Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We have draft 5.1 that we're going to look at with our legislative council.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Council. At Sorry, I'm trying to get the draft. 5.1.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The first gene, the comma. Two or a month, seven.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Paying attention. Yeah, the changes are highlighted in yellow. So yes, the first one is on page four with the comma. The next change is on page seven, section nine, the public engagement plan. And so this is the language that represent Chapin read for you. Still 01/15/2027, the State Natural Resources Conservation Council shall contract with the Vermont Council on Rural Development and their Vermont Association of Conservation Districts to develop a report outlining recommendations for a public engagement plan in consultation with the Land Use Review Board and the Land Access and Opportunity Board. On to page eight. The contractor shall ensure the engagement planning process would remain neutral would maintain neutrality on policy and political issues, utilize neutral facilitation for statewide democratic public engagement, and be designed to inclusively and meaningfully engage a full range of stakeholders, including Vermont residents and landowners and historically marginalized communities.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is there a reason we left out the language around alignment with 01/1954? I took it out because this entity won't be building it. They're not subject to the Sure. But yeah. So the Vermont Council on Rural Development is It's up just a little bit. It's a fact. The Vermont Council on Rural Development is not related in any way to Act 154, but the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts is a named member of the environmental justice Interagency? No. Not the interagency council, the advisory council. Advisory council. They're still not subject to being in compliance with the No. But I feel like there's similar processes that are ongoing to establish general principles for community engagement with environmental justice focused populations. And the fact that we're contracting out away from the state or another covered entity, like the LERB, means that we're ignoring the work that we've done to try to establish processes that achieve environmental justice goals for the state.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The language you're talking about is on what page? Version 4.2.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right at the bottom of page seven. This plan shall be in compliance and coordinated with the requirements of chapter 72. So we could just say coordinated with. I really have no idea what that means, nor whether this date guess we might wanna hear from them whether they They already have community engagement principles. So maybe we could say that. In alignment with community engagement principles? Sure. Those have already been developed. Feels more specific and relevant. Opposed to what you're saying? Just don't think it's right. I get it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is that instead of some language that's already here? No.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's in addition. It's a sentence I left out because I didn't think it was relevant anymore. But it would so in a what did I just say? In alignment with specific language that we want. I said in alignment with community engagement principles, but Kate's checking exactly about that existing.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Does it about me it's like the meaningful

[Unidentified Committee Member]: participation? Yeah. Well, there's the community engagement principles was the one of the first deliverables Okay. In act one fifty four, and those have already been developed.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Maybe on line three, add it as another. The contractor shall ensure alignment

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: with treatment principle

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Developed pursuant to chapter 72, three, if you say chapter two.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. So implementation of state policy, section 6,004 c, community engagement plan shall align with the core principles developed by the interagency

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Maybe we'll move on. I'll let you keep this up. Sure.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So,

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: still on page eight, further down, subsection B about what the plan would include hasn't changed. But subsections C and D, on or before January 15, the council shall submit the report. And then, the appropriation in fiscal year 2027, dollars 30,000 from the general fund to the State Natural Resources Conservation Council for the public engagement plan design described in this section. Next, in section 10 on page nine, the Oversight Committee.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I do have that reference. It's section 6,000 and six(two). There's a set of core principles to guide and coordinate the development of community engagement plans.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: C2B. So,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: is this aligned with all Costello, the process? Does this have anything? No, it's state law. I know, but I'm just asking about the costs.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Generally includes Vermont Council and Rural Development. Yeah. Great. Thank you.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: On page nine and section 10, the oversight committee, the committee may meet six times per year. From eight in the last draft. And then on page 10 in the duty section, the only change is that regularly has been struck from both sentences. So, the committee shall meet with the Land Use Review Board and shall also meet with the Agency of Natural Resources. Do you want to skip section 11 for the moment and go to the other changes, or do you want to start?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess so, if you

