page 19, it is the intent that most towns in Buran have at least one village center in which additional housing units are supported.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Who's intent is that?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I believe it was proposed by the planners, though I'm I'm not sure.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That ought to be very odd. I don't think that's ours to say. If we're going ground up and doing local engagement and planning, it should come from the towns if they want a village center or Yeah. It just feels really appropriate. Representative sacros.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: And what would be the effect of that kind of intent language in statute? Well, if we play out some of the other amendments.

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

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think it is supposed to signal to the regional planning commissions that when they're looking at their regional plan map that most towns will have at least one center. I don't I don't know if there have been conversations outside of this legislation about RPCs not doing that. I suspect that might be where this is coming from.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'd to take that out.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: It's oriented more around the the towns. Right? We're trying to get a bottom up thing. Like, if if the towns want to have more pay, at least once that wouldn't get wouldn't go until

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, they already can. Right.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: So, yeah, I don't know if we need to say that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We don't need to say that. That's It's just a matter of the infield. Package. Okay.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Representative Austin? Yeah. Can

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: infill always happen in any space? Infilled building? Can it always happen? It just needs some village or

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't know the answer to that. It depends on the proposed use, I suppose.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Are you

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: talking about just housing? Mhmm. I mean, that's a very broad question. I wouldn't say that's probably why we have development reviews because every situation is different.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: On page 19, subdivision b is amending a plan growth area category. So, it's striking reference to new town centers, downtowns, and village centers and leaving them as growth centers and neighborhood development areas previously designated. And then also striking the reference to the smart growth principles because that cross reference is

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: now moved up.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I believe that what this change is doing, I think originally planned growth areas were supposed to be an overlay on top of the downtown and village centers, and now it will be more of a ring or a portion directly adjacent as opposed to on top of. And so by striking new town center, downtown, or village center, those were the core areas, whereas neighborhood development areas were adjacent and growth centers were all were overlays

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: also. So Also, is it trying does this get to those are, part of the community investment programs titles that would they would remain. They just aren't future land use areas.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Planned growth areas are part of the new program, and the designated areas are not going to be in the new program anyway.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't think I answered your question.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Think

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think you should probably hear from the RPCs on this maybe. I think I think it's adjusting what they initially thought was gonna be an overlay, now it's more of an adjacent category.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you have a question, representative? Yes. In

[Unidentified Member]: sitting in on some of the planning commission meetings where RPCs met, Hamlet's came up. Where do Hamlet's fit in here, or do they fit in?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think is I think hamlets are in one of the categories. Hamlets are a category in the land use categories. It's subdivision G, which is not here. Those are small historic clusters of homes and may include school, place of worship, store or other public buildings not planned for significant growth. No public water supply or wastewater systems, mostly focused along one or two roads, and may be depicted as points on a future land use map.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The focus of the Hamlet is what do you get if you're a Hamlet? Do And the lovely feeling. I would like to live in a hamlet.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't think hamlets are currently eligible for any of the incentives under Act two fifty or the community benefit the community investment program.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So you're just acknowledging that it's a hamlet?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, it's it's one of the it is one of the 11 categories that the land use map can have. And so it is a different type of area than village center, or it's not a transition area. I guess it's addressing that there are some areas that don't have sewer or water and are along a main road and may have, you know

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It'd still be kind of villagesque.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Well, I got 10 of those towns.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Hamlets. And do they want us to force them to be village centers?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: I don't think so. Yeah. Don't either. Thank you.

[Unidentified Member]: That's one of the reasons why I asked. Hamlets, growth centers, what are the possibilities for a growth center to become a town center? Is there written anything into the statute? And I think of that because of what they brought up yesterday. We have municipalities that are smack dab in the middle of an area where we find out, okay, it's flood prone, not making something completely going away without the opportunity for it to eventually over time, if that municipality chooses to find a place near, but not right on top of a flood prone area. That's why I asked the question.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You were asking growth center versus what was the other one?

[Unidentified Member]: Well, the hamlet. I'm just thinking of my rural districts where we have hamlets and places that I don't know if they

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But you used a different word. You said a growth center becoming village center. To me, that's inverted, like a center would become a growth you're saying I'm

[Unidentified Member]: going learn the terminology better.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think you're saying it is a lot. Are you saying let's see if I understand. If you identified a growth center and then hopefully this wouldn't be happening right now, realize that it was too flood prone and you needed to move it, I think the intent would be, yes, you could upgrade a village center or a hamlet if you had the infrastructure capacity there.

