Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You're live. Alright. Good morning, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are hearing amendments to s three twenty five, and we welcome rep Charlton.

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: Hi. So I am still Tom Charlton.

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

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: I'm good. I represent Chester Andover or Chester, Athens, Grafton, and Wyndham. And I'm on the house general housing committee. I'm here with, this amendment to s three twenty five, which moves the housing exemption deadlines back to 2030. Since the senate governor just the number that they've chosen. My reasons for doing that are of concern for timeline and capacity, particularly mid size communities, mid size developers, smaller communities. The housing situation is still critical. We have heard some testimony from DHCD, VHFA. The dials in terms of housing starts are beginning to move, but they are not moving fast. The housing needs that we have really needed to be addressed a few years ago. We're really behind. We're behind on it. And the need for housing, I don't think I need to explain them. Think it's evident now. The desire to encourage it in the sensible sort of locations that we're designating in tier one is a little more complicated, I think, probably now than it was a few months ago. And let me congratulate you guys in working through some really enormous and difficult legislation. We have had some enormous and difficult legislation in our committee. It's a huge lift. Thank you for doing it. The the capacity and timeline issues regard both the municipalities and the developers. First, being that the municipalities are still waiting for, in some cases, the future land use maps to show which areas will be eligible. They then have, presumably next year, to step through the process of getting the approvals. They're in the smaller communities, and all of my communities are under 3,000 people. One as small as 400 people. They do not have the capacity to move quickly on this. They don't have the and from my league of cities and towns, provide some technical assistance, which is great, but I don't know how many play they can testify better to this. How many communities they can give technical assistance to all at once, is going to be challenging. From the small developer point of view, the amount of planning that goes into a project before it even begins the permitting stage is enormous. If we look at multimillion dollar, large staffed developers that are doing a 100 units at a time, and they're in, you know, they're in Brattleboro or they're in Williston, they have staff. They have employees just to handle all of this in house. The smaller and mid sized developers are the ones that we really need to rely on in the mid sized communities. They don't have staff to fast track this stuff. And by the time the land use maps are available, the municipalities have stepped through the process of applying and getting permanent approval, that's when the developers are gonna start to go out on a limb. They won't go out on a limb with resources and with time until they can see a clear path all the way to completion, and neither will the financers. So we are and just for disclosure, I am in the construction trades. I build post and beam frames, just the frames. I'm a subcontractor, and I have never seen a multifamily post and beam. I don't think this is going to be something I'm involved with. But I network and exist in that community of midsize developers. From the time they the maps are done and the the permanent exemptions are in place, They still have to determine if the land is available. They have to acquire the land. If they determine it is viable to go ahead, they still have to do their market analysis. They still have to do all of the local permitting. They have to do all of the financing, which doesn't happen overnight. And depending on who is part of the financing stack and whether or not it involves federal funds, all of the permitting and all the design criteria get much more complicated. They have architects, structural engineers, and so on that they work through. It can take ten years to do this. We're involved in a subsidized multiunit housing project in Central Vermont that is just wrapping up now that began the site engineering in 2010. They're just that complicated. My concern is that if we want to encourage housing in these areas, we need to make it very clearly more achievable than nine lot subdivisions all over the countryside because the option right now for the mid sized developer in a smaller community is still the the nine lot subdivision of a single family homes. It's simpler. It's more predictable. It it is it's just much easier to do. In order to encourage them to take the option of multiunit denser housing in the village centers, it needs to be very convincingly as simple. My concern is they're not gonna take this if they don't know that by the time they start the design, they start the financing, they start the mine because it's all overhead time you're paying people to do this. They're not gonna spend any on it if they don't if they're not a 100% certain. So my recommendation, if we in order to make the development we're looking for appealing in the areas where we want them to be developing and not spread out all over, you know, rural back roads, We need to make it clear to them that everybody is going to get over, over the finish line or they're just not going to begin. And my concern is if we don't begin, we are not going to get the housing that we need. We're just not going to get it because the exemptions if we wait two years and then extend them two years because it didn't happen, they're not gonna take it then either. If they don't think two years is enough now, then they're not gonna think two years is enough down the road. So it's really a matter of of encouraging the development we want because that's the only alternative we really have to not encouraging the alternative, which is currently just simpler. That's that's the rationale.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do members have questions? Representative Austin.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So I think we're at the intersection of a school line. Again, looking into the future by 2030, Vermont needs to build 40,000 homes in order to replace our workforce that will be retiring and the demographics. No one's moving here. I think it's point zero three in terms of the popping moving here. And right now, we're building 4,000 houses a year. So in order for us to meet that deadline in 2030 of 40,000 houses in order to bring workforce up here, It's an intersection. And my concern is that even if it starts in 2030, you add, like you said, five more years to it. I think we're gonna be in a world of hurt for monitors because our workforce is aging out. We have no housing to replace people who wanna come up here and work. You know, we're Rob Austin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: That's your The question Question. Like, a question is

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We have a number of amendments together.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: What what are you what how is your solution going to make Vermont more affordable?

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: It's two questions. One is the kind of housing that's being built is still relatively expensive, high end single family homes because it's simpler and more marketable. And the second is that the timeline is such that these developers need to know they can make it happen sooner or they won't start, and they won't start early enough. They're going to wait until all the ducks are in a row. And really, by that point, they've got five years of planning before they can even begin. The large corporate developers are already busy. They they don't have the capacity to build 40,000 homes. So we need the mid size groups, that can't take quite as much risk to be willing to do the kind of developing that we're actually wanting and do it sooner.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Madam North.

