Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Welcome to the House Environment Committee. We're gonna be taking up draft 4.2 of s three twenty five with our legislative count. Welcome back. Ellen Chittenden, Office

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of Legislative Council. Draft 4.2. So, as with prior versions, the changes are in yellow And then there is one thing that is bolded as a reminder, which is the potential appropriation and the, like, engagement plan. Other than that, it should be the same as the prior version. I'll start quickly, on page one, some something that hasn't changed, but on in section three, the effective date section from Act 181. So you are getting rid of the effective dates for the things that you are repealing. But what is left in Subdivision one is the effective date related to the new criterion 8C, which is here from the Senate at 01/01/2028. And I'm mentioning this because only the effective date is being changed here of when that law takes effect. The actual deadline for the rules related to criterion 8C have not changed previously to match that. And so that has been added to this draft on page seven. And so we're gonna get to that momentarily, but I they're separated by distance in this bill. So I just wanted to make sure you knew upfront. We're also gonna be referring to that. The first change in yellow is on page four, and this is in the interim exemptions. This is the interim exemption to a, which is the 50 units of housing, and you have had a couple you had a couple different iterations of this language. So what's in here currently, I think sort of combines what the Land Use Review Board was proposing and with what you were discussing. And so it has been broken into two sentences. So, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, until 01/01/2028, no permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of housing projects, such as cooperatives, condominiums, dwellings, or mobile homes with 50 units or fewer. Period. To qualify, the housing project, including any land incidental to the use of the housing projects, such as lawns, parking lots, driveways, leach fields, and accessory buildings shall be on 10 contiguous acres or less located entirely within either the designated center with the one quarter mile around it or the urbanized areas.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And that language came from the LERP.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And you all had been discussing contiguous or disturbed. And so it's the contiguous came from your discussion yesterday.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Chittenden for Austin. Yeah. Just I had mentioned to you to change mobile homes to manufactured homes since that seems like the language we're using now.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Sorry. Where is it? Oh, there. Yeah. Got it. Yep.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mobile Okay. Homes is used a number of other times in Act two fifty, so we can change it here. You may wanna consider that it's used in a number of other places as well, including in this section. It's been other places.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: That's not then. Excuse

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: me. I I understand. No. Just for consistency. Gonna If create an inconsistency, we then have to Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I can put it in our parking lot.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Yeah.

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

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Very tiny technical question. Mhmm. I'm sorry. But should should there be a comma after shall be before the on 10 to to qualify, comma, the housing project, comma, and then there's a list that qualifies what the housing project is, comma. I'm sorry. Not after shall be, but before the shall be. Yeah. Between the buildings and the shall be. Oh, it's that little phrase there.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I think the c

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: s c through buildings is like a qualifier on housing projects. Sure.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It hasn't this hasn't gone to the editors yet either because I wrote it. Okay. So yes. Okay.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Yep. Thanks.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other questions?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Just a brief one on the 10 contiguous acres. That could be 12, but two of the acres aren't buildable. Is that what this is intended to mean? We had conversation around that. Or is it Yeah. Yeah. That's that's what I'm thinking.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: May or may not be buildable, but the idea is to get the houses to be clustered.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay.

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

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next change is on page seven, and it's the criterion eights

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: I mentioned a minute ago.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Currently, the effective date for the criterion eight c force blocks and habitat connectors in Section three takes effect 01/01/2028. But the due date for the rules regarding the new criterion still are due June 15, and so this language would change that. And so, this says that the Board shall final proposed rules to the Secretary of State and LCAR on or before 06/15/2027.

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

[Rep. Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: So my question is, know the lurb had sent us a I think sent the committee something wanting to extend that to 07/01/2028. Right? I see we made one of the changes, but we didn't I was thinking not A sure we had and a half, and we're giving them a year. And then we're lining up with the senate to lift the state. So, yes, it

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is different from what they ask.

[Rep. Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: Okay. Is there a reason we aren't doing what they're considering what they're asking? I guess, why would we not consider that?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess my feeling is that a year this this rulemaking is actually due right now, 06/01/2026. And so if you look at

[Rep. Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: it that way, getting a consent and

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think these rules are simpler than the rules, the others, that were being

[Rep. Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: stood up and that a year is a reasonable amount. And it also lines up with the deliverable date, which is also around a lot of the dates that we are using to fill or exemptions.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Others have thought?

[Rep. Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. Wondering, I mean, if they thought it was reasonable, why would they ask for it to be in July?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Senator Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: They're a pretty new board. They just went through rulemaking that we just then, middle of it, just repealed. I guess they might think they need multiple years. I think we're saying by next year and next spring, this time next year, they

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: could come back and say, we're not there yet. Why? I'd rather personally to get as far along on this as possible next year, personally.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Next, still on page seven, section nine is the public engagement plan. So there are a couple of changes in here, based on the conversation that you had yesterday. So, still on or before 01/15/2027, the Board shall contract with the nongovernmental organization to develop a report with recommendations for a public engagement plan.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I was just trying to align the beginning of this section at the end where it says the report's due on this date. So we don't usually say recommendations are due. We just say some report is pretty much standard language. I'm I'm just trying to align it so it's not confusing.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I do have revised suggestion of a section, but

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I don't know if you can help me.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Should we walk through this and then have you Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Okay. Is it