[Unidentified Member]: That's the question. If you don't have it, then you need to decide over time it's going to evolve and it's going to migrate, hopefully slowly, but not drive people out. What infrastructure is gonna be there?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, shows up when communities invest in it. Right? Like, that's what brings water and sewer service to a town. They have to want it. They have to bond for it, and they have to plan for it. That's how it gets there.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So planned growth areas are one of the areas that are eligible under the Community Investment Program for additional incentives. And so, are some additional criteria that are not shown on page 19 because of the ellipses, but there are amendments proposed from the Senate on a couple of the criteria of what a planned growth area includes. So the bottom of Towards the bottom of page 19, line 15, so the planned growth area, the area is generally compact and has multimodal connection to the municipalities or the adjacent municipalities, downtown or village center. And so it's striking walking distance and replacing it with compact and multimodal connections. And it's also striking reference that it's adjacent to the new town center or growth center, but that they're adjacent to downtown or the Village Centre.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Katie Gallagher, can I put you on the spot a little bit on this multimodal versus walkable change and what your interpretation of it might be?

[Katie Gallagher, Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC)]: Sure. Katie Gallagher with the Vermont Natural Resources Council. So as we testified last week or whenever that was, The intention of including walking distance is that it's generally used in planning lingo as a way to have a kind of discrete measurement of distance, whether it's usually a quarter mile or half a mile. I believe that there were two kind of main conversations that were happening that led to this change in language. One was a concern that walking distance might be ableist and not accommodate people who are using a wheelchair or other mobility device. And the other, I think it's a recognition that perhaps, particularly in more rural areas, you might not safely be able to walk to the downtown, even though it might be only a quarter mile out. And so how do we accommodate for that? So this language was a little bit of a kind of last minute, like throwing spaghetti at the wall. I the, I would say from my perspective, we are supportive of trying to ensure that we are still, well, getting at the goals of this area being walkable or pedestrian oriented as it is a compact, discreet place. And also the second goal of trying to accommodate places that might not, know, will never have a sidewalk, but will always be the kind of

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: growth area of rural area.

[Katie Gallagher, Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC)]: So all that being said, compact and multimodal connection might be able to get there. We don't really have a great definition and statute to my knowledge of multimodal. I was concerned that that could mean you can take a car or you can take a bus, and that's not really achieving our intent. So I still feel comfortable with walking distance. And to say from a planning perspective, does include people who are using a wheelchair or other, not using their legs. So I think it's just kind of a question also of interpretation. Again, when we are looking at all of the people that are ideally involved in trying to determine how these land use categories, where these land use categories are, it should be a definition that is clearly understandable to all of us. And I'm not sure if we're getting that with compact and multimodal connection. That's what I would say.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Multimodal, yes. Seems too broad. Seems like you could hop in your car and drive 10 miles. Five miles. You're in town.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: In a few minutes. In a few minutes. Representative

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Chittenden. I guess I'll again just say, I'd love to not take on every one of these potential changes and take lots of testimony on them to figure them out. If there's not a big problem that's going on here, I'd really love to move on and not make this change and focus on some other things that we're going to really have to get to. And I appreciate trying to be less ableist, but in this case, we need to stick with terms that are already used in the planning field. This isn't well vetted and has some issues. It doesn't even use the word transportation. I'd love to move on and not keep this.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Seeing noise.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, next change is at the bottom of page 19, still on the requirements for a planned growth area. So, it adds language that the area provides opportunity for development, infill development and redevelopment that is needed to meet the regional and municipal housing targets onto page 20, that meet the present and future needs of a diversity of social and income groups in the community.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: As I've said before, the area provides four the targets that

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: meets. I see any issue here.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: More words.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's the same thing.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, it's not a huge distinction from the prior language.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright,

