Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, House Environment Committee, we're going to continue walking through draft 1.2 of S-three 25. We have two representatives from the Land Use Review Board here with us now, and we were previously discussing a new Section eight that we added to have kind of reconsideration of an application rather than going back to the district coordinator or that district commission, go to the Land Use Review Board. And then we started talking about JOs and whether they should do the same. Ellen reminded us there are rules for that. I guess I'm curious if you have comments or suggestions.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Sure. Can go ahead. Sure. I'm Brooke Dingledeen. I'm a member of the Land Use Review Board. So reconsiderations of either jurisdictional opinions, well, of jurisdictional opinions, go back normally to the district court reporter, the same person. And it is fashioned off of the court rules when a tribunal makes a decision if some fundamental mistake, either understanding the law or applying it to the facts that's obviously erroneous, has occurred. It's an opportunity to point that out before an appeal is taken to try to correct an obvious stake at that level. Normally, it goes back to the original decision maker. I don't believe that on denials there's any reconsideration available to ask the district commission to do such a thing. On jurisdictional opinions? On denials of permits? Permits.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: There is. There There's certainly amending its statute.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Okay. That's provision, I guess, that I was not commemorative. You were just listening to this conversation. My only point about it is reconsideration is a fairly limited it's erroneous, there's a mistake made. And if you were contemplating having a hearing by the Land Use Review Board, that would suggest taking evidence or looking at the evidence and making perhaps a substantive decision, a different decision, or looking at the facts and find the law to come to another conclusion that may be the same conclusion. So those are just two different processes or requests. And just wanted to be sure that there was an understanding of what exactly you were asking the language community board to do.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, thank you for that. That's very helpful. I think this may fall into the bucket of we should not meddle right now in this. Let it be and trust that we know you all at your earliest convenience are going to be updating your rules to reflect the changes that have happened. Representative Chapin?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I'd just love to take a moment and let the committee know that I've been keeping a running list of parking lot issues around Act 180 that we're probably not gonna deal with this year, but that people are raising just because we've gotten so much great feedback and testimony and so many different thoughts. I just wanted to share that I'm just doing that, and I'd be happy to share it at some point. I'm gonna add this one to the list.

[Unidentified Member]: Based on your comment, does that mean that the new section eight is actually stricken or

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Member]: I think we should have. Okay.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: I don't know. We're taking it out.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Taking it out.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: This falls under. This would need a lot of consideration, and maybe there's something there, but it's not focused right now. And

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the next section, nine, is the one where how municipal 1A municipalities would take over Act two fifty permits, right? Yes. And you've was the lawyer part of that testimony in the Senate?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Section nine I'm sorry to myself here. Page eight and nine.

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: So, yes, this is, yeah, Pete Gill, Executive Director of Belenius from the board. This section is dealing with Tier 1A and the enforcement of those permits and the transfer of that. So we were part of the discussion on that. This is not the wording that we provided, but

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we were part of that decision.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I don't know. The big concern that I think that we had and Townsend was taking all of that two fifty.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We understand the concern. All of it all at once. This would allow for more incremental. Yeah. Okay.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: All right. And so that language hasn't changed as it came out from the Senate. And so the next on page 10, section 10 is new. This is amending Act 181, section 34, which is a report currently entitled Tier two Area Report. But given that you're getting rid of Tier two in this draft, you have options on what you want to do with this report. Currently, in the provision, it still says that it's due 02/15/2026, which has already passed. But you can consider extending that, especially if you're going to be changing in some way what you want them to look at in this report. And so as a sort of proposal on what to call the report, you can talk about this, but on page 10, line nine, tools to promote intact working lands and conservation of critical natural resources area or critical natural resources report. And so, yes, it still says 02/15/2026, the Land Use Review Board shall report recommendations to address Act two fifty jurisdiction in areas without municipal delegation of Act two fifty review.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: So I'm

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: going to go back to y'all. The other day, we invited the Lurb in to talk about the tier two report, I'm not sure, have you all started it? Have you started the tier two report?

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I don't believe that the report has been started. The AOFD portion of it, there was work done on that. It became apparent all of these were so intermingled that we felt we really needed to get to that chronologically later after the other tier was further along, especially tier three. We were trying to do many different tests.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes, yes. I just was curious. Okay. Anyway, I think this section will also require some fine tuning, which I'm happy to take the lead on, but I also want to just keep walking through it.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so you have the option to change as much or as little of this as you'd like. There are a couple of references to tier two, but the rest of it is talking about the different aspects of working lands and jurisdiction. So, line 14, And you were talking last week about perhaps tier one will be called municipal delegated areas. So I have added that reference here.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And actually, I don't want to call them out separately. It was kind of our intent to not protect critical resources in areas with delegation. That was never the intent of what we were doing. Clarify that. And further, the issue of ag lands and other things. So I think we need to rename things, move away from tears, and not treat our natural resources differently based on where they are.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: So, the recommendation shall recommend statutory to address fragmentation of rural and working lands while allowing for development, Address how to apply location based jurisdiction to, and it says currently Tier two areas, but striking that. How to apply location based jurisdiction while meeting statewide planning goals, including how to address commercial development. So I'll pause there for a second. So that was my recommendation on line 17 about striking reference to tier two. I think the sentence works without it, but you also can rework it in a different way to accomplish whatever you'd like them to be looking at specifically.

