Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

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

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Welcome back to the House of Environment Committee. We are gonna continue testimony on the s three twenty five with Ben Doyle. Welcome.

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: Thank you so much. It's really nice to be here. My name is Ben Doyle. I'm the president of the Preservation Trust of Vermont. Thank you, madam chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today about the importance of supporting our historic downtown and village settlement patterns, particularly in light of recent and ongoing changes to Vermont's land use policy, including those found in Act 181 and S three twenty five. For those of you who may not be familiar with the Preservation Trust of Vermont, we're a nonprofit organization founded in 1981 with a mission to build community through the preservation of historic buildings, villages, and downtowns. Our work takes many forms, including providing technical assistance to community groups, offering funding for preservation projects through both philanthropic and federal sources, and engaging in advocacy for Vermont's downtowns. At our core, our approach is simple. We ask Vermonters what they need to help save the places and spaces they care about, and then we do our best to help them however we can, with creativity, commitment, and persistence. We're often a small town project's first and longest standing friend. Last year, we worked on three sixty two distinct projects in 155 communities across Vermont. For many years, PTV has advocated for sustained investment in Vermont's historic villages and downtowns through programs like the Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit Program, which directly incentivizes revitalization in our historic course. We have paired that with support for smart growth policies that promote compact, efficient development, policies that prioritize people over cars, local businesses over national chains, and buildings designed to last over disposable buildings meant to maximize depreciation cycles for out of state investors. This year feels particularly important for championing these programs and policies, given your consideration of S-three 25 and the significant work you accomplished last year, reforming the designation program through new land use maps, as well as the creation of the community and housing infrastructure program. These changes offer an exceptional opportunity for Vermonters, particularly in rural communities, seeking to address housing needs and strengthen local economies. But their success will depend on whether we stay true to the intent of these laws to help Vermont realize its economic potential while preserving the landscapes built and natural that define our state. Act 21 Act 21 has expanded Vermont's approach to centers as a way to increase housing production in the places best suited to support it. Building on existing downtown village center and growth center destinations, the law enables more communities to identify

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: and

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: for compact, walkable development through the creation of planned growth areas, locations with existing or planned infrastructure, access to services and jobs, and the capacity for higher density mixed use housing. Critically, ACT 181 ties these areas to targeted ACT two fifty reform, reducing permitting barriers that have historically constrained housing development. In doing so, it broadens the map of where housing can be built while reinforcing Vermont's long standing goal of directing growth into serviced, efficient, and community centered locations. S-three 25 clarifies and reinforces many of the goals of Act 181. It reaffirms a commitment to smart growth principles and provides greater opportunities for housing developments, housing development in areas most appropriate for it. The effectiveness of these reforms will hinge on whether or not communities are able and encouraged to strategically use them to foster development and growth in established settlement patterns in ways that build the tax base, preserve and expand existing infrastructure capacity, and enhance overall community vitality. This approach stands in stark contrast to efforts that prioritize public investment in places that are merely easier to build in in the short term rather than those that deliver long term value to the villages and downtowns that define Vermont. The regulatory relief that S-three 25 provides for established village and downtown centers to increase housing is a good thing. S-three 25 also offers relief to emerging centers, planned growth areas that lack full build out or historic form that may have partial infrastructure or development that are intended to involve into compact mixed use centers over time. This could be a good thing, but thoughtful implementation should ensure that these categories work in alignment so that new growth in emerging centers complements and strengthens what already exists in Vermont historic centers. If we don't take that approach, the result is a real risk of diluting investment away from historic centers and rewarding, quote unquote, almost their places over those that have already functioning are already functioning as the economic and civic hearts of their communities. If I could make one suggestion, it would be this. Trust that the changes in Act 181 and S three twenty five are going to create more housing without encouraging sprawl. But verify. A three year look back study to confirm the regulatory relief in emerging centers is working as intended as a good place to start. It's also critical that as we consider land use and regulatory reform, we also consider investment strategies that strengthen our communities. To cite just one example, under the new land use review maps, the areas eligible for village and downtown tax credits will likely more than double. This is a positive development because it gives more Vermont communities the opportunity to invest in existing settlement patterns where they already have infrastructure and have already planted a flag. But without increasing the cap for those credits it risks being a hollow gesture offering expanded eligibility without the resources needed to make it meaningful. As someone who grew up in a town of fewer than a thousand people in the Northeast Kingdom I can say with confidence that it's not just land policy that locks people into multi generational economic disadvantage. It's a lack of access to capital and investment. One of the benefits of working in a historic preservation organization like PTV is that by our very nature we take the long view. We think in time horizons of fifty or even a hundred years not in a single legislative cycle. As you consider what- what are among the most significant land use policy changes in a generation. I ask that you take a similar approach. I ask that you continue to be thoughtful in considering what makes Vermont a place where people can find authentic sustainable communities. And I ask that I ask you to provide those communities with the policies and tools that will help them invest wisely in their own collective futures. Thank you for taking my testimony today and and for all you do. If if I could, I was thinking on kind of on the walk over. I might just provide one simple kind of anecdote to illustrate what I'm talking Yesterday, was in Reedsboro, which is a community of 300 people in Bennington County. And we've been working with them for over twenty years to preserve a building called the Bullock Block, which is a three story kind of Gothic nineteenth century building right in the heart of the village. And it's really cool. I mean, it's got like a old bowling alley on the third floor. There were apartments on the 2nd Floor, but this community group, we've worked with them for over twenty years to preserve this building. They've done an incredible job putting a new roof on it, new, foundation underneath the building. The 1st Floor is open to the community for community dinners. They've had mystery dinners there. The library goes there, different senior groups to go there. It's really doing what we hoped that it would, being a kind of a community hub for this place. You know? But Reedsboro, it's really challenged right now. There's been fires in the village. There you know, it was a former company town. There used be a furniture factory there that's gone away. It's declining population. It's a really challenged place. And when I was sitting with that group, you know, a guy who's been on the fire department for fifty years and was on the support, he said, you know, people should be moving here. We have, we've got, wastewater. We've got wastewater infrastructure in this village. People should be coming here. And it just occurred to me that, like, this is exactly the kind of place where we should be doubling down investment. Right? Places that have infrastructure, that have an established village pattern, that have history, that has an existing community, like those are the places where we really want to make sure we're supporting them, not at the expense of every place else, but just in an era of really like limited resources, how we think about where we invest is really important. And I would just say that, know, places like Reedsboro and small towns like that that we work with every day are the places where we really need to see that focused public investment. I just wanna add that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for your testimony, and for your work. That sounds you had 155 communities that you worked with this year.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Is that