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Page 20. So still in planned growth area requirements. It's striking the quotations around complete streets. That is a program, but you don't need to have votes around it. And then also striking reference to that the area is served by planned or existing transportation infrastructure that conforms complete streets and establishes pedestrian access directly to downtown or village center and is striking again Newtown Centre. So this one is pretty similar actually to the language on the prior page about pedestrian access directly to the downtown or village center.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They're striking a new town center because they don't think it should have pedestrian access.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Well, I new town centers were also struck on the prior page from the rest of it, so I I think They still exist? Temporarily, yes. But they are going away.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. What this is in response to, that they're going away.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Alright. Page 20, subsection c is amending the village area category. It is also changing the walking distance to compact and multimodal, but it is also changing another and to an or. So traditional settlement area or proposed new settlement area typically composed of cohesive mix of residential, civic, religious, commercial or mixed use buildings arranged along a main street and intersecting streets that are compact and multimodal connections for residents who live within and surrounding the downtown center or village center. It's then striking these areas include existing village center designations or similar areas, but this area is larger than the village center designation. And so the village center designation is going away into the new downtown or village center in the community investment program.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do we want to be consistent here and keep within walking distance?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then there are a few requirements for village areas, and so a couple of them are being changed. At the bottom of page 20, the municipality has either public water or wastewater, and if no public water or wastewater is available, the area must have soils that are adequate for water and wastewater disposal. I think this was request was to make it match the defined term in Title 24.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think it also was because some of the water supplies are not they're public, but they're not municipal. It's just providing that to recognize and the Woodstock example came up.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, yes. So, I will say that currently in S328 and then as proposed for possible inclusion here, there is a defined term in Title 24. Oh, is it? In Title 24, it's defined as areas served by municipal water and sewer. And I it may be a good idea to make sure if we're talking about the same systems, we match them. I think that has come up.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We trust you'll help us keep track of that.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Yes. Yes. That's a good note for me. And then at the top of page 21, still on village areas, it's adding similar language that was added to the prior one, is that infill development or new development areas where village can support the development of housing to meet the regional and municipal housing targets and be flood resilient. Next, on page 21, the rural conservation area category is being amended, and it's striking reference to mapping these areas are intended to help meet the requirements of 10 BSA chapter 89, 30x30, 50x50, and then also striking, which makes sense, but any portion of the area that is a Tier three area will also be identified in these areas. So those are being struck as well.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: What was the reason for that?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think at least part of it was a timing concern because they're doing the updates to the regional plans right now and the tier three areas were not available. And so if they got mapped and were adopted, then the regional plans would have to then again go back and amend the plan to reflect those.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Fine with this change.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then at the bottom, page 21, subsection D. So this is about making sure this is addressed as part of the community investment program. So with the exception of preexisting nonconforming designations approved prior to the establishment of the State Community Investment Program, which is the successor program for the State Designated Area Program. So it's adding reference to that. The areas are eligible for designation benefits under that program on the board's approval of a future land use map, for designation as a downtown center or village center. So this is mostly just adding language to be just clear.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is this under rural conservation still? No, this is out

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of the categories entirely and it's just part of the full section of what things are needed to be included in the regional plan itself. And so directing that prior preexisting nonconforming issues can stay, but in the future, they should not include development that is disconnected from a downtown or village center and that lacks existing or planned pedestrian connections. So direction to the RPC that they while there have been some existing designated areas that perhaps contains all, There shouldn't be future ones that include sprawl.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Logan?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Thanks. Just going back to conservation area, it does seem to me like we would I don't know where we're headed with our conversation around a replacement for the idea of tier three. But it does seem like we would want there to be an amendment of a regional plan if there's some kind of protected status.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So let's look at the list of forest fox habitat conservation purposes. I mean, these are areas of significant natural resources. I I I hear you, especially if we're gonna go towards sort of, like, incentive based or voluntary based. Part of the thing is we want to become aware of the natural resources that are on their properties. That's kinda what you're saying? Yeah. And this is maybe a go to place for a lot of people, would be their regional plan map. Yeah.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: But it is under the category of rural conservation, so it does seem like it's not a perfect match necessarily. Yeah, I agree. I don't think it should just apply to one linen juice category, and it's a conversation we need to have as many of like, what are we doing now? So, I guess, personally, I love Put that in the that in the hopper for, like Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And it may be the result of the work that we get started on this session. It might not be ready to go into the sectional. Don't see how it would

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: fit in this. Yes. But we need to at least reference that that's gonna happen. Yeah. And personally, I'd love to see, again, like, a little more ground up, like, at the town level into the regional. So but, yes, ultimately, we'd love to

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: have good mapping. And that those significant resources are not limited to one district.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Exactly. Which is why people