[Representative Rob North]: Representative North? Yes, Madam Chair, given your comment about regardless of of where the natural resources are on a particular do we really want line thirteen and fourteen, that that yellow without municipal direct activity review? I mean, do should this report just cover the entire state? Yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It should.

[Representative Rob North]: Okay. So we're delete that yellow. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, I think it's going to get kind of entirely agree with. So I made a stab at the title for the report, and it's not intended to just be focused on Act two fifty as the tool. So it's like collecting other ways of addressing the issue. Right, the bigger thing we've been talking about.

[Unidentified Member]: Reflectively, again. Line 18 meetings should be asked to be taken out.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, sure. Right. So at the bottom of page 10 into page 11, so including how to address commercial development, and which also shall include review of the effectiveness of mitigation of impacts on primary agricultural soils and making recommendations for how to improve protections for this natural resource. Review of the effectiveness of jurisdictional triggers for development of retail and service businesses outside village centres and Criterion 9L in addressing sprawl and strip development, and how to improve the effectiveness of Criterion 9L. And review of whether and how Active 50 jurisdiction over commercial activities on farms should be revised, including accessory on farm businesses. The report will be submitted to House Committee on Agriculture and this committee, although we can update the name of it, and then the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. And then at the end, subsection C, I've added subsection C, which is the list of stakeholders to be involved in the Tier three rulemaking process, Because you discussed last week that number, the large input of the stakeholders there. So, I wasn't sure if you wanted to keep all of them or how you wanted to frame it, because currently this report does not have a stakeholder explicit process.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And just to clarify, with the computer, are you saying you feel like you've already done the Accessory on Farm Business report?

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: We have started work on it.

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: There was not a working group on it. We did have a working group on it previously, and we authored a report that was issued years ago, I think, now. So there is a lot of good information in that. There's probably still some language out there that could be revised or relooked at in the context of this.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: I thought we exempted this accessory farm.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: So yes, there is an exemption in Act two fifty currently for some accessory out farm businesses.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: So what is this referring to?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They want more. Yeah. Okay.

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: There's a It sounds If I may, there's an explicit provision that does not, for our exemption, does not include events on farms. That had been an area that has come up.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: And I do think that there is, in one bill that's circulating, in addition to a business being able to sell certain amount, I think it's $250,000 worth of non qualifying goods, so non farm products, whereas currently the touchstone is whether or not more than 50% of the products that are sold are the qualifying farms. Which previously was satisfactory.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Many farmers.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: And the alert testimony on that particular item was our preference that because we are working on this and trying to a broker or not to have something come into law temporarily or to allow us to do the work to make the right

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: decisions. Yeah. Representatives, Richard.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: What would be the downside to lowering that to make it work full? What's the downside of decreasing that number? So

[Representative Ela Chapin]: there's a huge diversity of kinds of accessory on The concept of accessory on farm businesses includes everything from farm stands to wedding venues and restaurants and things that do involve a lot of impact on the rest of the neighbors and other parts of town and the roads. So a lot of neighbors and municipalities aren't comfortable with extending no land use provisions over certain kinds of larger scale activities. Traffic, a lot of things that are covered in zoning and. And there's a real diversity of opinion within the agricultural community, within the land conservation community, within the municipal communities about where that line should fall. It just really depends on who you ask and how impactful it is to somebody's financial bottom line. Could open a wedding venue on a farm and do it with permits and and get those permits and and make it work. And for some people, they don't either they feel like they can't go out through that process or they they won't go through that process or laborers won't make it easy for them to go through that process. So there's just a of challenges, and it's really unique in every different situation.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And interestingly, it gets to the acreage trigger. So it's a commercial what happens is a lot of farms, legit farms, they have a lot of acreage. So even in a 10 acre town, they want to do a commercial activity. Any other business would have to get a regular permit. But that's why it's very important because we provide a lot of exemptions for agriculture, including to Act two fifty. But the difference between Was it a farm? Is it a business to support a farm? Or is it a farm to support a business? It's kind of what we're always struggling to define. Representative Larry.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: In my area, there are several farms that are well diversified, wedding venues, anniversaries. I don't have the issue with that, but I have the issue with bait barking.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: One of the issues that comes up with commercial

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: activity, when you're looking at converting a hayfield into not every farm accessory is a fish concert.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: think that is an example of what it did to those feeds.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Some are, right.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: So I think it needs to be regulated. But somewhere along the way, we're going to have to solicit information on sight's ability.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, that's what we say they keep coming back to. But anyway, another place for us.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: I wanted to understand. I digress. Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. So then Ellen's brought over the working group, to advise on the report back. And I expect that we will what I would like to do and I will do is look at the tier three things we ask them to do there and see which ones would be great. And I don't know if you got to that, Ellen, or

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a very broad list. And so because the rest of this report is looking at different working lands, you may want to keep them all.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, the tier three list. Yeah. So

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't I kept the whole list because this is about also primary agricultural soils. Oh, page 11 at the bottom, the yellow part.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, that's the stakeholder group. I'm talking about the things we were looking at in tier three. Oh. Resources.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Oh. And how we want