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: what you said?

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: That's Yeah. Yeah. Amazing.

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: You have a great team.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just to clarify, though, are you suggesting that we should, be cautious in our expansion of the eligibility areas in that end? Yes. Thank you

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: for putting it so succinctly. I just think we have to expand eligibility areas in order to meet the housing targets that we need for for our historic centers and our villages to to thrive, right? We need more housing for that. We also just need to be really cautious and and not step into unintended consequences. You know, what I really do worry about is twenty years from now, we look at areas that we thought were ripe for development that, in fact, weren't quite ripe for development, but we've invested them in such a way that it diminishes the vitality of places where we spent generations invest.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So take a deep breath and and take the long view.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Yes.

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

[Rep. Rob North]: Sure. Thank you, Ben, for your for your

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: This is looks like a

[Rep. Rob North]: lot of really good work. How much of the it's, like, roughly $2,700,000 a year that you spend actually goes toward housing development? That's a great question. It looks like most of the projects in in the in the report here are are community centers. Yeah.

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: That's fair. Yes. That's that's correct. I mean, I really think about it. I used to work at USDA Rural Development doing community economic development work, and I really approached this kind of work as thinking about how do we foster an ecosystem, right, where somebody wants to there's housing available in Reedsboro, but somebody wants to live in Reedsboro, right? And so, what are the things there? And for me, it's places like general stores, community centers. Those are typically the focus of our work, these kinds of gathering places and communities that make a community vital. But we also work with partners like Vermont Housing and Conservation Board or regional affordable housing providers on kind of larger historic downtown development buildings, you know, like the French block here in Montpelier, New Avenue in St. Johnsbury, you know, just these kind of larger historic redevelopment for housing projects. Those are typically what we're involved in. But we're not, you know, an affordable housing provider in the same way that a a down street or a Shire's.

[Rep. Rob North]: And it looks like 70% of your income, roughly 2 and a half million dollars a year is is from federal or or grants from from government grants.

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: It's a it's a mix. It's a mix of of philanthropic funding for from family foundations or different foundations commoted to

[Rep. Rob North]: 70%, vast majority, is from government sources. Yeah. National Park Service. How much do get from

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: the state of Vermont? Not a lot. Not really any. Yeah, federal and philanthropic. Yeah. We did benefit from the couple years ago, we received some funding that really we just subgranted through the MTAP program, the Municipal Technical Assistance Program, which was really helpful in a lot of the projects we worked on and, like, doing engineering studies or architectural work. But in terms of operational support, we don't receive anything from the state of Vermont.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. But just along that theme, you're helping facilitate projects that do end up getting a variety of federal and state and community investment, just to separate what your organization the money that's flowing through your organization versus the money that goes to these projects?

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: Yeah. Thank you very much. Yes. We're really good at spending other people's money, right? So what we do is we partner with the National Park Service on the Paul Bruin Historic Revitalization Grant Program, where we receive money from the Park Service, and then we subgranted out to different community projects. We're also really lucky in that right now, have a partnership with the Vermont Community Foundation and the Vermont Council on Rural Development on a thing that we call the Village Trust Initiative, is working with 20 villages of 2,500 or fewer to on a kind of transformational redevelopment project in their community, and that's funded through congressionally directed spending award from Senator Leahy of $10,000,000. So we'll be working on that for, like, the next five years. So, yeah, a lot of the funding that we receive is just kind of pass pass through.

[Rep. Rob North]: So you're focused primarily on on community center kind of structures. We we really need to look beyond that for actual house. Yeah.

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: I think I if mean, you really wanna know what I think, like, I think lots of people are gonna actually come to Vermont in the coming decades, right? Whether it's through for political reasons, pandemic, through, you know, climate change, I really do think we're going to see people coming to Vermont. And I think they have a choice of where are they going to go? Are they going to go to Chittenden County or the I-eighty 9 Corridor? Or are they going to look at places like Sutton or, know, Reedsboro, right? These kinds of smaller communities that historically were able to carry kind of more people that had larger populations. And I think the question then becomes, why would they choose to live there, right? Why not go to Chittenden County? And I think if you can go to a community like, just you thinking locally on a project we worked on, East Callis, and you can see a vibrant general store that is a gathering place with three perpetually affordable apartments that's the heart of a village, that feels vital. Or if you go to Harry's Hardware on a Friday night in Cabot and have a beer and listen to a band while shopping for hardware, suddenly that place becomes very exciting and alive in a way that can make you choose Cabot, right? And so, we are involved in projects that are housing, right, of these kind of larger historic redevelopment with a housing component. But again, feel like we're fostering the entire ecosystem of a historic village in downtown that make it viable for the long term. And that's why, you know, for me, it's just so important that we double down on the investment that's already been made over generations to keep those places vital and not and that's why these other areas can be additive, right, and bring more people to those downtowns. But we just want to make sure that we're securing them first.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And just right here in the very beginning pages, you've got the Park House and that amazing, program that they have there, historic preservation and also Older folks can live there and be part of the community still, things like that. I think almost adding to your annual report, the information on the holistic impacts that your program has around addressing issues of isolation and community development and people unplugging and coming together, and whether it's based around, like, growing local food,

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: a food hub kind of thing, I know a

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: lot of what you do is in that bucket, and it's

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: very powerful.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I think it will also be a draw, like you're talking about, as we evolve our relationship to technology and hopefully come back to face each other in community.