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: have a reason. Well, there's other things to discuss, but we can do we can start here. Okay. At the bottom of page 10, starting section 11, this has been titled the Land Review Board Report. It is based on the language from the prior tier two report, what you were just discussing maybe as the working lands report. So now what it says is, On or before 11/15/2027, the Land Use Review Board shall deliver a report that shall review onto page 11.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Can we just go back to what was I'm sorry. Maybe I messed up the dates. What was the date we originally had in there?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: January. 01/15/2027. But I'm back to believing that we shouldn't have this report back to us before 2028.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I know. But when you had the 2028 data in there, what was it? January 15. Of 2028? Yeah. Okay. So that's why I moved it. Because because January '28 was similar to November 27, but it gives the legislature more time with it. To read it. That's okay. Sarah had you're nodding. Does that make sense to you? Also, it's holidays. You're not gonna be working anymore on the holidays.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: For the record, Sarah had, my name is with board. November is acceptable, and we can't. But November was actually, it

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: was February 15. Sorry. Yeah. Just ruining everyone's Valentine's Day. We're

[Unidentified Committee Member]: gonna keep this section in here, though. We've gotta align it so that the outputs of the public engagement are inputs into this. Because I think that makes sense. Let's keep walking through it.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So this so the Land Industry Report shall deliver a report that shall review and so on to page 11. The effectiveness of mitigation of impacts on primary or cultural soils and making recommendations for how to improve protections for this natural resource. 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 whether and how Act two fifty jurisdiction over commercial activities on farm should be revised, including accessory on farm businesses. And so just to remind you, these three things are what are part of what is currently the tier two report. It gets rid of some of the other things. But this is the language from the tier two report currently. From Act 181?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: From Act two eighty one, yes.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, Oh, go ahead. Did you There's added that the board shall engage relevant stakeholders as part of the development of this report, and then it will go to the House and Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committees.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think if we don't make these ports in line so that public input stuff doesn't get into this, We want the same into the same problem that got us three twenty five.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Representative Wood? I disagree because act one eighty one gave very prescriptive put prescriptive policy into law. And this would be a report that would come out. And this is why I tried to put some link between the community engagement process and this report because it does seem to me like there's the potential for a conversation to happen. So they put out this report in November, and that gives the community engagement process an opportunity to bring some of these ideas to folks during that community engagement process and say, like, well, what about this? What do you think about this? So in some ways, it seems like it would be helpful for this report to come out in the process of the community engage during the community engagement process so that folks have an opportunity to engage with ideas that are put out by the Land Use Review Board in a more conversational way.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chittenden. Yes, we

[Unidentified Committee Member]: heard really specifically from Paul Costello that that is not the way to do good public engagement. That we're both hearing from Vermonters that they want their voices to be the thing that then gets listened to. And we're hearing from Paul Costello that the public engagement process doesn't put a preconceived idea on the table to then get input because that can trigger a lot of feelings of, like, well, you've already decided which direction you're going. When I think about the content of this report, I was open to this report getting added back in here if it was really information from the land use review board about their work and their observation of their data and their processes, Not meant to be like, here's what the legislature should do, but more like, here's information from the legislature, from our institution, hour of two or three years worth of overseeing this work. I would like to keep them really separate. I don't want them to be overlapping. If they're overlapping, I think we need to wait for the public process.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I, too, see them as separate and data driven to inform the legislature on topics that are continually being discussed in the building. Representative Olavio. I guess