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a significant rewrite or just a few?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It's really just section a. A significant rewrite of section A. But the end of this, if you should walk through these, they'll be retained.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then further down this paragraph at the top of page eight, the semicolon is restored. And then also rewriting what you were just the language yesterday has been moved into another sentence that says, The plan shall be designed to be inclusive and engage a full range of stakeholders. I should have had the phrase inclusive of stakeholders.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So, I

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: would suggest that we take Section A and instead of having the Land Use Review Board be the entity that is responsible for the report, have the Natural Resources Conservation Council, which is a state entity, be responsible for the report and be directed to contract with, I mean, is just a decision for our committee to make. We just heard proposal for this a little bit ago. But to contract with the Vermont Council on Rural Development and the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts in to develop a report outlining recommendations for public engagement plan in consultation with the Land Use Review Board and the Land Access and Opportunity Board, making sure the LERB and the LAOB are weighing in on that that framework for an outreach and engagement. So it's just our choice, I think, right now as to whether we want to direct the LERB to go and find a contractor or whether we want to direct the LERB to fund the council, which can then fund the two organizations we heard from earlier today, or whether we want to just direct those two organizations because we can't. We did not know. I did not think we could directly fund VCRD two days ago or a couple of hours ago. What we heard this morning is that those organizations, because one of them they're both set up in federal statute and one of them has a state entity that oversees their work, we can directly ask them to do this work.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Rob? Yeah. I think you have. And so the state entity is not VCRD directly, but it's they're they're under a parent?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: So what I heard was VCRD is sort of says is a five zero one c three. So it's really not a it's a nongovernmental entity, but it is sort of It was created under federal statute for every state to have a rural development organization that does sort of that kind of work that they do. But they're coming in in partnership with the RCDs, the sorry, the many acronyms. Too many acronyms. The conservation districts and the conservation districts are set up under an entity called Natural Resources Conservation Council, and that that is a state entity set up in state statute, and they don't have any staff. They contract with the conservation districts To staff the council and carry out the work of the council. And so the council is the entity that we could directly send money to they're already in and receive state money. They're already in the state budget. And we could add a little money to their line items so that they would have a capacity to contract with both VCRD and the Association of Conservation Districts to develop a plan. And then that plan would come back to us next January. That date has also been changed in here. They would be providing us a framework, and I'm going to add a timeline. They would have to give us timeline and estimates of what it would cost. So next session, the legislature could consider. I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: used to know this, but does the NRCC, the council have they have no staff and it's a volunteer board? How how would they contract? They contract already.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: They

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Who are they to do the contracting if they don't have staff? Who's on the council? I don't

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Or if they don't have staff, then I'll get how they're doing something.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Well, they they they have an agreement with the conservation districts to provide the staffing for the council, not just.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's what I was trying there to do the work is my point.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Right. And right now, they

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: yes. It's a little circular. It has. Yeah.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Per their website. Structure and governance, the NRCC board consists of nine voting members, which includes six representatives from conservation districts organized by regions of neighboring conservation districts referred to as supervisory unions. There are several responsibilities to serve on the board, including interface with and provide feedback to the state and federal representatives attending NRCC meetings, helping execute the business of the NRCC, sharing policies and activities of the NRCC with the conservation districts and supervisory unions, and supervise and oversee annual election of district supervisors. There are three additional voting members of the NRCC, including the Secretary of Natural Resources, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director of UVM Extension.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's interesting. Interesting. It's a nice diagram there.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Additionally, there are associate or nonvoting members who provide support, assistance, and information and participate in discussions. They include the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service state conservationist and the director of the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: And they can act as a fiduciary for the conservation districts. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't know that.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I don't know. That's what we're asking for Yeah. Them to

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They do have a board. Yeah. Alright. What it looks like representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. I would really like someone from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission to be on it as well, because it states clearly that these people are experts in outreach to rural communities. But I would just like Chittenden County representative.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: County is part of one of the special districts. Yeah, I know, but it seems like it's a little out of way of seeing this. But you're suggesting we amend, presuming that's in statute, that you want us to add a member to this organization's board? No, no, to this vote. Yeah.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I think representative Chapin is proposing to actually rewrite that already. Are you reframing the other sentence in subsection A? Yes.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: But it doesn't mean we're adding.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So the Winooski Natural Resource Conservation District would cover Chittenden County. It's Chittenden County. And they're very active. Mean, you think you're an urban district, but you're not. There's a lot of it's like an adventurous conversation. There's a very active conservation district. In fact, they're one of best districts.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: No, I know. I know that.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: So they'll be I'll priority on this

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: go along with what you recommend, but I do feel like it's a very different demographic, you know, just in terms of enterprise and politics. I think it's a very different section of the mod and this representation.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It'll have the same representation as everyone else.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm not sure what body you're talking about, but this Well, charges committee. There's not a committee. There's no committee. That's what I'm trying to say. So this charges two organizations that we heard from this morning. Yep. Both of which cover all of Vermont, 100%, to design a public engagement plan for us and for them to consult with both the Land Use Review Board and the Land Access and Opportunity Board, also two organizations of which have engagement statewide to design that process. And in the public engagement plan so the rest of that section A, I'll just read it. I rewrote this a little bit because of the change. So the contractors shall ensure the plan would maintain neutrality on policy and political issues, utilize neutral facilitation for statewide democratic public engagement, and be designed to be inclusive and meaningfully engage a full range of stakeholders, including rural Vermont residents and landowners and historically marginalized communities. So I've been sort of taking pieces that have been important to different people and trying to make sure we're capturing a lot of that. So maybe there's a place in there to because we're calling out rural residents and landowners, maybe you want something in there, but