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: know where the wetlands are, even if they're in a growth area.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, on page 22, the next section is section 13. This is adding the SMART Growth principles to 24 BSA 4,303, which is the definition section for the planning the regional and municipal planning section. Relocating

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: them.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And the words are the same as they were. Yes.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: At the bottom of page 23 is the next change. It's section 14, which is a repeal. And I mentioned this the last time we were doing a walkthrough. It's repealing 24 BSA 4,476, which is the formal review of Regional Planning Commission decisions. So I do think it would be a good idea to look at this language that's in the statute because part of the statute does reference a body that was eliminated in 2010. Although I have heard that there has been recent use of this statute, and I'm not so the RPC has proposed repealing this because they haven't been using it, but it may be a good idea to see if there's anything in there that should be

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: moved and or put into our next steps. Yeah. And so, we'd like to schedule that with you. Okay.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Right.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Page 24. Section 15 is a session law provision. It is extending any regional or municipal plan due to expire in 2026 shall have its expiration date extended until 12/31/2026. Yes. And so, the Regional Planning Commission's asked for this because some of them will expire before the LERB grants approval. Yeah. And so they just raised that the ones that are expiring this year would have potentially a gap. They were not as concerned about next year, so that was their suggestion was just until the thirty first of this year. So, but perhaps

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah. Right. Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. And that And that's partly because the LERD believes they're gonna stay on schedule with the approval of these regional plans,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But which is

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: my also what we also heard is that if the regional plans are expired and we're not able to come back in December and make this change again, tax credit things are not you're not eligible. Projects are not eligible. So personally, I think the risk is high enough if the LERB doesn't quite meet their deadline. I think we should just extend this farther to at least 07/01/2027 so that we could make a change next session even this is same. Or just, I mean, I'd be happy with December 2027. I agree. Do

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you want it to say that any plan that expires in 2026 and 2027 is then extended to 12/31/2027 or just those 2026 ones?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Just ask the lurb about that, but seems logical. But maybe we should just

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think this is more the regional planning commissions and the community vestibule program.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yes. Yes. They're the salespeople. Right.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They would know when their plans expire.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Page 24, section 16, these start some of the amendments to the community investment program. And so first, in section 5,801, the definition section, first, the definition of planned growth area is being simplified so that it is an area on the regional plan views or land use maps meeting the requirements of Subdivision 4348A, and that may be designated as a neighborhood. So that is the reference to what we were talking about a few pages ago. The land use category planned growth area is then used in an upcoming section as an area that could be designated as a neighborhood area.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Starting to hit by afternoon with maximum capacity. Perhaps others are too.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: We

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We are almost there, but I also So what is the ramification of and that may be designated as a neighborhood deal?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that this is just streamlining the definition. I don't think it's changing anything substantively.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, I see. Right. Because above it's Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Okay.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And you may not I you actually may not even need a definition here because the statute about it's eight zero four, I believe, goes through the process of making sure that a planned growth area meets the requirements to be in neighborhood area. So I don't you maybe don't even need to have this definition. But it would just be streamlining it to cross reference the land use category definition. Subdivision 10 is the definition of sprawl repair and it's just adding the cross reference to the SMART Growth principles. Then there's some more sort of cleanup in the definition of centers. And so, it's clean and this went back and forth a few times during the committee process on this new program. So, it's changing it to be designated downtown center or village center, or just designated center. Means a downtown or village center approved as part of the LERB review of regional plan future land use maps. And so it's then striking some of the requirements that are then discussed in the statute itself on downtown and village centers. And so this is the chapter that's the successor program to the designated areas, and this is about translating the areas on the regional plan maps into areas that become designations that have associated incentives. And then similar amendments are made in, Subdivision 13 on page 25 for designated neighborhood or neighborhood means a village area or planned growth area approved by the LERB review of the regional plan future land use map that is contiguous to a center. And so I guess I'll just say, think, so this is, these are amendments, these and the next ones are amendments to chapter 139, the new community investment program. And I think there have been in the statute inconsistent terms because that the development of the language on this program was sort of iterative. And so I think there are things that need to be cleaned up to just be matching. And so that is some of this. Because that program is going to start rolling out when the LERB starts approving the regional plans. So the Department of Housing and Community Development is the one who they work off incentives associated with this program. And so I think they're starting to see that the language is a little inconsistent in places and needs to be lined up to be more clear. And then similar changes then being made in Subdivision 15 on village areas. It's again having the cross reference to forty three, forty eight and saying that it may be designated as a neighborhood. And so this new community investment program is creating the downtown center or village center category, and then the neighborhood area as well as growth areas. Alright. Bottom of page 25, section 17 is amending 24 VSA 5,803, which is the designation of downtown and village centres. So the RPC may apply to the LERB for approval and designation of all downtown and village centers by submitting the future land use map plan. It's striking reference that they need to identify the areas on that map as eligible for designation. I think that's because that is sort of already the process that these areas are based on what the land use category is. And so the Department of the State Forest shall provide comments to the LERB and the Regional Planning Commission on areas eligible for designation as provided in 4348. And then it is striking the language in subsection C because it is nearly identical to the language in subdivision D back on P1. And so when this was drafted, I included the language in subdivision D and subdivision C because it is sort of relevant to both parts of the process, but these are processes that overlap. The RPC goes through and identifies what areas meet the category definitions, and then as part of the State Community Investment Program, they're supposed to then also look at the areas eligible for designation. And in both places, it says it should not include areas that are development that are disconnected from the center and lack pedestrian connections. So again, talking about not including sprawl areas as part of these centers. And so I put it in both statutes to make sure it was clear. It has been suggested that it's redundant, so we're striking it here. You could also strike it in the other section, whichever would be easier to read, but I it applies to both steps of the system. So making sure whichever time you decide in which section would be making sure that sprawl areas are not included.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And then find So it's included as the it's in the future land use. I mean, it's like the categories of future land use, but then this is really for eligibility in the Community Investor Program?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is that right? Do I have that right?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So there was a reason to have it in both places?