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: I honestly sorry. You brought it up. So, like, I honestly think the two biggest challenges facing our state, really, our nation, is climate change and social isolation. And I'm actually attracted to this work in preservation because I think it it actually tackles both, right, in terms of the sustainability of built in the built environment, and I'm not building sprawl that takes a lot of resources, but also just people are hungry to connect. Right? And so, having a place where they can gather and, you know, a general store is a fantastic example. It doesn't care what your politics are. You can buy a bottle of wine or you can buy a six pack of Budweiser. It doesn't matter. People feel welcome in those places, and that's why it's so critical that we preserve them because we're really preserving the future of Vermont by preserving those kinds of places.

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

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Yeah. Hi.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: So what do you think what do you think is stagnating or stopping the vitality in places like Reedsboro? What are the roadblocks that you think?

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: Well, local leadership. Right? I mean, the people the folk for example, the folks that I was speaking with yesterday, all of them had been on the fire department, the planning commission, the select board for literally for decades, and they're they're tired, right? They've they've done a lot, and they're kind of like looking behind them of what where's the next generation of people that are gonna come and and kind of, in this example, steward that building into the future. So, I do think leadership is there, but I also think just, like investment. I mean, for example, the tax credit program. I come to the State House every year to, like, advocate for increasing the cap for the tax credit program to support people like Reesboro. Like, we worked with them yesterday saying, you should submit a tax credit application to redo the facade of this building and show that something vital is happening on your main right? But that program has been capped at $3,000,000 now for years. And I mean, that's as somebody who's worked in community and economic development in Vermont for a long time, that's really one of the most accessible, impactful tools for small town Vermont. Like, people can access it, they can utilize it, the staff that administers it is fantastic at the Agency of Commerce Community Development, but there's just not enough of it. And again, if we expand, you know, I'm glad that we're really focusing the benefits on the places with the historic settlement pattern, but the more we expand eligibility areas without really focusing that investment, I think that that's a concern. The other thing too is just honestly is wastewater infrastructure always. Every time I go to a community meeting, you know, like on a random Wednesday night, we're sitting around there saying, dream of a place where we can have a pub or we want more senior housing here or, you know, a lot of the dreams that are connected to like rural revitalization really come down to wastewater. Do they have wastewater? And, you know, and again, I used to work at USDA Rural Development, which is a huge, you know, we financed a ton of that. And, you know, when I worked there, there were 54 employees, and now there are fewer than 12. And so just the federal government's interest in rural, frankly, I think is really diminishing despite what people say. And so I think it's just that's really the fundamental issue. I think it's investment in rural con consistent consistent attention and investment.