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: We to rural. I mean, can we just say communities in Vermont?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: We don't have to state, just including Vermont residents and landowners. That'd be great. But I guess one of the points I was trying to make there in addition to where that might fit is that these two organizations are being tasked with providing us a plan about how to engage all kinds of stakeholders. And it's really their job to make sure the plan they present to us is very robust and inclusive. And then we get to look at it next year. Future legislator here gets to look at that next year and could decide if this isn't inclusive enough for gender equality. But why don't

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: we do it ahead of time? Why don't we just take overall? Because

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: personally, I tried to keep this as succinct as possible and really rely on their expertise for statewide public engagement and not Sometimes we do. We say the plan has to include I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: think Representative Austin is just asking about the word rule.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. I mean, I I think when I asked her to come and she had any more thought about that that didn't even occur to me.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Think she was thinking more like that. I think she was thinking more like Bolchester. I would imagine that most parts of Colchester wouldn't even

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I don't think she'll know. I

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: think she just wasn't prepared to exactly answer your question. Didn't I mean, she did answer it. Like, I don't know. She couldn't answer your question.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Talking about all of Vermont. Right?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The fact that the mall yes. Yes.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: So why do we have to put rural in there? Why can't we just say Only because rural Vermonters have telling us for the

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: last two months how uninvited and unincluded they felt. That's why I included it. But now if you're speaking up for urban Vermonters and feeling now, you're saying now we've, on behalf of this population, I feel like that's not being included. Then let's just get

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: rid of the poor girl. We could say in all Vermont communities.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: That would be great. I appreciate that.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Because I don't I don't think I haven't gotten one

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: one email from a constituent which is saying

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I don't know if that means they support, you know, act one eighty one or whatever.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. Yep.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yep. Great. I'm trying to be inclusive.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: So Great. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. So the real question here is do folks wanna go, like, directly contracting with via NRCC?

[Jon Groveman]: What can I do?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: You just said the NRCC.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I said the NRCC. Oh, NRCC.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: The way

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: that Ela has proposed. Yes. I'll need

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that language. Is it amending other parts of this section?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Minimally. Later sections needed to be updated to say on or before 01/15/2027, the council shall submit the report. And then there's a piece about, I guess I would recommend that in terms of appropriation, put in up to 30,000 is appropriated from the junk bond to the council. And is there a way to, like, when you- It has

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to be a permanent dollar. It has to

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: be a permanent amount. Okay. That's the number that they have suggested during lunch.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Mhmm. Be the final word

[Jon Groveman]: on it.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: So Yes.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the next section, section 10, is the creation of the Joint Legislative Environmental Oversight Committee. There is new language on page 10, their duties. So, the committee shall meet regularly with the Land Use Review Board to ensure strong communications coordination regarding the implementation of the statutes amended as part of 2024 Acts and Resolve 181, how the permitting process under 10 VSA Chapter 151 Act two fifty is working, and how the new board structure is working. The committee shall also meet regularly with the Agency of Natural Resources to learn about agency efforts to improve and better coordinate its permitting processes and coordinate efforts to improve to coordinate efforts to further improvements to the process for applicants and outcomes for Vermonters. And meet with meet regularly with is a little bit awkward. I mean, from because it's a committee, maybe more because this committee would be a public body. They would have to hold open meetings. So it wouldn't be like private meetings.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So, what did you suggest?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hear from.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Shall hear from the land use review board? Yeah. That means they don't have to meet. They could just hear from them.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it would function as standing committee, so they would have hearings and also request their testimony. You could say that the land use review board and agency and natural resources are required to testify at hearings of the committee.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Personally, I'm hoping that these engagements would be certainly hearing a lot from these two agencies, but also with time for dialogue and legislators to bring up things that they're hearing or have curiosity about. So I guess I don't really mind whatever the language is. I guess I'm just trying to put what the intention is out there so that you can help us figure out what language would be best. I did look at a lot of the current oversight committees and some of their agendas, and some of them are like three hours of just listening to reports from different folks at different state agencies. While I'm sure that will be an important part of this, I guess I'm hoping it's not just hearings. So, yeah, I'm curious if there's more room for more dialogue.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go ahead, Representative Logan.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes, what we're doing here is a hearing. What we do here every day is a hearing, and we have dialogue all the time. So I think you're just using a term, like a common use for describing meeting a that we hold and invite or require people to attend and talk with us.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Well, I was also just trying to say, because this is a public body, it couldn't just be hanging out privately. Yeah, right.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So, I'm sorry, you're suggesting changing out meat regularly with what? You're from?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or I mean, you also you also can keep it. I found it's like you all just don't like have

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: meetings. You

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't just have conversations. Everything you do is like the public record. Right? So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I was just when we were talking about the word here, and I'm wondering if that is something that's defined.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: No. And the other word I'm wondering about is what regularly means.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's just a general understanding. It's not defined either.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Just here regularly. No. I think I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think I've already third Wednesday of the month. So, like

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: I was already planning to ask

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you to take that out.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Alright. Okay. It gets already addressed in a different place. Is that

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: times it's in a big space. Yeah. And it

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: had originally been four, and then some of us argued we might want more flexibility. And then ANR asked for fewer. So I was thinking maybe we'd go

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: with six. What's the difference? Sometimes we don't have to meet

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: six times per year. It's a may. You could always meet less.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Why don't we just skip regularly and say meet with?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Right. There, but then in the other area where it says And many

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: then line 13, we can say

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: we can also strike regularly. Same page.