[Unidentified Committee Member]: if I I'll make a recommendation based on what representative Chapin just said. For example, at the top of page 11a, the effectiveness of mitigation of impacts on primary agricultural soils, period, not and making recommendations. So I think what folks are responding to is the fact that this report has the Land Use Review Board making recommendations for how to improve protections for this natural resource when that is supposed to be the purpose of the community engagement process. And if we want that, the making recommendations part in this report from the Land Use Review Board, then it should be after the community engagement process has completed. Does that capture what everybody's been saying? Yeah. Thanks very much. Good enough. So just to clarify, the community engagement that comes before the report. That's what I just proposed. Yes. I I would propose we narrow this and make it not about recommendations. It really should be data like, something that LERB can do without input from the public that is input from the LERB to the legislature. And separately, we're getting public input to the legislature. Right. And thus yeah. I'm not sure that I guess I'm just a little concerned that, like, the land use review board, we either need to make it more narrow, that a, or we just need to say, like, what's how is mitigation working? Well, that's what it would do if we took ant making out. Yes. So I would go that route and not and and have it concurrent with the public engagement process. Concurrent? Or Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But separate.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Because they're separate. We don't even we don't we're not

[Unidentified Committee Member]: starting a public engagement process right now. Have no idea how long

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that will take. That could

[Unidentified Committee Member]: be two or three years easily. You've only covered a. But similar and how to, and B. I guess I don't know enough about what the LARP does. But to me, B is very narrow about improving the effectiveness of a particular criterion. To what end, I'm still trying to figure out. But I think at least in B, it's clear it's about addressing sprawl and, I presume, reducing sprawl and strip development. Yeah. Yeah. It's already in that. That's about Act two fifty and how it's working. It has us clear, to what end? A, it doesn't really have a to what end. We're trying to preserve all agricultural soils. No. The the What's mitigation? Purpose of A is a review of the effectiveness of Act two fifty of mitigation of impacts on primary agricultural soils. Basically, when people are building on primary ag soils and given a permit to do that, and then they have to pay for mitigation, how well that money is going to actually conserving probably effective is it impacts? I think we can leave that one at that. B, I think it works. I think we can expect to get a how to improve the effectiveness of a particular criterion in the two fifty process. And how about C? C, I think it's good the way it is. They're far along in that process. Ready to

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I wouldn't say they're far along.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They've started. They started. They have thoughts.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Because they actually did a excess around farm business report two years ago too.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No more.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We keep hearing from farmers that they wanna have input on that. If you're just gonna we're gonna just do seed without without talking to the farmers, it seems I mean, that and before we do this whole exercise with the Vermonters, and it just seems way out of order and very disheartening to people who are they feel like, Okay, finally, the legislature's listened to us, and then we gotta do this, and cut them right off at the knees. I've got

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I would say that we just took testimony. I mean, the the LERB has asked for a bill to be paused addressing accessory on farm business in anticipation of looking at it more deeply. So there's a demand out there for addressing this that keeps coming back

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to us.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, it's like the constant bills on the wall about loosening that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Representative seconds. I'm wondering whether that on line nine, this should maybe ought to be a good to give to give options rather than saying, so we take some of that value out of it and sort of think more about where where where we ought to be going, but what are what are what are our options?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Williams? I'd just like

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to note that the community engagement the public engagement plan does not include agricultural on farm businesses. Does not or does not include on farm businesses anywhere. It's not asking people what they think about them. Don't what you said, Isabelle. Don't you think people

[Unidentified Committee Member]: will bring that up in the community engagement process?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's not the purpose, though. The purpose of the public engagement plan would be to gather statewide input from Vermonters on the risks of losing working lands, both agricultural and forest lands, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, and tools for doing that. It doesn't ask farmers to talk about what they think about agricultural, like, on farm businesses. I guess they would. I mean, don't they? I I think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: they would. Mean, we don't have to spell it out for them. I'm sure during that discussion, they bring that up.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think the point is that we've framed a public engagement process around natural resource natural resources, ag soils, as opposed to commercial farm activities. Whereas this Act two fifty is related to commercial development, but agricultural businesses are generally excluded. But accessory owned farm businesses is this in between somewhat gray area that we've been struggling with legislatively around Act two fifty jurisdiction for years. And we've gone back not back and forth, but we've made changes over recent years. And so I think we're trying to get feedback on whether those changes and how it's working right now, just information on what kinds of commercial activities are ending up under active 50 jurisdiction currently. And do we want to frankly, I think the C leads us towards not should be revised, but may be reduced. We were considering it. There's been a bill on the wall to reduce jurisdiction. So as opposed to the public engagement process, which started from a place of increasing jurisdiction related to natural resources that need better protection. This C is about reducing jurisdiction for specific kinds of commercial activities. Well, I think