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to include them in study.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay. I did not know that.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: We might want to make some suggestions.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We will. That's what I said. I'm gonna I'll look at that. Representative Chittenden.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I wanted to ask about, so one of the things we heard a lot of feedback about, we heard feedback from some of the stakeholders that they didn't feel like they were as engaged or listened to. We also heard from a lot of Vermonters that they felt like their voices weren't part of the process, particularly landowners. And I saw in Act 181, something that I can't remember where it was in relationship to this working group. I think there's a section that says this working group shall engage the voices of landowners and people affected by, I think at the time it was tier three. I guess I would propose that we pull that language in and exhaust it.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, it's a list of things I want to look at to bring in. Yeah, exactly. On that list. And that was when it's on Ellen's slide that we looked at the other day.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, this was subsection c. That was subsection d. It was after that. But I I guess I didn't understand.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. We're just starting. What percent of North Tagliavia being North and Labor?

[Unidentified Member]: In section c, the highlighted area, Farm Bureau has been asked to be added to this group as well as for Vermont Forest Products Association.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: And maybe it's the same thing that Ela was talking about, but just rural property owners, individual people, everything listed in section C here is organizations and groups, so about just a couple of owners.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, yes. The way the language was municipalities and rural property owners in the tier three. So, yes. And you know, for this group to consider is Yes, I agree, they should be added to this. And this is an information gathering report for the legislature to then figure out how to reach out to providers, which is fine to have them on here, but that's the way I'm seeing this currently.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: This isn't doing the work. This is the group that's going to define how to tell us or suggest to us.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They're going to collect the options, then what is the next legislature? I'm trying to work within the time constraints of reality that we have right here.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, page 12.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm happy to tee this up a little bit. One of the things that I feel like has actually come up over the years with Act two fifty and its relationship to the legislature is kind of what we're experiencing right now, people having issues with individual project reviews, and then legislators proposing statutory changes that affect the whole state based on one issue that might have gone awry with the district coordinator or some other piece. And then as we've unpacked how this has been rolled out, there's also been like, well, maybe a lack of understanding or communication between the legislature and the Land Use Review Board on legislative intent. And so, I actually met with other chairs who are on other areas of jurisdiction in the legislature who have standing oversight committees and kind of got to this idea that maybe it's time for the environment to have a standing oversight committee as a clearinghouse also to help people when there are constituent concerns that come up as a bridge between just making statutory changes and then addressing maybe it's personnel issues or administrative issues. But it just struck me that we should try this on as a tool so that the legislature is more actively engaged in both the land use review for it, but also the agency of natural resources on a more regular basis. Because the same thing can be said for that too. We're hearing about wetland stuff. We're hearing about permitting issues as just a liaison for the legislature when we're not in session. So, Ellen, maybe take it from here. You've done some research on how those other committees were organized and has brought us an idea.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So, so section 11 on page 12 is a brand new section that hasn't been previously discussed, and it would be adding a new chapter 32 to title two. And so title two is the title on the legislature and its its committees. So, there are at least five standing oversight committees that are joint committees between the House and the Senate. And so, the the language establishing them is pretty boilerplate. There's a couple of things that you can customize, but this most of this language I sort of just copied and inserted a couple of small changes to be specific to this. You can be a lot more specific and do a lot more customization if you'd like, but setting up a committee that meets primarily outside of the session with legislators having specific oversight of agencies is pretty boilerplate. So, like, this is pretty consistent with what those other committees include. But if you'd like to make changes, you can.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just tell us what the other ones were. Was it

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: there is joint legislative justice. Yep. So joint justice. There's also joint health care reform. There is joint transportation. There's joint information technology.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just means

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Joint pension. Yes. And then joint pension. So, it just means a joint between the the house and the senate.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I I mean, it's interesting. I read that you focused it on permitting. I I was thinking it was more just broad, more broad than that, but you can try this on.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I wasn't sure how to Okay, so creation of the committee. So, there's created a joint legislative permitting oversight committee, and maybe you want to adjust that, whose membership shall be appointed each biennial session of the General Assembly. The committee shall exercise oversight over the Land Use Review Board and the Agency of Natural Resources permitting processes. And again, happy to be changing that to reflect exactly what your intent is. Composition, the committee shall be composed of five members, three members of the House who shall not be from the same party appointed by the speaker, and two members from the senate who not who shall not be of the same party appointed by the committee on committees.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Can I just ask also that this represent representation from Chittenden? Like, Yes,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: but I think you might get overruled.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I just don't want it all rural. I just want I know the state agencies will represent the urban area. Just would like I just want to make sure that it's just not all that there's a balance of voices on this far as carbon

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess I would suggest that it's got limited membership and that I would trust the speaker. If it's is it the committee committees or, I don't know, the senate?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: It could

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: be the pro tem. We've done both in the past, but

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It would have geographic distribution in mind. Okay.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Procedure. The committee shall elect a chair, vice chair, clerk. You maybe don't have to include clerk if you don't want to. It's less, in both lately. From among its members and shall adopt rules of procedure. The chair shall rotate biennially between the house and senate members. The committee shall keep minutes of its meetings. A quorum shall consist of three members.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So the thinking we need two senators and three House members is really just because there's so few senators and we have this we just sort of it's our tradition, our custom and tradition to have three from each, but they're literally All