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

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: And then on page nine, if we, in line 19, say maybe at least four times per year during adjournment? I suggest we say may meet six, because it's already meet fewer, and we have more permission to meet more. Okay. I was going to pull the difference.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry, you're suggesting it's changed to six?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: I am. Put the difference between and and plus for it to go back to four.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: My suggestion? Okay. Now in the corrections, I still stand by. Much rather see this struck and have put in your notebook for next session. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Next.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next change is on page 17. This is in Section twelve, twenty four VSA 4,348, the elements of the Regional Plan. So, this change in yesterday's draft at the top of page 17, bylaws is highlighted. In yesterday's draft, there was an additional sentence here about only those centers with areas eligible for historic register being eligible for the Community Investment Program. So, that sentence has been removed here, as well as the correlating sentence in the Community Investment Program, which was on page 25. So, both of those have been removed.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Any questions on that?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Just

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: help me understand how village centers don't be public water, wastewater.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. That question.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I mean, they should have soils. Right? I mean, I I thought they could they would be for

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't understand that either. Like, how is it are we, Ellen, work? Like, I feel like we just we already went through this, but maybe we need a reminder. How would they design how would they possibly designate the roads area without her wastewater zoning or subdivision?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because this is a policy choice, so that language is written into this part of the statute.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. It's sort of. Katie,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: do you have a thought on this?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Katie Gallagher with the Vermont Natural Resources Council. So this, I'm making my way towards where you are. So you're discussing the village centers. These, yes, have been the areas in the planned regional future land use categories that are intended to be the broadest category to bring in centers that may or may not have zoning or infrastructure. That is just how it has been written.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I think also because the planned growth area category right after that may or may not serve as an overlay. And so the planned growth area has the requirements that they have planning or served by public water or wastewater. And then generally walking distance excludes flood hazard areas. And so I think the planned growth areas are layered over other centers only if they have those additional categories, those additional criteria. The answer is these are supposedly identified by the

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: community as aspirational areas if you aspire to growth.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: So they don't they don't this will be places that they don't want growth, if they want to grow, they need to

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Presumably, these are areas that the town has identified for growth. Although, yeah, maybe through their town plan, they've identified them, and they want to qualify for those steps.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. The next change is on page 21 into 22. So, this is going back to what the Senate sent you on 24VSA 4476, the formal review of Regional Planning Commission decisions. You considered amending that statute. You considered having a report on that statute. This is going back to a So,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a couple of us were talking with Ela about this, about who the logical The Land Use Review Board yesterday said they didn't feel like they were the right body to weigh in on it. So who is? Actually, Ellen started to answer the question anyway. It became apparent that legislative council would be a good place for us to start the inquiry about what the current field processes are and whether there's a gap that we want still in a future legislative session.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So I think as you've heard, the latest review board is taking over a review of regional planning decisions. It doesn't currently have the appeal to the Supreme Court, which is one difference from the statute. The municipal planning chapter, chapter 117 has ability for the parties established in statute. They have the ability to appeal decisions on town plans and town bylaws. I would like to spend more time researching this, but I do think my quick ish analysis over the last couple of days is that the part that is missing, if you were to repeal the statute, is the regional plans review of municipal plans and being able to appeal that decision. I don't think anywhere else in statute currently that decision is addressed. Yeah, so Regional Planning Commissions review the municipal planning process to confirm it, as well as regional reviewing the actual plan for conformance with the Regional Plan. And so that decision by Regional Planning Commissions is not currently reviewable or appealable.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Everyone good with that change?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: By repealing that, we don't have a formal appeal process. Are we looking to add one? Would that enable appeals, of the regional approval of

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: municipal limits? Repealing this, no.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It doesn't either. Yes. Currently no plan. That's only half of a section, part of which was deleted. This wasn't. I remember we had a lot of conversation about this.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Sorry. So the the what else was I didn't mention, but you have heard about before is that that statute operated based on the regional review panel, and that panel has not been in existence. So, right now, that review isn't happening or able to be sought because that body hasn't existed. Right. Yeah. So, right now so that so this is just a repeal, not adding to to any of the other structures.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, on page 25 is the other change related to what you were I just told you about in the middle of page 25, the language regarding requiring the centres to have eligibility for historic register has been taken out of that paragraph.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And so that's why. Do we need this section anymore?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I can take out yeah. This subdivision, I could take it out. But yeah. And then finally, finally, there is a new section, a new report is being proposed related to the Community Investment Board. So on or before January 15 of each year Oh, sorry. This is page 26. This is the last piece of highlighting in the bill. Section 19, page 26. On or before January 15 of each year, the Vermont Community Investment Board established in '24 VSA chapter 139 shall submit a written report to the House Committees on Environment, on General and Housing, and the Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Energy, and on economic development, housing, general affairs. The report shall include, at a minimum, a summary of the community investment program's activities during the preceding fiscal year, including designations, steps, or other actions taken by the board that confer eligibility for or priority access to state funding, tax credits, or other program benefits. An analysis of the types of municipalities benefiting from the program by county population size, onto page 27, future land use category or categories, state designation status, and whether the municipality contains areas eligible for Act two fifty exemption through 2024 action results number 181. Any legislative, regulatory, or programmatic changes recommended by the Board to improve the effectiveness, accessibility and geographic equity of the community investment program. So I had one small flag. I apologize. I do not remember who sent me this language, so who's directly being proposed by. On line 15, it says, a summary of the program's activities, including designations and steps or other actions taken by the board. So I just wanted to clarify the Community Investment Board will not be doing the designations. The designations happen as part of the Land Use Review Board process, but the Department of Housing Community Development and working with the board will do the designation of the steps to increase the benefits. And so I put steps in there because I did think it was one of the things you would want to hear about specifically. I do feel like the way I sort of just put it in there is a little awkward, but I did just want to flag that I think the steps is one of the keys to who's getting the benefits.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Questions on this? Thoughts?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'm going to add a conjunction at the end so that it's an and. So it's the one, two, three