[Rep. Rob North]: Yep. Thank you, madam chair. Just just to make sure I understand, I I well, I think what you're sharing with this is kind of a new new thought. When when we talked about this before and pulled the dates back into 2028, we were thinking, oh, well, when we get to 2028, it's if we're not having enough housing, we'll just spend it out for two years. But what you're saying is if they don't have that certainty of a long enough runway, they won't even start now. They're they're fine. Yes. And getting two years down the road to start then, if they only get another two years, that's still not long enough runway.

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: So they'll never get started. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Well, yes. Because it is it's daunting and it's uncertain to start a project of this length and complexity. And if a two year runway isn't doesn't give them the confidence to do it now, then another two year runway isn't going to give them more down the road. I don't know. I don't know what testimony you've heard. If it's going to be harmful to extend those deadlines till they're just, you know, till the the temporary exemptions just aren't necessary. And they may not be necessary in four years. Hopefully, they won't be. But the the there's the mid sized developers that we need. There if the if question is enough to make them hesitate to to deal with the housing that we want.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is that Chittenden?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Thanks for having this conversation with us. I'm curious. So what I'm hearing is a is a theory, and it makes like it's logical what we just shared. What I'm curious about is sort of the evidence behind it. If we set up this three year period two years ago, Did we see a lot of mid sized developers decide that wasn't a long enough runway? Did we see a lot of projects get going? Do you know people who have said, oh, I would have built built this except for the fact they were expiring in 2027?

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: Yes. And mostly anecdotally, would love to have to say, yes, I've had 500 conversations and 300 of them said this. Even BLCT does not have specific they're finding it hard to find actual data, numeric data. What I am finding is that, you know, three years ago, it was contingent on temporary exemptions awaiting the land use maps. They weren't confident enough in the temporary exemption to to start because they're not gonna have shovels on the ground in in three years for multiunit dense housing in in a village center. It is just way easier, and there's a lot of demand for single family, high end homes, and nine lot subdivisions. So as long as the developer can look at that option and say that's simpler and more predictable, that's what they're gonna opt for. It really and and and understand, you know, I'm in the construction realm, but I'm also an outdoorsman. And I just I don't like seeing nine lots subdivisions. I don't.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I think you make a good point about the nine lot subdivision single family homes, especially the higher end homes that are that seem to be occupying a lot of the capacity we have for construction over the last few years. As long as the as long as that's where the profits are to be made, will extending these exemptions actually

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: have

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: the effect, do you think, of of moving folks from these more profitable ventures to to ventures which still will presumably pencil out as being less

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: profitable? They will. Right now, the cost that's incurred is in the is in the planning phase, and that's an that's the unpredictable portion. It is the engineering fees. It's the permitting fees. It's the studies. It's the the architects and and the engineers. All these soft costs that are up front. These are the costs that they're hesitating to make, not being sure that the municipality is gonna get over the finish line.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: So so you you have evidence from folks who are saying,

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: I don't have a conversation. So yes.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: These projects instead of building high end series of homes. But I

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: Well, because So conversation and it's anecdotal, but it's conversations with builders, is conversations with realtors, you know, with people who are saying, yeah, you know, there's still a market. People are still building things, and you cannot get somebody to you can't get somebody to fix your back porch because they're building a million dollar home on a dirt road somewhere. That's that's where they're at because they know going into it that they have a market that that it will work. And if they don't know, at the moment, the smaller groups, the smaller constructors that work they can't do this overnight. They have a limited staff. It takes much longer to step through all the hoops. There has been to invest in all the upfront soft costs that they need to until they know that this is that there's at least going to be an overlap between what's necessary and what's available between the permanent arrangements and the temporary exemptions.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I'm gonna just intervene because we do need to get to a bunch of amendments. But I do want you to understand how we got to the dates that we chose. And so the senate did send 2030 for the exemptions. In large part, I heard because they were the tier three and road rule were going to 2030. And when when that went away, we looked closely and we listened to a lot of feedback. And I would say part of the feedback is, from towns who aren't so sure about wanting, we don't know if the towns want these exemptions to continue. We don't have data on whether they're actually building workforce housing that we need where we need it. And by going to 2028, it represents six months or a year extension to those exemptions. It lines up with our future land use mapping with a year for towns to opt into tier one a's and one b's. And it gives us time to hear back from ACCD, like, what kind of houses are being built? Where are they being built? That's part of what's in 03/25 is a report back. Recently, you may have seen in seven days, UVM has studied what is building more houses doing for us, and their evidence showed actually it was pushing houses up, the prices of houses up, not down, because of other forces in the real estate market. So I feel like the 2028 it's a compromise. It says, okay, let's let's give this time to play out. Let's collect data. Let's see if it's building the housing that we actually need for folks who are gonna live here year round and work here. We we don't have that data yet. And so I guess I would just say when we when we get there, the way these exemptions work is you just have to have your foot in the door by the date of expiration. So there's it's a pretty generous exemption. So really, functionally, it continues beyond the 2028 date. So I guess I would say, appreciate that you're here and thinking about this, but that's where we got to in our thinking.

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: No. I understand that. I think by the time we have data to know if it's working, we're not gonna have time to build the build to build the housing. And it's getting built in large areas, but not at the pace we need.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay. Let's see. Herb will soon. So? We'll hear from Herb next. I think we don't need to hear from Ela on date extensions unless folks feel like they need to walk through date extensions for the housing extensions.