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: on committees.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They're all on a million committees, and some of them are not able to check I did check-in with some of our senate colleagues on the natural resources committee, and they're okay with this. They understand that it's only 30 of them, and there are 150 of us, and we have a lot more opportunity to share leadership positions.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Meetings. When the General Assembly is in session, the committee shall meet at the call of the chair. The committee may meet six times during adjournment and may meet more often subject to approval of the Speaker of the House and the Pro Tem of the Senate. So, you can change this. I think this is how some of them currently operate, where they meet sort of ad hoc during the session if an issue comes up, but then they have more standing meetings outside of session. You can change that or be vague. But you, in the next section, give per diems to these members, and so that's why the Speaker and the Pro Tem are generally have to grant permission to make sure that there's money in the budget to be able to pay for legislators' time.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And do the others have that kind of limiter on them?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Some of them do and some of them don't. So some of them do have a set limit, some of them don't.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, some, like, most of them have it or don't have it or

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. I don't I don't remember off the top of my head. I can I can get back to you, though, with information on that? Compensation. So, attendance at a meeting when the General Assembly is not in session, members are entitled to compensation and reimbursement for expenses under the per diem statute 23. Assistance, the professional and clerical services of the Joint Fiscal Office and the Office of Legislative Council shall be available. Professional, maybe I should say legal, but So, Joint Fiscal and Legis Council will be available to the committee. And then, duties. So, this was, again, me taking just a first draft at it. So, the committee shall oversee the Land Use Review Board, the rollout of the statutes amended as part of 2024 Acts and Resolve No. 181, how the permitting process in Act two fifty is working, and how the new board structure is working. The committee shall also oversee the agency of national resources and their permitting process. Alright, something to think about. The next section, section 12, not changed from the Senate versions. This is the Department of Housing Community Development's report on the discretionary review of housing. And that report is due 01/15/2027.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I've re read this. Okay. It struck me that it's very much assuming that discretionary review is a bad thing. And I would like to fix that. And I'm looking for how to reduce the negative impacts of discretionary review, which I don't know if we already know them. It's like they think they know. And I'd be curious about adding something, open that up a little to the positive aspects of discretionary review. Madam Chapin.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: What section of law is this in? Is this in session law? Yes. It just seems out of place and something that they could do regardless of whether

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we have

[Representative Ela Chapin]: it in session law. Yes. It just doesn't A lot of time. I think they're gonna do it anyway. Just saying. Yeah. Doesn't feel like the right group of, August, yeah, just wondering if it's the right group to really look broadly at what discretionary review means and what the benefits are and the challenges.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, what are the benefits, what are the negative impacts? Senate, take testimony on this?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: So you may recall that this bill originally was called an act relating to a study of the creation of model bylaws. And so this report kind of got built out of that. The original ask was a report to study how to create model bylaws, and then they've tacked a few things onto it. So it did. So yes, they did take testimony and they wedged some other things into what was originally proposed.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Burlington has form based code, which is what this is. Middlebury's had form based code. There are model bylaws out there. So I guess I don't know what we're getting.

[Unidentified Member]: Representative Tagliavia. Am I hearing what you in what you just said that maybe we don't need section 12?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Seems like the folks who want it are going to do it anyway, and the model codes are out there, and I don't sure why we need it.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Section 13, page 14 into 15. So this is the section that's amending the Regional Plan adoption and amendment process. And I have included in here, is highlighted in yellow, the language from H nine forty, the miscellaneous energy bill that has updates to the enhanced energy planning process that the House passed previously. And so Section 13 is amending 24 BSA 40 three-forty eight. Section H-nine 40 is also amending 40 three-forty eight. H-nine 40 is on the Senate floor on Friday to concur. And so it will pass in theory soon. If you do not include this language here, it will be overwritten by if this were if this bill were to pass. So you're making changes here that conflict with changes that are being made in September, and so there's a risk that they will, this bill would potentially override September undoing its changes unless you include them here.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This language came from where?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: The Department of Public Service worked on it with the planners, and so it was in H nine forty and house energy.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But you're saying it's different from what's in nine forty?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Your bill, s three twenty five, is different than nine forty.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This is lining it up? Yes. But we could just take it out and the changes would happen in September.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: No. So when you pass two bills that amend the same statute, if they don't match, the one that's passed later in time overrides the one that's passed earlier. And so the language that's on page 15 is the big it's not that big of an issue, but it's if you want to preserve this language, the language that's in subdivision B at the top of page 15 would be deleted from the statute if you do not include it in both bills.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's in a chicken.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: So it's just because it's this specific section. We all voted on the floor already and passed this as a body. So we're just incorporating it here so it doesn't get overwritten by our bill because it's also section forty three forty eight point eight. Yes. Then we mess up the energy bill that we passed.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: The energy bill has this exact word again. So

[Representative Ela Chapin]: it's not related to our bill, but if we don't include it here also

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think we could just take this section out