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: of what they need

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: to include in the report.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Those are the only changes in this bill until he's draft.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. I have some study language or two studies. One would bring back a revised version of one of the studies that we removed. The what was it called? The discretionary review. Discretionary review study. And the other would bring back a revised version of the former tier two study. I can send a Word doc to the whole committee.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: And to Ellen. And Ellen? Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Maybe within that, is the AOFB piece the LAOB? The LERB has been working on accessory on farm business, understanding how

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: sanctions and two fifty works with accessory on farm businesses. And I think there are assumptions to that that we'd like to maintain. Yeah. Yes? The language was still

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Sound

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Oh, Okay. You got it. Right. And I'll send it via email as well. Representative Tagliavia.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Aren't we starting to get a little bit deep in the weeds?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We may be. Let's see what we have here.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: It's kind of feeling like we were close

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: and down.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yep. I I we're close. Feel

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I get you.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yep. One of those pieces that Kate just mentioned wasn't in

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: the bill before. Both were

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: both were in the bill before. About

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: 1.2. And We're just talking about put that exact same verbiage back in.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: No. It's different. So yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Could So how would we submit edits that you've made in this document?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Have done So they're highlighted. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. I did just Can I ask Kate

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: a question? You may. Kate, the tier two, what questions would you have? What would that be? Let's see what

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: would be. Let's just let her walk us through.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: So if you can open the study language document on our committee page. Do you want me to share my screen? Or no?

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: So I renamed the study. I proposed a different study. So when S-three 25 was introduced, there was municipal appeal language, a municipal appeal study language in that section of the bill that got replaced with this discretionary review of housing report. I actually think we could probably change the title to the municipal appeals and development review of housing report. The first section so I've done a straight through and underline for everything we changed from s three twenty five as passed by the Senate. So it adds the LAOB, the Vermont Association of Planning, Bill, the VAPTA, the Vermont Bar Association, and ANR as consultants to DHCD for the study. And then it includes a new section that's drawn from the language as introduced that would do a study on mechanisms for limiting appeals that allow municipalities to address legitimate concerns with projects, including commonly raised issues on appeal and procedural tools to limit duplicative or frivolous appeals. So getting at the heart of the issue,

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: which is

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: municipal appeals, a need to look at the municipal appeals process or development review appeals process. Then it goes back to the study that we saw as passed by the Senate and just kind of generalizes the language a little bit. So the department will report on the impacts of discretionary review on residential development. We could just say development review on residential development. The department shall consider the following, and instead of whether or not to establish a Vermont model code, just how to assist municipalities to develop clear and objective standards, including model codes and the other pieces. And then in b, there strikes out the language about how to improve the efficiency of appeals of munis because we have a whole section on municipal appeals book. So this kind of simplifies the language, runs the scope of this study. Can you just tell us why you want this back in here? Yeah, I think we lost the language from S-three 25 as introduced that brought up the issue of municipal appeals, and it's not being studied anywhere else. It is true. Yeah. Surprisingly. So the appeals study was on Act appeals to Act two fifty. But we heard a lot of conversation about issues with municipal appeals. This language was an s three twenty five originally, but got stripped out and replaced with this language that was basically

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Meaning the senate took it out.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: The senate took it out and replaced it with the language that had been suggested by Let's Build Homes. And then I think it would be helpful for the department to provide a report to us on the impacts of development review, municipal development review on residential development, positive, negative, and consider the possibility of helping municipalities develop clear and objective standards. If development review standards were clearer and more objective, we may not have as many issues with the development review process at the municipal level, and that could include a model code, but doesn't necessarily I have

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: don't want to get too far in the weeds. Want to decide if we're doing this, but it says under A, readiness sequence, originality of the questions or forum. Right. What does that mean to you?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I took the language directly out of s three twenty five, but I did ask for help on this. And I feel like, Katie, you might be able to help. Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Absolutely have to know what the work's being.

[Jon Groveman]: Do you want me to?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Do you know?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Do you have a sense of

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: where they came from and why they're there, what they mean?

[Jon Groveman]: I don't remember. So for the record,

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: John Groven from I don't remember

[Jon Groveman]: exactly where we came from. We we may have written this.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: When

[Jon Groveman]: this issue came up, the Sell X three twenty five started actually. It had none of the other things in it, not even the extension of the deadlines. It actually started with this idea that came from the appeal study that the had done. It was something that was discussed as looking at municipal appeals. People have always raised issues with them. So the study, I think, as Representative Logan said, but timeliness, you know, is how long that it takes to get through an appeal. Sequencing means, I think, when appeals are consolidated or combined, like, when there are other appeals that go along with the same project.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We both did that.

[Jon Groveman]: Originality of the question is, you know, what is the issue? What are the issues that are being appealed with the related to to to municipal zoning and forum. Are they coming from the DRB? Are they coming from the zoning administrator, planning commission? There's there's not a development review board or a zoning board of adjustment. So I think that's what those charm means.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So sorry. Originality of the question needs to be studied because why?