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

[Ben Doyle, President, Preservation Trust of Vermont]: Thank you. Thanks for all you're doing.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Morning. I am Thomas Weiss, and thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I'm a civil engineer with experience in preparing documents used for environmental permitting, including act two fifty in NEPA, and I have testified on behalf of a party with particular interest in an act two fifty proceeding. My comments this morning relate to the process for transferring conditions of an act two fifty permit to a municipal permit and to the insufficiency of state and municipal permitting for evaluating the act two fifty criteria. I'll start with, LORB oversight and additional notice when transferring act two fifty conditions. A recent decision by a district environmental commission illustrates why I recommend notifying all parties of a transfer of conditions and requiring oversight of the land use review board when transferring those conditions. The Woodstock Inn wanted to demolish two houses it had left vacant twenty years. The village of Woodstock approved a zoning permit to demolish the houses. The existing act two fifty permit had a condition that two houses needed to be maintained for future use. The Woodstock Inn applied for an amended permit to remove the condition and to demolish the houses, and the district three environmental commission denied the application because retaining the two houses was essential to the existing permit. Section nine of s three twenty five contains the existing provisions by which conditions enact two fifty permits may be and may not be transferred to a municipal permit. Two conditions are relevant here. One of them is that a municipality is not required to transfer the conditions if they pertain either to an issue that is addressed by municipal regulation and the project will meet the municipal standards or to a physical condition that is no longer applicable once the new project is approved. Thus, I can foresee that if the situation had been in a tier one area, the development review board would not transfer the condition to maintain the buildings for future use because the DRB had issued a permit to demolish the buildings and because demolishing the buildings would meet municipal standards and would no longer exist after the new project to demolish the buildings once approved. My notes my letter is online, so you know that it's there. A municipality is required only to notify the land use review board of the transfer of conditions. There is no requirement that the land use review board have a say in which conditions must be transferred, and there is no requirement that the municipality provide notice to the land use review board of the hearing at which the conditions will be transferred. This decision in Woodstock is an example why I believe the land use review board needs to have oversight of the conditions being transferred. If it had occurred in a tier one area, I believe it is likely that the municipality would have not transferred the condition and would have allowed the demolition of the historic houses structures. And the procedures for transferring act two fifty permits, the conditions to municipal permits require the development review board to send notices of the hearing. The board is not required to notify all parties to the act two fifty permit. The nonstatutory parties, those with a particularized interest to gain party status, have spent considerable time and effort achieving and maintaining party status. And those parties, I believe, need to be notified of the opportunity that the conditions that there'll be a hearing to transfer some conditions and to not transfer others and only the transferred conditions would be enforced in the future. So recommendations on this part require the land use review board to have oversight of the transfer of conditions to a municipal permit and require all parties to enact two fifty permit to be notified of a hearing to transfer conditions. And my letter provides some language that would carry out what I recommend ought to be done. And I'll not go over that in detail here because you don't wanna know strikeouts and underlines. The second part of my testimony is that delegation, which is contrary to act two fifty. Act two fifty's two strongest points are the district environmental commissions and the comprehensiveness of act two fifty. The district commissions were established to present what happened in the Woodstock example that I just mentioned. The district commissions were established to keep municipal politics out of the act two fifty process. The district commissions are outside of politics and are much more approachable than a centralized state agency. They're in an intermediate position that seems to be working very well from my point of view. An act two fifty's broad range of criteria makes it comprehensive. One knows that there are no holes or gaps in the planning and permitting of a project when an act two fifty permit has been issued. I find it hard to envision a successful delegation of authority to municipalities without both of those strong points, comprehensive and not subject to municipal politics. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns used Shorelands as an example of delegation of authority to municipality. Delegation in that case requires the secretary of natural resources to determine that the municipal bylaw or ordinance is functionally equivalent to certain requirements in statute. The secretary has delegated authority to only four municipalities in the twelve years that the program has existed. The corresponding situation for delegation of act two fifty permitting would be to have the five member land use review board find that the municipal bylaw or ordinance is functionally equivalent to at least the act two fifty criteria, and the land use review board would need to have ongoing oversight of the delegation to ensure that it is being carried out well. Municipal permits, next point, are not required to address any act two fifty criteria. Municipal permits are neither redundant nor duplicative when compared with act two fifty permits. I found in 2024 that there is no required overlap in the way the two permits look at a project. And the tier one a statute does not require that the municipal bylaws evaluate any act two fifty criteria. Act two fifty has 37 criteria and sub criteria by my count. None are required to be evaluated, as I mentioned. 26 are optional, and 11 are not addressed at all. Municipality chooses to use some of the options. Statutes give no guidance as to what, how to incorporate that, criteria aspect of the criterion into the bylaws. And I provide a table showing my comparison enclosed at the end of the letter. It's lengthy. It goes over each act to 50 criterion, sub criterion, and then it shows what is in the statutes relating to bylaws and subdivisions in chapter one seventeen, the municipal and regional planning and zoning chapter. And then it shows what I explained. So the Vermont League of Cities and Towns ask you to allow a municipality standards and regulations to be used where they are the same or better than the states or act two fifties. What does that mean to be the same or better? To be the same means that they really need to follow the act two fifty criteria and processes. And to be better means that they need to be more stringent and or more restrictive, and that's comes from part of the statute chapter one seventeen. So I do not see how being the same or better could mean a lessening of the act two fifty criteria or process. And much is lost when active 50 jurisdiction is removed. Municipalities are not allowed to cover certain aspects that act two fifty covers. State owned or operated facilities, community owned or operated schools, educational institutions for religious purse purposes, solid waste management, and hazardous waste management are not or have only a limited ability for municipalities to review them under zoning. Connect two fifty can have jurisdiction over all of them. State permits collectively are not comprehensive, and they have different scopes and requirements than act two fifty. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns showed you the relationship between the act two fifty criteria and municipal and state permits a couple weeks ago in one of the slides in their slide shows. It was the one that had, as you're looking at the municipal permits and then the state permits and then the act two fifty criteria and all the lines going between them and then the federal ones over here. This slide shows 27 criteria and sub criteria for act two fifty. I acknowledge there's a difference. Different people divide the criteria and sub criteria differently. For example, criterion 10 requires conformance with regional plans, town plans, and the capital budget, the capital plan for the municipality. I count that as three sub criteria whereas most people count it as only one. I count it as three because each one of those three has to be done or has to be considered. So the slide fails. So anyway, state permits overlap with only half the act two fifty criteria and sub criteria on that chart. And the slide fails to support a claim that act two fifty is duplicative. It does show that act two fifty is comprehensive and that the municipal, state, and even federal permits collectively are not comprehensive. And I'd like to interject here a point related to previous testimony this morning. First of all, the National Environmental Policy Act is not a permit. I spent many years also working at USDA Rural Development before Ben Doyle was there, providing training on the NEPA process and signing off on the mid level NEPA reviews. And the NEPA process does not cover all of the act two fifty criteria. And a few years back, agency of transportation was trying to get an exemption when there was a NEPA process, and I went through the permits they needed and the NEPA process, and it wasn't even close in terms of how much act two fifty requires that was not required by the NEPA and other state permits that the or state and federal permits that AGT of Transportation should require. So I don't consider NEPA to be an adequate substitute for act two fifty. So, where there is overlap, the scope and requirements for the state permits differ from those for an Act two fifty permit. The legislature intentionally made the differences when the criteria and the permit are established at different times, the legislature has the opportunity to make them the same or to leave them different. And so all cases where there are differences, they were intentionally created or left by the legislature. And I consider that not to be duplicative, but they're different because they serve different purposes and different functions. And and the legislation is trying to tailor the requirements to each of the different purposes.