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: I don't think we can see the for sure.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Like, what what I would ask, representative Olson is just tell us the problem you're trying to solve, and then we'll walk through with our lead counsel. Okay. Thanks, Bob.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Thanks very much for having me. Herb Olson, I represent Bristol, Lincoln, Moncton, and Starksboro over in Northeast Addison County. Pretty rural part of the state and I understand with this amendment, which I hope has been circulated, it it focuses on the provisions of title 24 that talk about the definitions applicable to municipal planning and zoning and regional zoning. And it focuses on the smart growth provision that you added into those those definitions. And I understand that I'm kind of swimming upstream against pretty you know, our current probably swollen by some of those rains we had yesterday. But I thought it was important to bring to your attention another perspective. Smart growth, I think is something that has gained a lot of traction and is popular. It's one vision for Vermont. I don't think it's the only vision and I'm kind of worried about how this is going to play out.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You need to tell us what you're doing here because this is really an amendment that just talks about sections in the bill. So what what definitions are you proposing to swap out? Just like if you don't mind.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Oh, I thought you wanted me to talk about what purpose of the bill.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But this one, we just, it's no way to understand the amendment by just looking at the amendment language. So, if you.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah, the central provision in the amendment is the second proposal of amendment. The first and third, as I think Ellen can explain if you have her, are really kind of conforming amendments. The second amendment proposes to add a definition to Title 24. I forget the exact chapter, but it's the definitions that govern municipal planning and zoning and regional planning and zoning.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The definition you're inserting is what?

[Rep. Herb Olson]: The definition is in your sec 14 of the bill. And I don't have the current calendar. Have the notice calendar from yesterday. I I hope I I I think I forwarded to you folks, but, yeah, I can read it out. It's, sec, it's proposed as a new definition section 43. Smart growth principles mean growth that maintains the historic development pattern for complex village and earned center centers separated by rural countryside. B develops compact mixed use centers at a scale appropriate for the community and the region. C enables choice in modes of transportation. D protects the states important environmental, natural and historic features, including natural areas, water quality, scenic resources and historic sites and districts. He serves to strengthen agricultural and forest industries and minifies conflicts with develop development with these industries and it balances growth with the availability of economic and efficient public utilities and services.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just tell us the one you're changing.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: I'm sorry?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How many of them are you

[Rep. Herb Olson]: proposing to change? To strike that Principles. That fourteenth That sec 14.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, the entire section. Correct. It exists in statute elsewhere.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: I understand. I understand that. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm trying to focus on what I think is a problem and a different perspective than is embodied in the philosophy of smart growth. I can explain if you wish.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sure. Yeah. Tell us. Yes.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Yeah. So, the reason why I'm focusing on this particular section is that I know it's a very popular concept. I don't think it's a vision that's shared by everyone in Vermont. I think there are folks who do not live in village areas and urban centers who do so for a good reason. They are tradespeople. They are service people. They operate internationally with their skills. And they just don't necessarily live in a village center. They love their village center. That's great. But they have reasons for not living in a rural center and as a practical matter, I sit on a regional planning commission and staff there tells us that we can accommodate around 60% of our need for additional housing in village centers and in urban areas. That leaves 40% outside those areas. So, the question is, how are you going to have the housing that we need in Vermont? If you're and and I see smart growth as something that, especially as applied through a definition to planning and zoning, will be a barrier to creating that housing that we need, because Townsend Regional Planning Commission s are gonna have to implement that. And so I I don't think it's a big issue now probably. But I think there's going to be I think there's anxiety out there around the implications of and using this as a core planning issue and the impact is going to have on folks where they live right now and the impact is going to have on especially rural areas being able to increase their housing to the extent that they need need to. I don't have any great I don't think there's a great likelihood that this proposal amendment is gonna be successful, but I do think it's important to start the conversation. I think that hopefully, you know, starting that conversation will allow us to better reconcile, I think, but the needs embodied in the smart growth principles with our equally pressing needs for housing, especially in our rural areas of the state. That's the rationale.

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I am super confused. When I read your amendment, it looks like it's changing definition of smart growth principles to one elsewhere. Yeah. And when I look at that one online and I look what's in our bill, they're identical. So what are you trying to change?

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Yeah. No, I understand. And frankly, as former member of the Legislative Council, I didn't wanna impose a burden on Legislative Council to try to change everything in 2024 around smart growth. I was trying to focus on section two, the second proposal of amendment. I understand what you're talking about.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Just don't see any impact of your amendment.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: I'm sorry?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I don't see the impact of your amendment. I don't think it changes anything in on the ground.

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Well, I suppose I could amend it to include those other provisions in title 24 that talk about smart growth because I think the similar concern is there. I I was just reluctant to impose more work on Legis Council at this at this time. Practically.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: And yet you're asking for an amendment that doesn't effectively do anything. Doesn't that impose?

[Rep. Herb Olson]: Oh, I I think it does. I think it it would call attention to the need to have to rethink this and to think about whether or not it is properly balancing, you know, our our the the the concept, the vision, and smart growth with the housing needs of our state.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Thank you. Okay. I'll let you up to help us understand the amendment.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll check out the office.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, this morning. While you're here, can walk us through the other amendments too.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Oh, sure.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Yeah. So, representative Olson's amendment, I think is pretty straightforward. I think you just identified what it's doing. The second instance of amendment is striking out section 14 of the bill, which is just adding the definition of smart growth principles to chapter 117, the planning and zoning chapter. And so by getting rid of that definition, the two places otherwise in your bill where you're citing the smart growth principles are changing the cross reference so that it will use the smart growth principles that are in chapter 76A.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. As we've discussed in this committee, they're in both places, and this change is at the request of the regional planning commissions.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Yeah. Now word for word the second. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This amendment doesn't do anything. Okay. That's a mystery. Maybe there'll be more. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Representative Charlton's, I think you all have.