[Jon Groveman]: I mean, I could probably I mean, I think it's like, what are the issues, basically, is what you're trying to say.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Right. Are they bringing up the same issue over and over again?

[Jon Groveman]: What are the issues and where are they being raised and what part of this stuff? Yeah.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: We could just cut

[Jon Groveman]: that out. I don't remember writing this completely, but it's something

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: that

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: How we just shorten it to the most commonly raised issues on appeal? Semi colon. Sure. Okay.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Get that.

[Jon Groveman]: Yeah. I mean, that's what we're trying to get. I mean, it's one of the issues and where they're being raised.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Yeah. Can

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I ask about this the language right above that? So it says mechanisms for limiting appeals that allow municipalities to address legitimate concerns. Do do you mean the opposite? Limiting appeals for things that don't address limiting, legitimate concerns?

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. It's gonna allow me

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: to see.

[Jon Groveman]: I think what I think what it was intended to me was that even if, you know, if appeals were limited, there would still be tools for municipalities to address issues even if.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So maybe so maybe that that is maybe it's while allowing municipalities to address. That would work. Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. Be much more

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

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Yes, sir.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How do members feel about putting this study back in and including the appeals? Two questions. I just put up putting this back in.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Representative North.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Have we asked DHCD if they

[Jon Groveman]: would like to do this?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: They wanted it in there. They wanted it in there.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But I have questions about the has anyone asked the Vermont Bar Association if they want in? No. Or

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: The others were already in s 325 in this appeals study.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Bar was?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: No. Except for the Vermont Bar Association. Okay. But there was no there were no lawyers in the group, which seemed

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I see. Like a bad idea. Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: And they can choose not to con they can choose to opt out of consulting.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: It's not a requirement. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Alright. Represent Chapin in Austin. I'm very open to putting it back in. I think it just got a fair amount of test I don't know how much. It got testimony on the Senate side. People weighed in, both the department and the NRC and let's grow or let's build homes. So I think there are entities that want to see some of this language. We didn't spend a lot of time on it. I think personally, what bothered me about it before was that

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it felt like, A, it

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: could already happen. These entities could be working on this anyway. And B, and probably are. And B, it did feel negative. It an assumption. It came with an assumption that discretionary review was bad. And I don't disagree that in many cases, challenging it's factor that's making certain things much harder. But I don't think discretionary so I appreciate that if we were going to look at this again, that it's making that more neutral and adding some of these pieces back in about about. I'm definitely open to keeping it at this point, and I do think it got a fair amount of testimony on the Senate side.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: I'm not

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: sure we got testimony.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Excellent. Yes. I have a question. Sorry.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Thank you. I think I understand what municipal appeals are, but can somebody remind me again what discretionary review actually means? I know

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: we heard the definition of I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: think it's sort of the standard way that towns review development as opposed to having more clear zoning codes that are presumably less discretionary. Like, form based code is an example people use.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: If it

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: checks all the boxes, then yes.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: But for a discretionary review, is that like an official term? Okay. We're gonna have a discretionary review meeting. I mean, that is that what It's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: new to me,

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but I guess No. We don't use that term in the zoning statutes at all.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What would be

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: more accurate or more descriptive term, better descriptive term?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I mean, Things aren't editable. It's traffic is

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: DRB approval process. DRB?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Or yeah. And, yeah, saying maybe we could make the standards clearer. Maybe we could adopt a lot of codes. Maybe we could do things that improve the process. Representative Austin? Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I was gonna say is it '21 men there? I don't wanna go through all our rights, thousands of regulations that we have and decide if they're discretionary. I mean, I think we do a really, and I assume most Bennington

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: isn't asking you to do that. Yep.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: We can if you want to. The DHCD will develop tools. Yep. And if you

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: want I'm just gonna clarify. Is it anything that makes appeals less frivolous and time consuming and gets housing built, I am very supportive also. It sounds like that's what this will do.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Have you had appeals in Colchester? No, no, Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: We have one now for that Hazlett Hotel, Lake, that's going way up. It's on its third appeal.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, next.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Okay, next. The other is to bring back the tier two report. What was the tier two report? In blue, the municipal delegation is highlighted because I was not confident that we wanted to use that term. So this pushes back the date that the report is due. So it would be after the engagement, the community engagement process has been designed. It removes the section on addressing how to apply location based jurisdiction to tier two areas because, obviously, that's not relevant. So it keeps a lot of the language from the original report, and then it adds these two sections, subsections, how to facilitate compact housing development and transition areas and how to comply with the public engagement plan as defined in the other section. Everything else is the same. But it seemed like a big loss to lose that thinking that was going on, that we intended to go on. So this could be going on parallel with and support the community engagement process in some way.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. Thoughts on this?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Is this essentially the same thing, the putting a plan for a plan together one?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This is and we may add things to it.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Some of the feedback that we've gotten from folks that there's already a known lot of things that could go in,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: for lack of a better term, the bucket of tools for addressing the issues that service would be more of a clearinghouse of that, but would also look at how Act two fifty and the changes we've made affect primag soils, which we've heard a fair amount about. Yeah,