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: So,

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: another one example of intentional differences is injection wells. DEC can issue a permit for an injection well. Act two fifty cannot accept the project if there is an injection well on it according to one of the act two fifty sub criteria. Occasionally, and that both of that was done in 1973. Occasionally, state municipal and act two fifty responsibilities are made at the same time. One example is wetlands. Back in 1986, wetlands were added to all three. And there are some differences. There were two different definitions of what a wetland is. But it's, again, intentional differences to serve the purposes of each of the each of the permits in each of the agencies. My recommendations here, retain act two fifty permitting with different just with district environmental commissions. Do not create a mechanism for delegation and do not ask for a study of delegation. Some other thoughts, thank you on section four, which you were discussing earlier this morning at the beginning. Thank you for recognizing that the amendments are not necessarily conforming with the goal for the cons compact centers separated by rural countryside. That's the way Act two fifty puts it. So I thank you for looking into that further. I don't have any specific guidance on that, but I I appreciate you're looking into it. Sections five and six of s three twenty five are those sections which would have granted authority to the land use review board to evaluate fewer than all the act two fifty criteria in tier three and an area subject to the road rule. And it looks like you're planning to remove those and I appreciate that you're planning to remove those sections and I ask you to stand firm on removing those those two sections. So, conclusions, I've placed recommendations at three locations in the comments. I ask that you find the recommendations have merit and that you use them to shape S three twenty five accordingly and as I mentioned, there is this 10 page enclosure act two fifty criteria is covered by issues. Look at my findings on that part. Thank you for listening to these comments this morning.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you for coming in at the other time. Do the members have any questions for us? Yes. Yeah. That's Sarita.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So, you know, just listening to a lot of this testimony, you know, I think we know that Vermont needs housing. And we know, I feel like we're going to have to compromise somewhere because listening to people who are paying $723,000 to get permits, I just don't see how we can keep housing affordable if that's the case. And I'm just wondering, know, can you talk at all about where you would because it's expensive. It seems like some of the housing that has been presented this morning, it seems like it's gonna be costly. I don't see it as affordable housing for low earning Vermonters. I mean, the manufactured home is one option, but just building a house seems like it's gonna be very expensive because of the permitting, because of the regulations. And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that because we need housing. That's to me the most important thing. I'm not saying throw out all the regs, but, you know, we need to be able to build affordable housing so people all ranges of people can afford.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: If you notice, I did not comment on any of the interim exemptions.

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

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Okay? I acknowledge the need is there. I am concerned that the interim exemptions will eventually become permanent. But I'll just leave my comment at that. I support the concept of the compact centers. I don't think that tier three was going to be really difficult to implement. Do the same. And I didn't comment on that one either. I am not opposed to the direction in which you're moving on that one. Striking tier three and then trying to figure out how to cover the the jargon word is the critical natural resources that were required to be covered under section five. Is there some other way to to protect those resources that are truly critical while not encumbering too many parcels or without removing the ability of having the housing in the, what they call it, the rural countryside. So

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Representative Tankle, have you? You've said with respect to the interim exemptions, you you're concerned that they won't that they will become permanent. What leads you to believe that? Because in other areas in this building, interim exemptions just keep getting extended, extended, and extended. Some of them eventually go away and some of them become permanent. So it's a matter of will the changes that are being proposed by act one eighty one and s three fifth three twenty five as it amends them, will they be enough to enable the interim exemptions to be terminated, or will they still need to be continued after I think you're thinking 2030 now. Right? Like, to extend it basically extend all the dates to 2030. So will they be needed after that? That's that's my concern. I believe strongly in act two fifty and the strength of the district environmental commissions, as I mentioned. I consider them to be basically the strongest point of act two fifty. And so exempting things from act two fifty, I guess those defense gets the grain a little bit. I I acknowledge there's a need now. Acknowledge there's a need for housing. 40,000 is not the right number. That's way too big. It's probably in the 20 to 30,000 range. Still a large number, and I acknowledge that. So

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: You're welcome.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Any other questions for

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: our witness?

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Seeing none, thank you very much.

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

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: very much.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: You're very welcome. Yeah.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Next, we have Peter Tucker. Welcome.