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: And

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then do you also have representative Burdett's amendment?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Burdett, let's go there. Sure.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So representative Burdett's amendment is amending is adding a new section to your bill, would amend 10 BSA 6,034, the Tier 1A area status requirements. And so this language would be amending one of the requirements regarding staff. So, as you'll see down in line 12, the municipality has to demonstrate to the board that has each of the following: municipal staff, and it's adding regional planning commission staff or other contracted capacity adequate to support coordinated comprehensive and capital planning, development review and zoning administration in the Tier 1A area. So, in this, for the Tier 1A area, the town that's applying for it needs to just demonstrate that they have municipal staff adequate to support their planning and zoning program. This would be adding additional specificity about including Regional Planning Commission and other contracted capacity.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So it's just inserting this new underline. It's not anything up yet. Correct. I think it seems like that was our intent.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I did want to just flag for you because we hadn't talked about this in a while. The tier 1B area also has a requirement for staff that is slightly different. And so you did have conversations when you were working on these two different areas, what the requirements should be. And so for Tier 1B, it says that the municipality has to have staff, municipal officials, or contracted capacity adequate to support their development review and zoning administration.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: So,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you were working on tier one at the same time, and they have different staff requirements. You can consider having the match or consider this program. You haven't talked a lot about this particular section recently, though.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Could you read the one b again? Sorry.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is 6033 Subdivision C6. So the municipality has staff, municipal staff, municipal officials, or contracted capacity adequate to support their development review program.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Feel like they may be different. I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. Municipal staff, municipal officials, or contracted Capacity. Yes. I saw that. Okay. That's great. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. And since representative Burditt just joined us, we'll let him take a stand and tell us the problem he's trying to solve.

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: Can't be up here so quick. Find

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: my stuff. If you bear with me. I think Kat sent everyone or put it on your website, a copy of my amendment.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So we just walked through it with legislative council. Oh, you did? Okay. Yes. We're up here on what you're what you're doing. We're just giving you your moment to tell us what why you're doing it.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: Alright. Well, the main reason the big reason I'm doing it is with the the tier one with planning commissions, smaller, larger towns will have the staff. Way I understand it, the law is written now is that you have to have people on staff to handle, you know, any of the, processes you go through. And what the amendment does is, allows towns to, to hire contractors so they don't have to, hire full time staff, which is gonna, you know, for a small town to hire a, you know, a staff person for a planning commission. I don't know what it's gonna cost them $60.70, dollars 80,000 a year, and they would be able to realize substantial savings, by contracting the workout. And and one thing that that I I checked on before I came in is I I wanted to see where the league was was on this and they're in full support of it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for that. Actually, and Ellen brought our attention to one b, which, does include similar language to what you're proposing for one b's. I guess now it's reminding me the reason we had the municipal staff requirement for the 1As is that it's considered I mean, when I think about the 1As, it's that they are taking on an ongoing development review and permitting process. They're not like, they're they're responsible, and we've we've softened it a little bit in 03/25 for them to only take on Act two fifty permit, for example, requirements for for projects as they applied it for a change, not taking them on all at once, like originally. So I guess the concern for me would be we're not just talking about, A, housing development like we might be in a 1B. We're talking about ongoing municipal development review of of all developments, commercial and housing, all of it. And I think that's why we focused on the need for the municipal staff being pretty constant in it or not pretty constant, constant in a one area.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: Right. I guess a question I would ask is, you folks are a lot more familiar with this than I am, but there'll be some towns that that wouldn't need that, you know, depending on the projects they have and would they only need to hire? A contractor for a short period of time. If if a town you know was was a developing town, you know where they they were growing, it could probably be justified to hire that staff. But, is there going to be some towns, maybe a town in the kingdom, you know, that isn't going to have a lot of growth compared to a town in Chittenden County? You know, would it be beneficial for them to be able to just hire that contractor for a short period of time?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It could be yes. I I I hear your point. But then I would also say then who's responsible for sort of if the problem comes up in the future with neighbors or the ongoing, you know, things that happen, like, with with an Act two fifty permit. I mean, when people apply for a permit amendment, there's often negotiations with the neighbors around to address the issues that were brought up the first time the development was reviewed. So that's I guess that town would have to recontract with someone to deal with that. Like, I don't I mean, I and it may work with regional planning commission staff. So representative sacchance.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I guess I'm I'm just maybe a little unsure of what we're trying to what this amendment is doing in terms of this is really all about the Tier 1A, which has always been expected to have been applied for by a small handful of the very biggest municipalities in the state. And you seem to be referring to some of the smaller ones, which would presumably be under the one B. And so it doesn't I'm just not sure we're solving a problem by. By changing this this language, and we would just instead be telling the bigger towns, the very biggest towns that they don't. Need to have their own staff to work on this when the idea was that they would have the capacity to actually do that. It seems like we would sort of be muddying the waters in terms of what the expectations are, in terms of how they would follow this. And this would be a permanent position, as the chair said, and would go on for long periods of time. It does seem like it really does make sense for those small number of very large communities to, in fact, have permanent staff that to take care of these on.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: And I agree with you, you know, with the larger communities that they are they're going to have the need to have somebody there all the time and to hire a contractor, you know, for the whole year, I'm sure is going to be more expensive than than hiring, you know, a position. Again, the smaller towns, you know, again talking with the league that aren't going to have the the ongoing projects like the larger town is, you know, whether it's in, you know, in Rutland or Rutland County or Chittenden, you know, in Burlington and Chittenden County. It just isn't feasible for a small town to to hire somebody. And yeah, they they they may have an issue where you know they they may have to rehire a contractor or you know to to answer some questions or if there's a you know a problem with a neighbor or maybe the existing planning Commission can handle that that would that would be that would be to be determined. I mean, the way the law is written now, it says you have to have staff and and and yeah.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: So are you really suggesting then that we should have envisioned tier one a to apply to a much wider group of communities in the state than than we did? Because it was always the case, I think from the very beginnings of these conversations that tier one a really was just about a small, like, handful of the very largest places. And what seems like your amendment is is is implying is that tier one a would actually be something we would then be intending for a much larger range of much smaller communities as well. Is that your intention?