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: it's actually revised and it's clarifying. It's clarifying because and whether to be revised. Yeah, I don't think it's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Not just about reducing necessarily. Representative Lilley. Yeah. And I'd just, again, go back to the purpose of the public engagement plan was in response to our efforts to protect forest blocks through implementing the road rule and a number of other resources by establishing tier three, not about asking everybody what they think about Act two fifty. That's a different process. And, I mean, I don't support that process. I support this process of saying like, hey, we have these policy goals. We tried to articulate them this way. This really upset you. We're gonna go back to the drawing board and surface ideas from Vermonters about how to do these things on their properties, how to protect these critical natural resources on on their own property, not take up Act two fifty as a whole.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just worried about the perception. Think people are looking at us as a top down, and then you comment, we're giving you something and then you comment as opposed to just listening to their concerns. I mean, certainly with some guardrails and stuff like that, or parameters, but I'm just concerned about the perception more than the reality.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I will say, I I mean, farmers want us to do something about accessory on firm business policy in act two fifty right now. Yesterday. Yesterday. And, yeah, there's been a bill every year. This doesn't relate to critical natural resources at periods. This results this this relates to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: firm firm land. Well, if that's the one thing we know, why don't we just focus this whole thing on that one thing that we know and focus this section around getting data about active 50 jurisdiction over commercial activities on farms and on accessory on farm businesses and engaging the farming community in doing exactly that. Why don't we just narrow this whole thing down to that? That's what's the most important thing. And then because that's what we've heard from the LERB. They've already started working on that part of it. They haven't even started on the rest of it. So let's just focus this on that, get that done by this coming January, and focus yeah, be really intentional about it. And then this other longer term stuff, well, let's see how that went, then we'll kick off the next round.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'd like to add some oils in that too because I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm hearing a lot about add

[Unidentified Committee Member]: some oils.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Up

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Logan. The reason that these things are here and were in act one eighty one in the first place is because they were topics that people wanted to talk about last session. Interesting. And we we didn't do it. And the report was already due, and we haven't we don't have that report for good reasons. Like, I'm not complaining about that. But we wanted information on these things. I think what people are responding negatively to is in, a, making recommendations for how to improve protections for this natural resource. But we've been we want information about these things. They were a topic of a lot of discussion in the last legislative session, and we didn't redo all of that conversation this session because there was this report coming back to us. And now we're talking about not doing the report that we already enacted in law. I don't have a problem. I don't have an issue with taking out and making recommendations if we're gonna if if that's gonna be a topic of discussion in the public engagement process. But, you know, I just went back and reviewed the language, and primary ag soils aren't in the community engagement process either because, again, it is not a public engagement process about act two fifty. It's about

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We specifically added the ag soils into. It.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, yeah. You're right. But mitigation is a very specific activity that happens when projects are allowed to be permitted on ag soils that we lose permanently in development. So mitigation is not preserving. Vitigation is actually losing them. That's what we're doing about that. And so I think that we're asking for data. Let's just focus on getting data on what's happening with those mitigation funds. How many acres are we preserving for all the ones that we've been submitting development. Maybe it needs to be

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: more specific. Because right now, I'm sitting here going, what does the effectiveness of mitigation mean? I guess the question is, how do you measure what didn't happen?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, so shall review the mitigation of impacts on primary agricultural waste, Mitigation activities for primary agricultural

[Unidentified Committee Member]: waste permitted? I hadn't even understood that term mitigation to me, what you're talking about