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: Oh, thank you. Yeah. Peter Tucker. I'm the, director of advocacy and public policy for the Vermont Association of Realtors. And, thanks to the chair, vice chair, and committee members for, you know, having me here today to talk about act two fifty, reform, act one eighty one, and, you know, the the the technical corrections in s three twenty five. The Vermont Association of Realtors are about 2,000 members spread are spread across the state. I mean, we're in virtually every town in in the state of Vermont. Our mission at national level or the state or local level is to promote homeownership and to protect private property rights. You know, I'd like to start out just addressing housing. That's been a big topic of discussion today. You know, when we I came on board in 2020. I'd been a volunteer for the ten years prior to that as chair of the Government Affairs Committee. But, you know, housing has always been a critical issue to realtors. I mean, it just that's that's our business. And we realized that that, you know, we, you know, as we came on, as I came on board, you know, the discussion of a housing crisis was was paramount. You know, one of the problems with a crisis is, you know, how do you react to it, right? And, and, you know, certainly, you know, having legislation that sets up programs to go forward down the road, you know, would impact housing, you know, tier one a and tier one b as an example. But the need to be more immediate was was there. And so we advocated heavily for interim exemptions. And, you know, I think that that when you really look at at housing starts in '24 and '25, you see a a dramatic increase there, that have that have impacted housing in Vermont. You know, when I talked to our our, our representative from Chittenden County, you know, he said, look, you know, we're building five to 600 units a year over the past four or five years. And our vacancy rate has gone up, you know, in terms of rental housing. So, so it's having an impact, and and that's been a a really good thing. So I'm I'm guided by our government affairs committee. This is our policy committee. It it has representatives from each local board in the state. And, you know, as I said, housing is obviously one of our primary issues. Today, I wanted to talk a little bit more about the the land use issues that, you know, have have come up in in Act 181 and and, you know, will be addressed or it can be addressed through s three twenty five. When act one eighty one was created, we asked to be part of stakeholder groups developed to address tier three and the appeal study. We participated in these groups all of last summer, helping to create the appeals report to the legislature and working to provide input on maps and the draft of tier three rules prior to the first round of public hearings. When the Land Use Review Board initiated public hearings on tier three in October 2025, we issued a call to action to all of our members, provided them with talking points, and asked realtors to attend these public events. Before rural Vermont realized the impact of tier three on private property rights, realtors were there at each of the four public hearings expressing our concerns that the maps were too broad and the rules were too tight. I want to acknowledge the tireless work of the LERB and especially board member Alex Weinhagen. His dedication to meet the timetables outlined in act one eighty one and his work on maps that allowed rural Vermonters to check to see how regulation might impact their land led to this public response. The Act one eighty one reform movement would not have happened without the work of the Lurb and Alex's work to provide Vermonters with transparency. As a result of this public input, this committee is now poised to repeal the road rule and tier three. Last week's announcement by the chair and the speaker of your intent, an intent to repeal the road rule and tier three language in act one eighty one was a remarkable milestone in policy creation or policy modification, I guess. Your willingness to change direction is admirable. Many feel that this was purely a political decision for the majority party to not have to defend these unpopular public policies in an election year. I prefer to think that the decision is a little more nuanced than that. Vermonters banded together to become a loud voice expressing opposition to policies that would have an unreasonable impact on their lands. The right to free speech is embedded in our constitution, but free speech doesn't matter unless policymakers listen. This seems like democracy at work, and I'd like to express my appreciation for you folks listening. So the question is, where do we go from here? One thing that has become apparent in this discussion is that rural landowners care about their property and are good stewards of the environment. They have been taking care of Vermont's natural resources for years. For many families, this is a multi generational conservation effort. Vermont landowners have permanently conserved 1.5 to 1,600,000 acres in Vermont. That's 25 to 27% of the state. And many more rural landowners participate in the use value appraisal program, conserving over 2,500,000 acres in 2025. And that number has been increasing, you know, over the past ten years or so. Total conserved lands in these two programs amount to 56% of the state. How much more of Vermont needs to be conserved? It is clear that any future discussion of environmental protection needs to include the landowners of rural Vermont. And Vermont realtors need to be at the table working collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders to help rural Vermont landowners develop best practices while maintaining their property rights. How can we develop incentives to encourage and reward intended environmental policies? You always get a lot further with a carrot than a stick. Appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today, and really do appreciate your your being attentive, you know, to the public and and reacting to that. Thank you.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Are there any questions for our presenter? Representative Pritchard. Yeah. Thank you. You

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: said 50% 56%. Could could you give me that breakdown? So it's 1,600,000 in permanently conserved lands and 2.5 in use value appraisal lands. And that was testimony from when we were listening to age 70, that it was 56.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: My understanding was that the process with the Lurb was they had the map that was put out and the rules that were put out was the first there were three parts to it. Right. That was the first part. That was a draft. I mean, maybe I think it was presented as the final decision, but it was a draft. So they were gonna put that out, get public input, take that public input, you know, put that into the second map, and then it was gonna be a third map. I'm just wondering because I feel like the process did work. And, unfortunately, I don't know how it happened that people thought that was the government imposing on them a map when that wasn't the process. And I think for me, most harm is that perception of that we would do that, that we would impose something without plenty of ample opportunity for public input into what rural Vermont thought of us. So I'm just saying, I think that is an unfortunate circumstance because I think the process was there, it just somehow got misinterpreted and trust was lost. And that is concerning, I think to all of us. So I'm gonna ask you the same question I asked the previous presenter about, we have to have housing. I mean, I know, I'm sure you've read the futures report about no one's moving here. Our birth rate's the lowest in the country. Our elderly are the highest in the country. And if and our workforce is working out. You know, they're you know, they're they're quick it's not like they're quitting. They're retiring.

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: They're aging out.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Right. So we have not just new taxpayers. So we need housing because without housing, I mean, it it could be beautiful around here, but it's gonna get very expensive, I think, for people. So I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on a what where do you see some compromise or, know, some, like the interim exemptions? What are your thoughts on that?