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: of our bill. Took the whole section out.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Oh, oh. I'm trying to say we could just take the whole section out. These are all kind of conforming,

[Representative Ela Chapin]: aren't they, these changes? Well, no. No.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: This is creating a separate process for regional plan amendments. I mean, it's definitely a policy choice. If you don't wanna include it, you don't have to, but let's

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: dig into the policy.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So first subsection B is clarifying that they have to sixty days prior to holding the first public meeting on the regional plan adoption. This is setting up that the next section will talk about regional plan amendment. And so currently in statute, adoption and amendment have the same process. The planners, I believe, are the ones who propose this to say that they would like a separate process for amendments, which will basically include one fewer public hearing than an adoption would.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Interesting. We've just been hearing about public engagement. Seems going backwards. So let's explore further.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: And so it's adding at the top of page 15. In addition to that, they have to submit their draft plan to the board for review and comments, and if it's seeking an optional determination of energy compliance to the Department of Public Service for review and comments related to conformance of the draft plan with 4352. So currently 4,302 has a parallel process by which Regional Planning Commissions submit their energy plan to the Department of Public Service. This would have the review happen at the same time. And then subsection C is striking out reference to an amendment as well as in subsection D, and that is because this is just going to be the process for Regional Plan adoption and amendment will be addressed further on in subsection N. Next on page 16, again, the language data to enhance energy planning is being added. So at least thirty days prior to the first hearing, the Regional Planning Commission shall provide each of its members with written description of the changes. The Regional Planning Commission shall, if it is seeking an optional determination of energy compliance, solicit feedback on its enhanced energy plan, including consistency with 4352 and the planning standards. So again, just incorporating that process into the process that already will happen for regional regional plan adoption. Sections E and F also strike reference to the amendment process. On page 17, subsection H is adding again the language that's in nine forty. Fifteen days following adoption of the plan, the RPC shall submit the plan to the Land Use Review Board for determination of compliance. And then again, adding the language from 09:40, the Regional Planning Commission shall also at this time, if seeking an optional determination of energy compliance, submit the plan to the Department of Public Service for review with conformance and a summary of any comments received during the public hearings. So those are the changes from 09:40 that are added here. If you don't want to include them, you don't have to. And then on page eighteen and nineteen, there are a couple of changes that are highlighted because you all were discussing last week. As proposed, this subsection N was about regional plan amendments, non minor future land use map amendments and tier one B area status requests. You all discussed whether or not it should be non minor or major because subsection J does address minor plan amendments, which are those having to do with fewer than 10 acres. I have changed the references here to major, but you do not have to keep that. It was slightly unclear to me if you decided.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Seems more straightforward, unless there's something we don't know about why they want it non minor or non major. Non

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: minor is very negative.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. I don't think it's significant in and of itself, but I think perception can be a really big issue things relate to permit processes. I just think majors has competition with it that might not always be. So if 10 acres is the threshold, can we just lose them? I just wonder if there's just maybe a not major and minor, and there's something else that actually has to be a threshold. I don't need to belabor it. I'm the only one who has that concern. I'd rather use different words. That's all. I thought you were also the

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: one that brought up non minor or non major.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Sorry, minor. No, I've Oh, yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So we should just You're suggesting going back to non minor?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I think worked. It's weird. At least it doesn't have a potential really negative association and cause confusion. I think this can cause confusion in the public around changes to land use maps where people hear or see on a bulletin or whatnot, please come and learn about this major. I just worry about how it will impact the public process.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I think that's a good point. I think you're thinking.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go back to non minor. Just remind

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: After yourself yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Goes back to because minor. J You have to go refer back to the minor.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And minor amendments, fewer than 10 acres, and they don't have to do a full update process. They don't have to go do a full update of the plan. And so I think you can just perhaps consider about in general, maybe you want to merge these two concepts, or maybe you don't. But is there a type of amendment that you want the RPC to go through a fuller process for? Are there things that they could change quickly without much formal process around it, and then other changes that should have a formal hearing process or not.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that's addressed in today. It tells the LERT to figure that out. Yes.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just suggesting you could actually merge these two if you didn't want to have that distinction. You also don't have to.

[Unidentified Member]: Represents that. Yeah. Understand non minor seems awkward in major and might be too strong, so maybe it's just a different word, like, it's African.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: Why don't we just have no word? It's like amendments and minorities. Right. Future letters and amendments. Why

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: qualify it if it's not minorities?

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: It's just an amendment,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: or if it's fine, it's a minor. It's much cleaner. Yeah. No problem.

[Unidentified Member]: Minor come under this thing? Would minor then be a part of that, though?

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: Yeah. So it's the amendment or a minor amendment. Let's use the qualifier only when it's small.

[Unidentified Member]: Right. But if it's not qualified, then would amendment by itself also include minor amendments?

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: Oh, I see what you're saying.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: All within statute. All the councils.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: She got a separate section j. To be clear.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I would if you were to ask me to do that, I would make very clear that it says not including those in j. Because otherwise I do think it would be confusing.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Wish that nothing happens in such this.