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: No. I guess my intention is just to be able to let the smaller communities hire a contractor, you know, on on a temporary basis because they're not going to have again, they're not going to have those ongoing, the ongoing growth that a larger community is going to have and and to to hire somebody that's, you know, going to be working, you know, basically be doing potentially work for a month or two a year and have to put them on the payroll for the full year. You know, to me it doesn't make sense, you know, talking with the league, you know, it doesn't make sense to them either.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I just I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: just wanna ask, like, it seems to me that act two fifty is already doing this for these communities. That's that's kind of what one of the things that has this dialogue, this session has really shone a light on is that, you know, we have over a 100 towns who are still one acre towns. They're basically asking Act two fifty to do their development review of larger developments, including commercial developments. And and then we have communities that have invested heavily in planning and development review. The one As really are imagined for those communities. One B is to help the communities I think that you're talking about. And then Act two fifty, is there for our rural communities when developments are proposed and provides that continuity of engagement and oversight for the community to feel comfortable and confident in how the development's happening in their town. But I think part of the idea is to to, you know, acknowledge that some towns are are prepared to do that ongoing development review and stewardship, and other towns, need state support because they're so you know, they're they're small.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: Right. Right. So, so the way the law is written now, it says communities would have to hire staff, but they actually wouldn't that the state would, would, would step in and, and, and help them?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm sorry. The the section of statute that you're trying to amend? Is that what you're asking? Yeah.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They have to demonstrate that they have municipal staff adequate to support coordinated comprehensive and capital planning, development, review, and zoning administration.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: Right. So that means they may have to hire somebody for planning.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. They do. They have. Many towns have a planner on staff.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: Right. Right. But but what what the amendment does is for the the towns that don't have them have these people on staff.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. I get that. Rep representative North.

[Rep. Rob North]: The way I read this amendment, maybe clarify for me, that for the larger towns that do have municipal staff, they may not have sufficient staff to, as it says in the law, adequately support coordinated comprehensive capital planning for this bubble of housing need that we have. It's a relatively short term bubble. And they might have a planner, a full time person, which is great. They need to have that for long term continuity. But for this short term, you know, through 2028 or 2030, if if things happen or even for the the length of of tier one a, but there's this housing bubble that we need that we need to do a condensed, pretty intensive housing construction for a relatively short then they could contract out for additional capacity during this bubble time. And most notably, work with the regional planning commission staff and and contract with them to to do

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: a more coordinated regional one,

[Rep. Rob North]: you know, region wide coordinated activity. It seems like that's really what we were striving at because we're looking at the tier one a areas, which are the bigger areas.

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: And I thought that's what you

[Rep. Rob North]: were trying to achieve.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: It was both. I mean,

[Rep. Rob North]: it could work. Didn't think of that side of it, but slightly smaller communities that might not be able to do

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: it at all. But yeah, to

[Rep. Rob North]: me to me, it's it's handling this bubble of housing needs short term, which is massive, more than what one person can handle, which might not be meeting the letter of the law, adequate to support coordinated comprehensive capital planning. You might need

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: short term help. Right. Well, that's another potential, something positive that could come out

[Rep. Rob North]: of it. Yeah. So I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: would just remind you that that's where the one Bs kind of came from, is they're targeted on housing. They're available to more communities. That's exactly why they are there. No.

[Rep. Rob North]: I'm talking to the tier one a.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I know. But to your point of Short term. You were talking you were just waxing eloquent about addressing the housing.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: Right. In tier one a.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: One b's address housing specifically, and we're seeing some of our larger towns consider one b. So we that that's the whole idea of

[Rep. Rob North]: the To handle the bubble. To be able to contract, to handle the bubble.

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: Representative Tagliavia. I thank you. I spilled a little bit on representative North. I see this, excuse me, as an option for a smaller town that may be a 1A town, but a very small town with maybe a smaller grant list, to be able to grow their grant list by contracting with a municipal planner to give it a test drive. And if they do start to see growth at some point when they have the capacity in their grant list, then hire full time staff.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: That's how I see this.

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Tom, for bringing this. Very interesting to talk about. Because we had this had not come up in S-three twenty five. I'm curious if you have a municipality. I'm sorry if you heard your seconds. Is there a municipality you know of that would like to be one a, but the municipal staff has

[Rep. Rob North]: No.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: No. And I don't I don't have a list of of municipalities that would

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Not a list. Just things that are municipality that would like to be 1A, but municipal staff capacity is the barrier?

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: I I don't know. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Alright. Thank

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you for coming. Alright.