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: right now.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. In a second.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, gotcha. Generally results actually in contribution to the BHCb fund that that protects the prime access. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do but we mean to say permitted mitigation. Yeah. So not the effectiveness of, but just like a review of permitted mitigation activities. Primary agricultural sites.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have to look back.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's not even effectiveness. It's just the effect.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, the effect of permitted mitigation activities on primary We

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: already know. We probably I think this is data that's already kept. It's like a report. I just Report on how much mitigation because of yeah. We've added in. Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So why are we even asking for this one?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You know? This is because we wanted recommendations. Now this group wants to strike the recommendations. I mean, I think it's I I'm still okay with recommendations. Okay. So here's the deal also. We can keep walking through this. We're not gonna vote tonight, so let's just get through it, think about it. Did you just raise your hand?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No. Yeah. I'm just wondering if maybe the title could be a Manview's review of current data or something, Just to make it more specific, because it you know, I think people might get confused with the landings review board report. You know, I feel like that's again

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: mhmm. Yeah. Could you repeat that? That's fine.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is quite a high level name. So, next change not until page 26. And this is one of my recommendations. So there aren't any substantive changes to section 20 except that I realized that you all were asking for this Community Investment Board report to be an annual report, not a one time report. And so I have added it to the chapter on the Community Investment Board. And then, oh, and there's an and in there. And then finally, the last change is the addition of section 21. And this is the Municipal Appeals Discretionary Review of Housing report. So this report is based on what the Senate sent you, but but it has been rewritten based on the earlier conversation. And so it now reads, On or before 01/15/2027, the Department of Housing and Community Development, after consultation with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, Let's Build Homes, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, the Vermont Planners Association, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies, the Vermont Bar Association, and the Secretary of Natural Resources or their designee shall report on the following mechanisms for limiting appeals of municipal permits while allowing municipalities to address legitimate concerns with projects, including the most commonly raised issues on appeal and an evaluation of statutory or procedural tools to limit duplicative or frivolous appeals and recommend legislative action needed, if any. The report shall also include impacts of discretionary review on residential development. The Department shall consider the following, onto page 28. Whether this oh, this should be rewritten slightly because there's only one bullet point, but whether the state should assist municipalities seeking to develop clear and objective standards, including model codes, the potential value of the federal right to build zone legislation and steps the state can take to maximize that value, and incentives and planning assistance the state can offer municipalities seeking to limit discretionary review and a status update on the eight zero two Homes Pilot Program. The report shall be submitted to the House Committee on Environment and Housing in General and the Senate Committees on Economic Development and Natural Resources and Energy?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: To develop clear and objective standards. I think I should just say objective standards. Flying the others aren't clear. Sounds like you're going to restructure it.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Slightly. Yes. And then so the first part of the sentence so in that subdivision A on top of page 28 so it's whether the state should assist municipalities seeking to develop objective standards. And then the last part on line four is incentives and planning assistance the state can offer municipalities seeking to limit discretionary review.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Is there a public outreach process?

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There is no required. Other than the stakeholder group at the beginning, there's stakeholders.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: One of the things that I considered adding into this was I actually think the process should be in engaging with the municipalities About the eight zero two Homes pilot program.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the other piece, municipalities can do whatever they want with the standards. The eight zero two Palms pilot project is your Presumably, they're doing outreach for that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I would assume. I mean but yeah. I'm saying that almost doesn't fit, but I guess it's just the other feedback. It's related because it's developing I'm just looking at the title of this report. It was tagged on at the end

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: in the Senate.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's related because it's creating It's somewhat related to standards, related to the idea of model code. Yeah, it's related to the model code.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm not against it being

[Unidentified Committee Member]: in I just think it's little out of

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Further discussion? Seeing none, we will take this wrapped up again in the morning.

[Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think you're going to

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: clean it up a little bit, so I don't know if it will

[Unidentified Committee Member]: get a

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: new number or not, but you and the editors can decide what we see next, but we'll see you in

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the next draft tomorrow morning.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right, with that, we're