[Unidentified Member]: Okay,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: so you would just like yeah, if you could do that, that'd be great. You're going to omit any qualifier for future land use map amendments, but make clear that we're talking about non minor.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: That's all the definition.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. So help us understand the difference between the minor amendment process and this non minor. Why do we need? Minor doesn't even have a public review. Yes.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: Okay.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. They submit a request to the land use review board for a minor, and then I don't think there is a public hearing. And then they don't have to do an amendment. They can just include it in the next adoption of the regional plan. So, I don't know what that looks like in practice or if any of them have done that. I presume no one has done that yet, but I think they were asking for this as part of Act 181 when they were trying to foresee what could come up with some of the boundaries with the new land use categories. And so maybe you want to just hear more about this process from them. So, the next section 14, so page 20 into 21, very small changes here. This is the statute on the land use categories for the regional plans. First, there was an in there's an incorrect typo being corrected online 18. It's the wrong cross reference.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: 18, line 15? Page

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: 20, line 18.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm not walking through the process.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Next on page 21, deleted that said it is the intent that every town have at most towns have at least one center. That sentence is removed. And then also on page twenty one and twenty two, walking distance has been put back in the statute. On page 22, down at the bottom of page 22, in the sentence version, it previously said the municipality has either public water or wastewater. If no public water or wastewater is available, the area must have soils that are out of it. And so it's taken out that it said public water or wastewater. Now it just says public wastewater. The rest of the statute is unchanged from the Senate version. Page 24, section 15. This is the definition of smart growth principles. It has not changed from the Senate version. And so then next so in the section 16 is 24 BSA 4,476. In the version that came over from the Senate, 4,476 was proposed to be repealed. And so instead of repealing it, this version would just would update it. And so this statute is the formal review of Regional Planning Commission decisions. So on page 26, this is an older statute that uses regional review panel, which is a body that hasn't existed since at least 2010. And so the references to them doing review of regional plan work is being replaced by the Land Use Review Board. And so this is mostly for discussion purposes, I think, because some of what happened in this statute is captured by the statute we were just looking at, the Regional Plan Review process that the Land Use Review Board now does. And so, to take a step back, previously, prior to 2010, there was a body that did review of regional plans, but then that body was eliminated. And so between 2010 until 2025, there was no body doing oversight of regional plans. And so this statute has been on the books and hasn't been operative because there was no body to do it, but there are other things in this statute that perhaps you'd want to consider before fully repealing it. So, I'll read through it and perhaps you will decide to repeal it anyways, because a lot of it is already captured, but some of it perhaps is not captured. Formal review, a request for formal review of the sufficiency of an adopted regional plan or amendment, or for formal review of the decision of a regional planning commission with respect to the confirmation of a municipal planning effort, or the decision relating to approval of a municipal plan shall be to the Landers Review Board created under Chapter 151. And so, as I mentioned, there used to be this body, the Regional Review Panel. A request for formal review shall be filed within twenty one days of adoption of the plan or amendment or the decision. Standing. The following have standing to request formal review or become parties to formal review conducted under this section. A person owning title to property affected by a decision of the Regional Planning Commission who alleges that the decision imposes on that property unreasonable or inappropriate restrictions that significantly impair present or potential use under the particular circumstances of the case. A municipality whose planning effort is the subject of a decision by the Regional Planning Commission and any other municipality within the region, any municipality which adjoins the region or Regional Planning Commission which adjoins the region. So, we haven't talked about this much in this committee recently, but, municipalities that have an adopted planning process by which they adopt their plan and their bylaws can have that process confirmed by the Regional Planning Commission, where the Regional Planning Commission goes through their planning process to review that it meets the requirements of Chapter 117. And so, this is sort of a dispute mechanism for that process also, which I don't think has happened. I think this has been a gap. If a municipality has dispute with a regional planning commission and their decision, I don't think there currently is a mechanism that addresses that other than what is in this non operative statute. Number three, an agency, department or other governmental subdivision of the state owning property or an interest within a municipality listed in Subdivision 2 and the agency of commerce and community development. On to page 27, any 20 persons who by signed petition alleged that the decision, if confirmed, will not be in accord with the requirements of this chapter and who own or occupy real property located within any combination of the following. Any municipality whose planning effort is the subject of the decision by the RPC, or any municipality which adjoins a municipality whose planning effort is subject to the decision by the RPC. With respect to the sufficiency of an adopted or amended Regional Plan, any 20 persons who I signed petition alleged that the Plan or amendment is not in accord with the requirements of this Chapter and who own or occupy real property located within the area that includes the Region and municipalities that enjoy the region. The Regional Planning Commission whose plan amendment or decision is the subject of request for formal review. Procedure. Notice a formal review shall be sent by mail to the municipalities within the region, to the Regional Planning Commission, and the Agency of Commerce and Community Development, and shall be accompanied by a statement of all reasons why the appellant believes the plan or opinion to be in error and all issues which the appellant believes to be relevant. Within thirty days of receipt of the notice of formal review, the date for a hearing shall be set and the Land Use Review Board shall publish notice of the hearings onto page 28 in a newspaper of general circulation in the applicable region, and shall provide notice in writing of the hearing to the individuals and organizations that had requested notice from the Regional Planning Commission under 4348 relating to the adoption of the regional plan. The appellant shall pay the cost of publication. The hearing shall be held within forty five days of receipt of notice of formal review. Upon motion for good cause shown, the board may extend the date of the hearing. Within twenty days of adjournment of the hearing, the Board shall issue a decision approving, conditionally approving, or disapproving the regional plan or amendment, or the opinion with respect to confirmation of the municipal planning effort or approve the municipal plan. The Board shall be governed by the provision of contested cases in previous chapter 25. Issues on formal review. With respect to formal review of the sufficiency of an adopted or amended regional plan, the Board shall determine whether the plan contains the elements required by law, whether the plan is compatible with plans of adjoining regions, and whether the plan is consistent with the goals of Section 4,302. On to page 29. With respect to formal review of a Regional Planning Commission decision on the confirmation of a municipal planning effort, the board shall determine whether the municipality is engaged in a continuing planning process that within a reasonable time will attain consistency with the goals established in 4302 and whether the municipality is maintaining its effort to provide local funds for municipal and regional planning purposes. With respect to formal review of Regional Planning Commission decision on the approval or disapproval of a municipal plan, the Board shall determine whether the plan is consistent with the goals in 4302, whether the plan is compatible with its regional plan, and whether the plan is compatible with approved plans of other municipalities in the region. The filing of a notice of formal review shall not stay the effect of the plan or the decision of the Regional Planning Commission unless so ordered by the board. On to page 30. If notice of formal review of a decision of a Regional Planning Commission to approve or disapprove a Municip Plan is filed prior to final adoption of the Plan, the Board shall stay formal, view proceedings pending that final pending final adoption. The Board, however, may proceed with formal review upon the request of the municipality whose plan is subject of the review. And finally, an appeal from a decision shall be to the Supreme Court. So, you have amended 24 VSA 4348 to provide the Land Use Review Board authority to review regional plans and have them reviewed for consistent with see with the statute. This statute 4,476 also addressed the municipal planning process review by RPCs and the municipal plan review by RPCs. And so, that is a current gap in the statute, I would say. And so, if you're interested in addressing who reviews the RPCs decisions and review, That's what this statute did, and it also had an appeal route to the Supreme Court. So, if you repeal this statute, you will lose, I think, those two specific things, the review of regional plan review and then the ability to appeal further to the Supreme