[Rep. Tom Burditt]: Thank you.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Frank Burt, representative for Cabot, Danville, Peacham. Did did council alleged council already go over my amendment?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No. Not yet. Okay. And

[Rep. Frank Burt]: then maybe I'll pass these around.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: We all have.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: You got it?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: We have it.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Okay. Then I will.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You got one of them?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Yeah. Which

[Rep. Frank Burt]: one do you have?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We have the accessory on farm business.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Okay. I'll pass this one around. So I I'll start with my amendment on the smart growth principles definition, which is getting passed out right now. So the amendment I'm proposing regards section 14 of draft 8.1 of s three twenty five, which was page 21, line 18 specifically. I'll start by reading the definition of smart growth principles. Smart growth principles means growth that maintains the historic development pattern of compact village and urban centers separated by rural countryside. B, develops compact misuse mixed use centers at a scale appropriate for the community and the region. Part c, enables choice in modes of transportation. D, protects the state's important environmental, natural, and historic features, including natural areas, water quality, scenic resources, and historic sites and districts. E, serves to strengthen agricultural and forest industries and minimizes conflict of development with these industries. And the list goes on with a few more parts to it. But I figured I'd just stop there for ease of describing the amendment. But so my amendment would change part e to to read, serves the strength in agricultural and forest industries, including homesteading, small scale agriculture and forestry, and supporting housing while minimizing conflicts of development with these industries. Why am I proposing this change? The legislature thought it important to make sure agriculture and forestry are strengthened by regional planning and municipal zoning decisions. In '24 VSA forty three zero two, which is the section just before forty three zero three, which has all these definitions of which smart growth principles was pulled into in this committee recently. In forty three zero two, the purpose and goals section tasked municipalities and regions with, among other things, development undertaken in accordance with smart growth principles as defined in subdivision two hundred seventy nine thousand one thirteen. Two hundred seventy nine thousand one thirteen is the subdivision from which smart growth was pulled and placed into 24 BSA 3 4303 in this bill. It is clear that we want to remote ag and forestry, but the devil is in the details like anything else. I believe it is important that our municipalities and regional planners see that homesteading, small scale agriculture and forestry, and the housing that supports them are specifically encouraged. In the last number of decades, we have envisioned our farms and forestry operations in a medium to large scale. Typically, would be 100 plus acres in size. Historically, Vermont has seen plenty of small farms that operate around smaller plots in what is considered homesteading today. Many upstarting farm businesses rely on high intensity practices on smaller parcel size in order to reduce startup costs. In some cases, with greenhouses and modern intensive practices, such as high density fruit orchards and rotational grazing, farmers are able to continue on small parcels and stay viable. We need to make sure that the planning of tomorrow for development encapsulates farming and forestry at scales at all scales and recognizes the need for on-site housing. I know firsthand the value of living directly on our farm. Whether for organic farms, integrated pest management systems, permaculture, or holistic animal husbandry, maple sugaring or small scale integrated woodlot production, it is essential to be able to monitor and work the land at all hours of the day. Living outside is the only legitimate option for this type of work. Any farmer will tell you this. I strongly urge the committee to support my amendment as not all municipal and regional planners understand the nuances of small scale agriculture and forestry and the need for on-site supporting housing. It is essential that the core value of small scale agriculture forestry be embedded in our definition of smart growth principles. Thank you for your attention to this.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for that explanation. Do members have questions? Representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Can you explain homesteading? Mean, would that come under be regulated?

[Rep. Frank Burt]: So I did a little bit of research, and I don't believe there's a definition of homesteading after after I put this amendment together in our statute. And I think that it's important to actually create that definition if you ask me because I think it's such a vital part of our communities. So I think alongside this, definition of homesteading would need to be put into our statute.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: In terms of, like, infrastructure and stuff like that.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Right. So, I mean, I I see homesteading as it's very much linked to small scale agriculture, but you might homestead and not sell a product to anyone. You might only raise, you know, a couple beef and, you know, a large garden and have a small fruit orchard and only seek to feed your own family. Right? Mhmm. And have no interest in doing any commerce with products, which would mean that you wouldn't necessarily fall under the wraps at that point. Required agricultural practices and which requires $2,000 worth of farm income schedule F or at this point for four more acres of land. I think that might be getting changed in the municipal bylaws that we're working on in our committee. So you may have no interest in being considered a farm by the definition of our statute, but you might, like many people, be interested in raising your own food. And I think that's where, to me, homesteading the definition would fall in there. And obviously, that would need to be a definition that was created by by in committee and and figured out it was ledge counsel. So, but I think it's an what I I was surprised that we don't have a definition on homesteading, to be honest. It it brings up homestead, which is about, you know, tax law, things like that. Great. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Satcowitz. Yeah, thank you for this. At first glance, this sounds great. But also just, you know, first question when we pick on any legislation is like, what problem are we trying to solve and what will the effects be? And so I guess I'll put that to you. What what problem are we solving by including this and and what would you expect the effects of this change to be?