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: and I guess I'd say the other piece of it is that this is a plan to engage all the institutional stakeholders. Then the community engagement plan is really about surfacing ideas from our community, property owners who could be potentially impacted by any changes to Act two fifty or whatever land use regulation proposal. So it seems like it's coming at the question from both sides. And this would I don't know. Those conducting the community engagement process could even bring potentially some of these ideas to communities and ask them what they think about them.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How to comply with the public engagement plan that hasn't been defined yet. Right. That seems like a tricky question.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Or you could just say comply with the public engagement plan. Because this study is coming back after the community engagement plan is defined now. It's in 2028, coming back in 2028 instead of

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: 2020 Representative Chittenden. So if

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: we move forward with what we discussed a little bit ago, LERB won't be involved in that community. The the one that we're putting together in the statute here

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: won't be just LERB would just be

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: a sort of a stakeholder in that versus their own outreach, their own community engagement plan they have to do with the Environmental Justice Office. I'm wondering if it would make more sense. Something related to Act two fifty in the LERB would just be related to their own outreach plan. Well, the outreach plan for the Land Use Review Board would be any time they are contemplating a change in their own procedures or rules. And this is more of a policy study.

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It's not research study rather than a it's not this kind of thing that you would go that you would use your community engagement plan to So then I would just get rid of number six.

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: think there's a

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think we're trying

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: to You don't want them to be related in any way.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sure, they need to be. Don't know if I you're willing to suppose the

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: community engagement plan could always engage with this process too, they felt like that would be a good idea. Right. Yeah. Yes.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Yeah. In which case, might bump up the date.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Austin. So just a so this is not happening anywhere else? No. Okay. Because I thought we were looking at access, which we have heard a lot about, and I did want some focus on that. So but I just thought it was fewer. But it was in there,

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: and we just took it out.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Oh, it's still in there.

[Jon Groveman]: We just had we just put it

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: in there.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: So Engagement. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: The community engagement. Right. But it's a different so this would be the land use review board. Looking at Act two fifty, this series of questions, and engaging with these institutional stakeholders rather than doing a community engagement process. It's like a research would be different coming out of

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: the community engagement process than this?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I would hope so. I mean, it's like a different perspective, like an institutional stakeholder, somebody who's already engaged with all of this stuff on a basis versus someone who's living in rural Vermont on a parcel that has been in their family for several generations and has never engaged with Act two fifty ever in their entire land. Never had to because all they would be doing with their land would be building a house or something like that. So it just seems like a different conversation. And that we'd lose something by not having these folks in the conversation in any way like we had

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: originally intended. I guess the other thing that's standing out to me here is the C list, which we brought over, thinking that we're going to expand this report and make it more focused on I guess we have number one, but that's just a very long list of stakeholders. It is. Probably

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: could shorten that up.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: And we've had others that have requested at the end.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They're added.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I still struggle with the narrowness and the breadth at the same time of all of this. I like what is right now in here number three. It's like, Review of the effectiveness of jurisdictional triggers for development of retail and service businesses outside of village centers in criterion 9L in addressing sprawl and strict development. So here are the things we want to hear about in terms of how well it does x. None of the other ones really have that. It's, like, recommended sash I mean, I I would love to hear ideas about addressing force fragmentation and fragmentation of rural and working lands. But to what end isn't really specified in here? And I just wonder, what is the I'm concerned about the vagueness of it and the process that we just went through with the LERB and sort of I'm struggling with that. There's so many different The first two. In here. Like, I wish if we had a one or two priorities in this list that we really wanted to hear from LERB about, and we know that they have the expertise and are already thinking a lot about it, that makes sense to me. I know AOFB is one of those.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What if we do just stick to? Three and four. And five? Three, four. I'm not sure. I don't know if it's the Lord's job to facilitate compact housing development transition areas. That's all I could plan full time. If we just do two, three and four and then limit it. So Primax oils. And it's very much focused on Act two fifty.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: And

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: then, Brooke, you're here.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Since you did a deliverable for us, and we appreciated that work, talking about the engagement of the stakeholder group in that process probably wasn't this many stakeholders. You can't see it perhaps, but it's a very long list of stakeholders that was taken from the tier three list,

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: which is

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: not maybe the right list for this, particularly if we get rid

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: of the working lands element of this report.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess maybe if you could just speak to how I guess I'm wondering about the effort for the LERB to do a report, the interface between the stakeholders and the LERB in that process that you did? Had several different For the record.

[Brooke Dingledine (Member, Land Use Review Board)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, my name is Brooke Dingledeen. I'm a member of the Landy's Review Board. And Sarah Had, our vice chair, is also here with me today. So the stakeholder groups, I was in charge of the appeals study, we had wood products manufacturing study going on at the same time, as well as tier three. And these were, we had the prescribed stakeholders for many of the different studies, and there was a huge amount of overlap, so one of the things that we had to be aware of was stakeholder fatigue, because we were going to save folks over and over for all of these different processes that we're involved in. I will say from the pill study, experience, because we had a wonderful, even though it was a very large group of people, and we also involved public people as well, even though they were not specified, thought that voice was very important. And it worked very well, but it's a huge undertaking to create the meetings and to make sure everyone's available and all of that. So I personally did not, it was not an impediment to having a large group of many voices, but these were very targeted questions and issues that we were addressing. Having the specificity without too much broad implications, that the more specific we could be told in terms of any study or information we would like that to provide, it could be very helpful. We can take a look at student extra language.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you also then maybe this is a question for Sarah had, remind me, I know we've asked, I'm sorry, but where you are in the tier two study process? You haven't started it, basically. So Sarah Hadd, Vice Chair, the Board, we did begin on AOLP looking more at technical issues and our own internal processes and how we've applied it, how we might refine some of those interpretations. We had not taken a more expansive view on that, but we had begun work on the Yale Accessory Reform business portion of that.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: And, Sarah, if I might just add looking at two, three, and four on the list, the fibrotic syndromes, I know that the board is very interested in, very concerned about, and certainly be an important aspect that we would be able to study. The AOFB, of course, we have done some work on that, and we engaged in that in terms of determining what aspects to study and check further. And I know that we did also testify at Senate Ag on a provision on a proposal that we suggested was perhaps not the right change right at the moment to please allow us to complete the AOSP study so that it could be a comprehensive fix or a change to the statute that you would think it got to that point after we report it to you. So commercial activities, you have AFB. And then the last one is jurisdictional triggers for development of retail and service businesses. That would be helpful to know on 9L of what kind of timeline you're looking for on that. I think that that's more, there needs to be more work done on that. I don't think that that's anything that we have focused on.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So, yes. Sarah had land use of people who were, We began looking to see permit research, to see if we could look at the permits that had addressed this specific thing. Because we're modernizing the permitting system, it's not as simple to allow those case studies. And I think the other thing, too, could be asked, what sort of a timeline were you looking at for deliverable on this? Well, I mean, now, the date is