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Court. So you couldn't appeal to the Supreme Court if we don't have this in statute? I mean, it seems like you appeal any decision of a body or to the environmental court.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: So, these two specific aspects of regional plans decisions, yeah, there's I don't think

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I know it's the first time that the two members from the Land Use Review Board have seen this language, but I guess I'm curious at first read, how much are you already doing of this effort? And then for us to discuss is like, is this redundant? Because presumably, Land Use Review Board is already looking at all the plans and checking them for this. This also provides an individual property owner the avenue to appeal how their land is treated in the region. If we repeal it, I mean, albeit it was the regional planning commissions overseeing themselves or each other. And my historic understanding of that, that it was more of almost a quality control feature of checking each other. But I hadn't really thought about the individual landowners' right to appeal the decisions or the plan.

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: The board obviously has not reviewed this yet and can't take a position on it, but you're correct in terms of the existing session under 01/1981 allowing the board to review regional plans. That does seem to be redundant with what you have here or what exists, I guess, under this. But the municipal side of it, we don't have that. I think that's correct.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The individual landowner. I mean, it's certainly conceivable that someone owns a piece of property and didn't know about the planning process, wasn't engaged in the planning process, or otherwise aware of it? And how do they I mean, these are not land use decisions, but they are potentially affecting someone's property.

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yet there is a process for objectors within the process In your process. In the current process that we're standing up for regional plan review.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What about an objector, though, who's outside of the formal process of regional plan review? If they become aware of something, you've already approved a regional plan, and they come to you after, are you including that in your process that you're standing up?

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm not sure at this point. Yeah, I can look at that, though.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think I would ask if you can put this out to your board and get us some the response you're able to do on short notice. Yeah, Brooke?

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I would just one thing that I would look at, and I will, is whether or not Rule 70 four-seventy five might give an avenue of appeal to individual land member as a result of governmental action.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: One governs

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: if there is a path laid out, and the other is if there is no path laid out. So not having that provision might then trigger civil rules so that you wouldn't go to the environmental division. It would be regular civil court in the county in which the land would reside.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And you're talking about your own land use from View Board Rule 74 or 75?

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: No, this would be the rules of civil procedure for going to court. And often, there is an appeal route. So if the Supreme Court appeal route would be written into statute, that's what would be available to that plan owner. If that was not there, civil rules might give a path when there is not one specified in statute.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Others have thoughts on this?

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: Representative Barnes? Was there a regional review panel in existence? Are they meeting? Do they review these?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No, they stopped in 2010.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, they were repealed from statute. Yeah, so that's how this started, there was a proposed Don't process. Well, the proposal in the Senate was that this whole statute should be repealed because the body who did this work was repealed fifteen years ago.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So that was an oversight that took me this section in, do think?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: It is unclear to me why it was not repealed originally.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you remember or have you learned I used to know this, but I doubt the history of why this oversight group went away. Did we just not fund it?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I do not recall. I can get back to you. I looked into it a few years ago. I don't recall. There are members of legislature who are still here who worked on it then who may remember also, but I don't know.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Chapin?