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: Sure. So I think that, you know, as I said, I think that the interim exemptions did a good job of you know, hitting the ground running. You know, we were able to get more housing right away. You know, quite honestly, most of it is rental housing. It's not stuff that realtors sell. But, you know, we were supportive because we felt like that's an important first step for sure. You know, tier one a, tier one b, I grew up in a small town out in Central New York, actually. But, you know, it, you know, able to support it was interesting testimony. You know, being able to support the Village store is always kind of the one concept that I have that you want to, you know, a community that has that support for the core. You know, think that the housing process should continue forward, you know, in terms of recognizing tier one B areas, tier one A, you know, really, you know, our bigger cities that have the capacity, I think, to manage those affairs. You know, the concern that you heard earlier about what are the number of towns that don't have permanent subdivision and zoning bylaws? You know, and and it would be nice to extend, you know, the the interim exemptions to them. But I understand that part of the process was to encourage them to get on board, to get permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws to to then be able to qualify for tier one b. I think what we miss in a lot of this discussion is the the value that can be added to the grand list by new housing construction. You know, I think that that one of the challenges in Vermont is that we're a very expensive state to live in, and that is certainly led by property taxes. You know, the increase increasing your grand list by a municipality actually benefits all the tax holders in that municipality. The way I describe it is I want more people paying taxes, not the same people paying more taxes. And the only way you do that is, you know, by expanding grand list and and then, you know, other tax tax issues like corporate and in in income tax also kind of parallel that. So so I think letting that the housing process play out in act one eighty one, figuring out, you know, what, you know, what does, you know, the protection of the environment look like. I really absolutely believe that that getting rural landowners to participate in that discussion is critical. And, you know, I think it's just something that really has to happen. You know, other parties will have interest in different environmental issues, and I think everybody needs to be at the table. So we figure that one out. You know, we've preserved a lot of the state through permanent conservation or, you know, use value appraisal. You know, where are the places where we still feel that we need additional conservation? I got a feeling it's not that big a part of the state, but how do I how do I identify it without these broad based rules? But as far as housing goes, yeah, if we can keep one a, one b, the the whole that whole process going, probably the best solution.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And just in terms of businesses, you know, I mean, can move there, but they have to have employment. Yeah. What are what are you seeing as trends or, you know, in rural Vermont of

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Either there being a capacity for jobs or Right. Bringing in jobs?

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: Yeah. You know, I mean, I think we're lucky that that we had, you know, like a beta technology settle in Vermont. You know, that's very unique. Yeah. And it is Chittenden County. Right. Exactly. In rural Vermont, you know, I'll just have to say it. I I think that that the you know, when I look at rural Vermont, there are a lot of ski areas in rural Vermont.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Yeah.

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: The the economic impact of of these ski areas is really incredible. I mean, you know, we ski at Killington and and on any weekend, you know, there's thousands of folks there staying here, spending money, going out to restaurants. Many of those folks end up saying, hey, you know, we visited, we really love Vermont, let's buy a second home here. You know, our tax policies have a tendency to look at second homeowners as as having deep pockets. The reality is second homeowners hire Vermont companies to manage their properties. Those Vermont companies hire Vermonters that were paying, you know, income tax and, you know, and really benefiting the state. Contractors do a tremendous business improving second home properties. And then there's the spillover to recreational activities, restaurants, lodging, all that sort of thing. So, you know, I think in rural Vermont, you know, while it's not the only thing, it can be an important economic factor, you know, creating jobs and growth as well. So, you know, I think other than that, it's going to be, you know, the local store, restaurants, things of that nature. It is more of a service industry, you know, approach.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Do you see remote work? I I like, I'm hoping not in remote work that that will help rural Vermont.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: You know, the people who move here

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Right.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: You know, and be able to work remotely, you know, with companies in Boston and New York. Are you seeing that?

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: Yeah, so, know, I, you know, worked in selling real estate and, you know, definitely met with folks who are remote workers. I mean, I remember one guy went to Middlebury, you know, had worked in, you know, financial management for, you know, twenty years. And, and he's like, I'm moving to Vermont. I want my kids to go to school here. You know, we've, we've lost love Vermont. And, you know, he was like he was a consultant. So he was he's like, I'm jumping on a plane basically Monday of every week and going somewhere to help, you know, consult a business. You know, exception rather than a rule. I think that we saw a big ramp up during COVID. And I think we've kind of watched that, you know, more or less trickle away since then. You know, certainly our internet services have improved dramatically to allow for remote work. But there, you know, I it's gotta be a desirable place to live. You know, what attracts people here and then allows them to work remotely. And I think, you know, our environment, our natural resources, you know, I was at a housing conference in Denver a few years back, and the mayor of Denver said, look, we sell lifestyle. You know, people wanna move to the Rocky Mountains for skiing, recreation, whatever it is. I don't know that Vermont's ever done, you know, a terrific job of that, of really selling our net you know, what we have is such a great, you know, part of living here. And I came you know, that's how what got me here was, you know, the ski the ski industry. So yeah.

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

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: you. So I come, you know, a little biased, but thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you so much.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. Great.

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: Thank you.

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: Thank you.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you,

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: everybody. Yep.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Next up, have Matt joining us from Zoom.