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: 2028.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: In this language that represented Logan has brought us. Where's the date?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Right at the top of that section, 02/14/2028.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And it would be all the stakeholders in each one of those, or could you just subset? I think it's what we're talking about now. A different What I would like to know is what the language in the tier two study said before about stakeholder

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I think there's just one other piece of information that I'd like to share is that the AOF3 issue, we understand the real authorities of that, and that is something that we will be looking for regardless, because we do recognize how important it is, we have heard that voice, and we intend to pursue that opportunity.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I hear you on that, and it may interact with at least maybe straw or, mean, it's kind of interesting these may go together. Stabatic soils and review of commercial outside of designated centers and accessory offer business, they're very much intertwined.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Was no stakeholder group attached to the tier two report. It was just a report from the land issue report.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thoughts on this report?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I think there's too many, let's say, many agencies. Just seems like there has to be a way that you could cut that in half and still get the information that you need. I don't know. I'm just guessing, but that just

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, we just heard that the original report had one. Right. For example, could we just allow LERP to engage the appropriate stakeholders?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Engage the appropriate stakeholders.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I realize that's a large license and that's what Representative Chapin is going

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: to go ahead. Well, no, I was going to say I'm pretty sure we actually added that stakeholder group when we were starting to move towards turning this into a much broader process than our public engagement process. Sorry. And I just didn't even I just even looked at that. If this is really just lurb understand like, looking at Act two fifty, how it works right now, how to make improvements, making those recommendations, I fully encourage them to engage any stakeholders that if they want to, they should go back

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to them or add just a clause that says Engage. Yeah, as needed. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Alright, representative. My other question is the beginning, the description of the report, where it says shall report recommendations to address Act two fifty jurisdiction at blah blah blah. That I feel like

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we should just leave it

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: at that sentence.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Don't think it's jurisdiction. Yeah, it's not. Like, it's a Advancing efficiencies and effectiveness and efficiencies.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: One or the other or both.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: About recommendations to address the following? To address the yes. You could say forget review. Yeah, the effectiveness, whether and how.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And you can make it more succinct. Yes. I suspect.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I was wondering if you needed to amend this existing report or if you wanted to just start over. I just copied and pasted and then I worked from there. Yeah, start over.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah, just start over.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We've already revealed it. Yeah.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so what is the title of this going to be?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Intact Working Lands and Conservation of Critical Natural Resources report. Do we still like that title?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: More of an effectiveness report. Tools.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Act two fifty, the way it currently has jurisdiction. It's it's not about changing jurisdiction or adding tools. It's really about encouraging, intact working plans.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: I guess that's where I'm really confused about this whole thing. Just making sure yeah. Right. It's very nervous about the whole thing about Yeah. Yeah. Maybe we can't even agree on a title because we're all going different directions. It I say we can keep section x x the new one, section 10. This

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: seems really valuable

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to me, obviously. So are outstanding issues of activity.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Two, three, and four are. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's a it's a thing we they were in there for a reason. And I would I think

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: How about the working lands rapport? Something like that, because that's really what we're talking about. But is

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: it isn't it I mean, as it currently reads, it's specifically the effectiveness of act two fifty in doing

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: these In addressing these things.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Right. Yeah. I like the working lands report as the title, and I think we should be clear about representative Barth just described in a. In a, in the intent. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Two. Okay. Yeah. Oh, there's multiple.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: So it's the effect yeah. So little a at the end. So the effectiveness of act two fifty in in publishing protection of primary exiles would be one.

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

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Development of retail services and business centers outside of the home centers would be the second one. And on farm business.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes, exactly. It would be really short. Then we've got that last one, facilitating compact housing development and transition areas. I think we're taking

[Jon Groveman]: And that one

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: the public engagement. Less is more.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Did you mean little a?

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Little a.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Yes, little a.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, and not have the list below?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: No, no, have the list below. I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: think we have an idea. So, I think we'll take a break and ask Ellen to draft changes

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: that we talked about, and

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: let Kate Logan work with you on what was just free to, and we can look at that again. How much time would you like for that? Why don't we give you a half an hour, but if you need less, you can let us know. Okay. So we'll come back at four, but hopefully it'll be sooner. Great. Thank you.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: We always want to keep this narrow focus as possible. We've outlined a couple of topics. Great.