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I guess I feel like these issues around different parties and their access to some kind of legislative, judicial process seems important. I don't want to get stuck on this with just sort of taking this up on, feels like the eleventh hour, I don't want to lose it. So I appreciate walking through it today and just understanding. So thanks to Legis Council for flagging this for us and for having a chance today to walk through it. Guess I wonder if we can get a little bit of feedback in the short timeframe free, and it feels like we could ask the LERB, if the LERB is the right body, to make recommendations on this for next January if we don't feel like we can move forward.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Question is do we repeal it or not repeal it? Because senate proposal repeals it.

[Representative Ela Chapin]: I guess if we're gonna repeal it and not replace it, I would propose we make a section that asks for recommendations on how to get at this and make sure there are avenues for review and that appeal. I'd repeal it.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm concerned about the appeal process in general, how time consuming it is and expensive it is, and how it can hold up things. So I would appeal it. And, you know, something put in that I'm aware.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: I'm thinking in the back of my mind somewhere, and I'm probably way off base. I might be relating it to something else. But I was thinking they were recoplanants about appeal.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They're not right now. Well, I mean, are they actually, Ellen? Currently, this isn't repealed, but there's no body to do it. So I guess technically they're not, unless what Dean Ladean just said would be the procedure under civil rules of procedure. That would be the only advocate.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: The last, think it's the last section of Title 24, actually has a statute of limitations. I can't recall off the top of my head about looking at it, if it's the municipal or regional plans or both, but it allows to challenge a lot of people do defects and pretty much it's inactive, that kind of thing. So that does suggest there is expectation that there could be enough people. Again, I'm not referring to this small town.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Towns and regional plaintiffs actually appeal. Did you have something representative of Ellen, what

[Unidentified Member]: would happen if we just leave it alone? Is there anything negative consequences that we foresee? It seemed like this was brought up because it was kind of a housekeeping thing more than anything else. It's not actively causing a problem instead to keep it here at the moment. Is that right?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: It has been in statute without the review panel for the last fifteen, sixteen years. I have been made aware that there is litigation currently about whether or not this appeal right still exists.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Litigation about whether the appeal right still exists.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Yes. Because

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: someone wanted to appeal and couldn't. I believe so. So how do we find out more about that?

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: I don't know.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. Perhaps I can look into it.

[Unidentified Member]: Further thinking that if it hasn't been an active problem, but we also just heard that we don't know really why it wasn't repealed at the time that the rest of

[Representative Ela Chapin]: the law

[Unidentified Member]: changed. So maybe there was a reason. So it just seems like do no harm. We we leave it until we have more information, and then we can take it out when we're sure that it's really worth thinking. An appeal about lack of appeals. There's currently an appeal about a lack of ability to appeal. Is that what you said? Or

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: there's litigation.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not I cannot speak confidently about what the litigation is about. I'm happy to I that's all I can say, I think, at this point.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We will appeal too. Yeah. That's right.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: Question, madam chair.

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: Just wanna clarify on what Larry was trying to get at. When you say leave it alone, leave it in here, but with the little changes we made to enact Land Use Review Board as the person would feel good? That's a

[Unidentified Member]: good question. No, to leave it alone in statute since

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: With the nonexistent review panel. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How long would it take the Land Use Review Board to just give us a quick read on how much of this is already covered in your process?

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Let's see. I mean, we meet on Mondays. So we will be meeting this next Monday, and we can certainly bring it up.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: And I think we

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: can also talk with our general counsel in advance to try to get it teed up and then answer as soon as possible, so that she could give a recommendation to the board. That

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: would be good. Thank you.

[Unidentified Member (primary for this ID; see time-bounded overrides)]: Okay. Then the next question will be, this does state in the land use review boards, we're going have to review all the regional appointments. And what's the time frame on that?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They already do that. They do that. This is only if people are aggrieved. But maybe the point is what you're making is with this bog jump down potentially. I think we can ask a few questions and get back to this topic. Okay, moving on.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 30, section 17. This is the regional municipal plan extension. And so now it is for any regional municipal plan due to expire in twenty twenty six seven shall have its plan extended until 12/31/2027. Section 18 does not have changes in it. This is the section that amends the definition section of the Community Investment Program.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, so we took we did hear some testimony on this today, and I think there'll be a recommendation that we want to look at for next time that I'll get you as soon as I get it. But the gist of it was be cautious in expanding areas designation without commensurate increases in funding, partly that, but also perhaps just caution around this right now, taking it away from our historic centers.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Section 19 is amending 24 BSA 5,803, which is the designation of downtown and village centers. This language also has not changed from the Senate version.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: High level reminders.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Is striking reference to the regional plans identifying these areas as eligible.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: And then striking a section considered redundant. Section 20 is the eligibility for downtown and village center tax credits. That language also has not changed.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. Thank you, Valerie.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: And the effective date is July 1 now instead of on capacity.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank Back to you,

[Representative Ela Chapin]: Ela. Thanks, Deb.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right, members. It's our work for today. I would say that we'll be spending some time with Ellen the next coming days. So we'll be adding time on his depth, continued work on this.