[Matt Belanger, Planning Director, Town of Williston]: Good morning, madam chair, members of the committee. Thanks for having me today. Promise to be brief since I know I probably stand between you and lunch. My name is Matt Belanger. I'm the planning director for the town of Williston, Vermont, where I've worked for nearly the last eighteen years. Wanted to address the committee today about one very specific provision that may find its way into S-three 25 via S-three 28 related to zoning preemptions and areas served by municipal water and wastewater. And then provide a little bit of broader perspective on tier 1A and 1B areas and exemptions from Act two fifty and close out with some insight related function. I serve as the chair of the Vermont Planners Association legislative committee who have been talking about and preparing some information we'd like to submit related to Act 1E1 going forward in the Tier two and three areas. I'll do those in order. The concern related to defining what an area served by municipal water and wastewater comes out of some language in Act 181 that preempts or defines the area where local zoning is preempted. So these are areas where a quadplex as a dwelling unit type must be permitted and where residential density must be allowed at a base density of five dwelling units per acre. And we experienced this in Williston. We have since modified our zoning bylaws to comply with this provision. What it means is our zoning districts within our defined sewer service area now allow that density and allow that dwelling unit type, although for the most part, they always did. The language that was passed by the Senate in S-three 28 related to this provision is in section eight of that bill. And it deletes one component of one of the definitions of area served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure. And that provision is related to whether connections within the district are prohibited by state regulations or permits. That was stricken in the version of the bill that was transmitted over after passage by the Senate. So I was asked by a colleague, do find that problematic or challenging? Know, Williston obviously regulates who can connect to our own sewer pretty extensively. We monitor our capacity very carefully. But we are subject to also, of course, to state regulation and permit. Having that particular provision struck out didn't really We don't see it as having a lot of effect for us. What has been more concerning to us and may come up during the end of this session is some proposed language that didn't make it over to you, but might come up again about expanding the area served by water and sewer definition and therefore those zoning preemptions by some size buffer around the border of the municipality's sewer service area. We saw versions of this in the Senate ranging from 200 feet to a quarter mile to 2,000 feet, essentially taking some lands that are outside of sewer service areas and you know, the effect in Williston making those lands, places where quite a bit higher residential density would be allowed than the town is currently planned for or designated under its zoning. We understand the rationale behind adding that buffer and expanding those preemptions that, there's only a very tiny portion of the state that's served by water and sewer that that represents really significant investment in public infrastructure in those places. You know, that those investments should be leveraged to produce housing in areas that are approximate to other areas planned for growth. But it does present some challenges at the local level given that, you know, our land use designation boundaries, sewer service area boundaries and our zoning boundaries have been coordinated for a very long time. And there are some reasons that those boundaries are there. Last point I will make about, all of this is that because this definition defines where local zoning may have to change, Whatever is done with this, my main plug is that the language should be precise and really vetted against can a local development review board or planning director or zoning administrator like myself successfully administer this in a way where everybody understands where that boundary will be. You know, the zoning boundaries in Williston and most Vermont municipalities are very easy to administer. It's very easy to decide what zone a piece of land is in because those boundaries are mapped and often physically described in the ordinance. But if there's a statutory buffer added or sort of expanded area that may be more challenging to interpret. So my plea for clarity on that. Second issue, I want to note that given the timing of Williston's need to readopt its comprehensive plan or adopt a new comprehensive plan and the passage of act 181, Williston was able to incorporate language in our new comprehensive plan about tier one a and one b status. We specifically have some town plan actions related pursuit of one A status in our growth center, at Taft Corners where we've had interim exemptions for some time and one B status within our sewer service area, which is roughly the same boundary as our suburban residential zoning district. Again, where the, you know, five units per acre base density is allowed. So we have been participating in a local working group in preparation for a tier 1A application. We've been working with our colleagues and peers on what it will mean to administer some things that aren't currently in our zoning or get them adopted into our zoning such that we can meet the requirements of one a and have certainly had lengthy conversations about how any permit condition, act two fifty permit condition delegation will work for us and and what will be the staff challenges and workload related to making sure we are able to do that properly. So I'm happy to answer any questions about our experience thus far with either the interim exemptions or tier 1A or 1B. Finally, as I said before, the Vermont Planners Association is very likely going to be submitting something to the committee quite soon with some comments on its vision for should there be a process to look at tier two, something different than the road rule or something, modifying tier three. What as planners we think that process should should look like and how it should appropriately employ good principles of planning, public participation, and, you know, due consideration going forward. So I'll stop there and I'm happy to answer any questions, expand on any of those.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Thank you for your testimony. I would like to hear a little bit about how you're envisioning the 1A process happening in your community and how you will meet the requirements of it, and if there's, I don't know, things that you're like, that's great, or we have concerns about that.

[Matt Belanger, Planning Director, Town of Williston]: Sure. One thing is that as a municipality, we have some timeframes, some mandated timeframes in which we need to render a decision. Right now, that's based on, you know, date from a complete application. And because we have our own zoning, we know we know what constitutes a complete application. We know when we have the information we need to move forward and we can we can start that clock. We do know that there may be some things that taking on tier 1A will bring into our process that might generate some timelines that are a little more challenging. Thinking about handling the protection of archeological resources, which is not something our zoning currently addresses and doing that in a timeframe that allows us to bring in expertise where needed. That would be an example of a challenge we're thinking about. We're definitely thinking about what that transfer of permit conditions might look like. You know, as you might imagine in Williston, we have some broad two fifty approval conditions related to things like Tap Corners Park, etcetera, from the mid 1980s that, you know, reflect the criteria as they were thought about at that time. And, you know, there are some things as we looked for replanning our vision for the Taft Corners area, which is roughly dense mixed use residential infill around some of the large format retail there, trying to keep that area vibrant and achieve our housing goals. Questions arose about what promises might have been made, for example, about building height in the 1980s when it was more of an office park and large format retail area where we now have zoning that allows five and sometimes six stories in that area and how we might navigate that. So we haven't done any of this yet because we don't have this designation yet, but those are a couple of examples of things we wanna be prepared to resolve when they do come our way.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Do you know how many towns are seriously considering the 1A?

[Matt Belanger, Planning Director, Town of Williston]: I think we have about half a dozen in our working group, Chittenden County communities that we're working with up here. Folks who have designated growth centers, new town centers, and downtowns are all looking at it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you have a sense of when you might have your thoughts together to submit to us on the process ideas you mentioned for the non tier one areas?

[Matt Belanger, Planning Director, Town of Williston]: It may be as early as today. The legislative committee of VPA was drafting something yesterday. And actually, during the time that this committee was meeting, our executive committee was meeting to go over that, and prepare something for submission. It'll probably come to you from another member of our executive committee this afternoon or tomorrow.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Do members have questions? Okay. Thanks so much for your testimony.

[Matt Belanger, Planning Director, Town of Williston]: Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We

[Peter Tucker, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors]: are

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: going to reconvene back here

[Thomas Weiss, Civil Engineer]: at 02:00 with Ellen.