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Yeah. So I I guess the problem I'm trying to solve is actually in the definition of smart growth principles itself. If you go a couple lines down, which I could bring up, it talks about outside of urban centers or downtown areas that develop basically discouraging development that's land consumptive, which really a homestead in a sense is is land consumptive. Small scale agriculture happens on two to ten, fifteen acres. So if you want to have a house and surround yourself with your farm, you need somewhere between two and fifteen acres. Well, if a regional planner is looking at that and not considering if they're all they're looking at is a definition that includes agricultural industry and forest industry, someone who's home setting or doing small scale may not be is that industrial? Is that is that at a scale? What what scale are we talking about? And if it's land consumptive, then it's actually discouraged in the very definition of that we have here. It also talks about fragment you know, fragment discouraging the fragmentation of forest and farmland. Well, not everyone is looking to have a 100 acre farm now. There are a lot of people who are looking to have a 10 acre farm. That's it. That's all they have the money to afford, first of all. And it might mean, you know, going in on a 100 acre farm with some other folks and making that 100 acre farm into ten ten acre farms. That 10 people can afford to farm, but that looks like frag that looks like farmland fragmentation, but it's actually just divvying up the farm between 10 people who are homesteading at that point or doing small scale agriculture. And that's that's actually a conversation that the land access and opportunity board brought to our committee just last week, that they would like to see the Vermont Land Trust and others like it coming up with these models where instead of trying to give one large farm to one farm business that what does it look like to have these farms be made into smaller farms that more people can afford to start with and and do intensive agriculture on. I think it would be beautiful to see a 100 acre farm that had, it was like, it was a, was a really a farm development with 10 small farms on it. Would be a wonderful community. Would sign on to that in a hurry myself. So I just want to make sure that in our definition smart growth, this isn't really I don't I don't you know, maybe maybe you can find where this might might have some detriment to our to the development of our communities, but I I feel like there's no harm in just making clarity clarity that, you know, agricultural and forest industry includes these things that, you know, that that otherwise are actually discouraged lower in the definition, which I think so there's in in any definition, you have a push and pull, especially on development of we wanna push this way, but we also wanna make sure it doesn't go too far that way or you know? And I think in this case, it's you want to discourage the, you know, fragmentation of farm and forest land, but we'd also want to make sure we're not discouraging small scale farming in that process.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I think we hear your point, and I think it's a super interesting point. I think that it's a topic that needs to be taken up and certainly wasn't taken up in a time that lets us have this discussion in a meaningful way. But I hear your concern and do you think that as the other representative proposing an amendment to smart growth principles thinks it's time for us to have a conversation about that? I agree with that. It may be time the legislature and Vermonters to talk about this, and hopefully the process we're standing up is gonna do that very thing. My thought for now, did you wanna add something?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I guess just similarly, I really appreciate you looking at this and thinking about how it works for rural Vermont. Think in my experience, smart growth principles arose out of very urban and suburban environments. And as I read through the SMART Growth Principles today now twice, which we didn't give any time to even though they're in this bill because we were just adopting the same definition. We were not changing anything about the definition. So we didn't really take time to examine smart growth principles or discuss changes to them. I really do. I think personally, I really appreciate all the work that's been going on on the municipal zoning and ag bill and your committee and others. And I just feel like that's raising a lot of the same issues around small scale farming and homesteading and where we don't have protection, when we don't have definitions, we don't have good regulation and there's gaps. There's gaps in the system to supporting and protecting what has long been a huge part of heritage in Vermont and is essential to our ongoing survival. If we cannot produce our own food at a family scale, we're in trouble. So I really appreciate you raising this. I think between that municipal zoning and ag bill and this, it really makes me want to work on this issue. Been focusing on this definition, this question.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. It also it was really a request of the regional planning commissions to bring this smart growth principles from one section of statute into another that brought it to everyone's attention in this particular conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. I just wanna say I also, I mean, support small farming, large farming. And I think one of our concerns is the loss of agricultural land. So, it'd be really good to have a definition for homesteading to make an informed decision, but certainly just farms for people to grow their own food.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Appreciate that. And I've only been here for two years, so limited experience, but we've we've made some last minute decisions in our committee to said said, hey. This this looks like the right thing to do. And I know there's a sometimes you you you wanna wait and go through a a process of making sure that everybody's on board with it essentially. And that's also hard to do. Right? And I just feel like this is I don't I I would I would struggle to say that there's, you know, a controversy in making sure that a definition of agricultural industry includes small scale farming. So I think it's yes. I understand the roller coaster that you've all been on recently, and I appreciate all the time and effort you've put into this and and and being willing to do make some hard decisions. And I think this is just one more where you say, hey. We made we scaled back on some things, and we also made sure that we affirmed some things that that are going to ensure the the that our municipal systems and regional planning commissions see that we value this, and we wanna make sure that this is preserved in our state. So it could be something, obviously, that could be waited on or it could or just pull the trigger and do it now. And then if there are kings to work out, you do it next year.

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

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: you, Representative Burke for bringing this. To me, this is another case of what's old is new again. This used to happen all the time. And we have gotten away from this. I mean, think back to the 70s. I can think back to the 70s and knowing there were families that did this all the time. So, this is a no brainer. I'm a yes on this one without even thinking twice. If we're talking about a state that's grounded in agriculture, its heritage and its history, this is, to me, is a no brainer.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. I think we should probably move on to the next.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. So, yeah, you say you have the language on this already. K. So this is about accessory on farm businesses. I'll just read through it really brief, real quickly. No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on farm business for the storage or sale of qualifying products or the other eligible enumerated products as defined in '24 VSA four thousand four hundred twelve No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on farm business for the preparation or processing of qualifying products as defined in '24 and so on, provided more than 50% of the total annual sales of of the prepared or processed qualifying products come from products produced on the farm where the business is located. And then we would be striking out the next sentence and adding a sentence in. No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on farm business for educational, recreational, or social events that feature agricultural practices or qualifying products or both. So, yeah, I'm bringing this forward because I think and this is another one where we've been hashing out accessory on farm businesses. We have, this is in our committee, but for another reason, it's looking at giving an exemption up to $250,000 for on for, in terms of qualifying products. So being able to sell someone else's products at your farm stand, for instance, up to $250,000, and it could be in excess of 50%. So it's, say, 60% of what you're selling is not from your farm or 70% up to $250,000. It looks like we're not gonna go with that right now. And the reason why in our committee is that the report is due back from the LERB, and you guys put it in this bill of November 15 on accessory on farm businesses. And I know there is intention to simply wait and let the LERB come up with some things and give us a report next session. I'm bringing this forward now because I think there's this is another place where we can make a decision now to support rural economies with this. I mean, it basically this is just saying that a no permit, which is an act two fifty permit, would be required to host educational, recreational, or social events that feature agricultural practices or qualifying products or both. This does not take away the ability of a municipality to to regulate those things. So municipalities can regulate this. Just saying you don't need an act two fifty permit in order to do these things on a farm from my understanding. So I know there's 100 ish one acre towns as you were saying, chair Sheldon, that don't have zoning, which I'm assuming those are