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I thought there might be, but as the program is starting to get underway, it has been suggested that it is redundant because the RPCs will be looking at both sections during their process anyways. So I don't don't necessarily think you need to make this change, but this was a change that was proposed by the RPCs as being redundant.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Others have any opinion on this? Representative Chittenden?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: I guess I'm hearing from our legislative council that belts and suspenders can be fine, that there's really not substantive problem with having this here. There might not be a substantive problem with not having it here. Personally, I guess we're making so many changes. Again, I would say, like, maybe leave the belts and suspenders in this case. Nobody's saying it would

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: be a problem. Yeah.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so I'm not sure if you have heard from the department yet on this because they're starting to do this. So I'm not sure if they have a I don't know if they have a position on which is preferable or if it's redundant, but they will they will also be working on this process in this statute. And then the last section, section 18 is amending 32 VSA fifty nine thirty b b, which is part of the Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit program. And so as I talked about the last time, it's adding clarification that there is an application process for project you know, private projects in downtowns and village centers to apply for the different types of tax credits under this program. However, one of the primary requirements of this program is that the buildings be at least 30 years old, and by updating the land use categories and the designated areas, that has also included in this process new town centers and younger areas that are less than 30 years old and would not technically qualify for the program, even though they are now technically located in downtowns and village centers. And so it's saying that the guidelines shall clearly indicate that only applications located in Step two or three designated centers or Step one, where a portion of the designated center is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be considered. So we have these areas that under the tax credit statute are eligible for tax credits, But in the land use map, we've now allowed younger areas to be in those areas. But the requirements of the tax credits have not changed. So it still needs to be buildings older than 30 years old to qualify for these tax credits.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: 30 years old seems young. I believe it's 30. I I should I can But it's 50.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is it is it it's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: 50 for for it.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But It might be fixed. Maybe

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: it's 30 if you're a car. I think if you're building, it might need to be 50. We can clarify that.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then I guess I'll just say on page 27, the effective date currently is effective on passage. And I will just point out that repealing statutes that haven't taken effect yet as you are discussing doing with tier three and the road jurisdiction, it's a little tricky to draft. And so this may change

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: your judgment.

[Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm getting back up to make sure. Repealing a thing

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: that hasn't happened yet is a little awkward. Yes, indeed. Okay. Thank you, Ellen. Members, we have we're getting, I think, more clarity on what's here for us. I know some folks are working on ideas for new things we might want to add to the bill. Guess I'm going to put out there, do we want to try to put a wrap on this first and then move to those things? That's kind of my inclination, but then it might be also related to our draft. Okay. And then might give us time to percolate a little bit more on other things. Okay. So we'll try to do that. I'd also like to get to Closure two twenty three pretty soon. With that, I think we can wrap it up for the day and adjourn.