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They may have zoning. They might not have bylaws. They have they don't they're they're one acre towns for for a number of reasons could make that happen.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Where it sounds like the state would come in and support them in a in a potentially in a fashion that other towns don't need as much support in. So what you're outlining earlier. But and I'm assuming those towns are more rural. And so, anyway, I think this amendment would be good in terms of, you know, another part of the definitions and the goals that are in forty three zero two of 24 VSAs about wanting to encourage culture and arts. And this is, to me, is is is it does two tasks in one where you're supporting agricultural businesses and rural economies, and you're also I mean, who doesn't wanna go listen to a folk band at a at a local orchard or or do a wine tasting with with some sort of musical event taking place at the same time without having to go through an I two fifty permit. So I think it's another one where we can show another step heading, only, you know, not only trying to stay some regulation, but also trying to promote economic growth on in in our rural areas.

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Thanks for bringing this up. I know we really need to work on this section of statute. Am curious if you think that the way this reads now, if it's inclusive of wedding venues or restaurants?

[Rep. Frank Burt]: I don't believe it's inclusive of restaurants. But, I mean, I think that's

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I can wait.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Council could probably answer that better than I could. Wedding events? I guess that'd be another one for lunch counsel to probably answer better than I can.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I think just in my wider experience professionally and my specific experience in my own constituency right now, are definitely, particularly sort of like that wedding venue scale that has huge impact on municipal roads and other things that would not be met by the patchwork of municipal zoning that exists out there. I think as we get into that end of the spectrum of events, I really I just know we need a humongous amount of consideration and testimony. So I just this this feels a little broad. Like, I I really wanna work on this with you and others. I just don't know that I can go here right now. Understood. Me, anyway. Then I'll ask more. But thanks for continuing to raise the AOFB shoe.

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

[Rep. Frank Burt]: All right. Thank you. Thank you. That's great.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Yes, please. I want to ask the Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I had, GAP post a version of representative Burns' first amendment or but the second amendment, the one about the smart growth principles with highlighting just to show you that he is only adding a few words to the existing it's not a full rewrite of Subdivision E, just adding an additional inclusion of some language. So, had that pointed out. So, on that one, so on this marker principles one, so it's adding just to Subdivision E, the phrase including home setting, small scale agriculture, forestry and supporting housing, while minimizing conflicts with development in these industries.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I don't know if you have any specific questions on this one.

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I think our specific question is what could be the unintended consequences of this?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Actually, I might step back and just right now, we brought this up too many times, but it's in two places in statute. It's in the Community Investment Program section of statute, which is set to well, the community the previous one, the designation program section of statute, which will sunset quite a ways out. But this planners wanted to bring it into this section of statute so that it stayed current despite the sunset, despite whatever happens to that so that people were aware of it, and people are more aware of it now. Do I have that right? I just wanted members to understand the lay of the land, why it's east in this bill, and that, it's also been a foundational piece, I think, of the community investment program for a long time that are that that, you know, Department of Housing and Community Development program started in many ways this conversation we're having today about act one eighty one, quite frankly, and the changes that we are debating. So that's a place to start with potential unintended consequences and how it plays out in other existing programs. But please go ahead and then answer that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I think that was an accurate summary that the Smart Growth Principles have been in 24 BSA Chapter 76A, the state designation program for quite a while, it is a requirement that when towns apply for these designated areas that they make sure that they're the areas and the features of that area and the planning around it include the Smart Growth Principles. And so, yes, currently, that statute is sent to sunset in 2034 when the designation program is supposed to be replaced with the Community Investment Program. So the Community Investment Program statute itself didn't bring the SMART Growth Principles into that statute, but it does incorporate them from the prior existing program. The regional planners were concerned that there would be a gap, and so they proposed to add it to chapter 117, the planning and zoning chapter, and then include a couple of additional references to it in both the regional planning Investment Program Statute. So, it is This is a set of principles that is used as part of the planning process for both the Regional Plans and municipal planning, but also for these designated areas. And so this amendment, so I guess you could just A slight unintended consequence is that this definition, if you accepted this amendment, would then not match the one in 76A. So you would consider maybe if you wanted to make sure that they continue to match. I am not super familiar with how the planners go about incorporating or addressing each element of the SMART Growth Principles. So, I'm not sure I can think of any immediate unintended consequence, but it's not necessarily my expertise.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Further questions for Ellen on this amendment? Representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: That's just the homesteading definition. How how do we understand when we say homesteading? What does that mean? I I don't know. And I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have asked actually in this committee before, because it's I'm not aware of any definition of it, I'm not super familiar. And so I don't know if it comes up more in the agricultural committee's work.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Are things like agricultural and forest industries defined?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I'm aware of.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Much of what I would just point out, I think a number of what homesteading is trying to address relative to the breadth of an industry, the industry is also not defined. I'm just thinking in the context of these smart growth principles, people are probably not looking to statute for defining each now in the statute.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Under I'm not sure what it's doing to this item. Serves to strengthen agricultural and homesteading and small scale agriculture and supporting housing while minimizing conflicts of development with these industries. That's a lot that I feel like all of the principles together are intended to address in many ways. Kind of not sure what this does to the other elements of the lists and how we how they relate to people trying to use them. Do folks have other questions on this one? Let's look at the accessory on farm business one.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So in the other amendment, it is just changing the third sentence in the accessory on farm business exemption in Act two fifty. And so I think we may have talked about this recently ish. So in 6081, the exemption section of Act two fifty, subdivision T was added in Act 181, and it has three sentences to address sort of the three in the definition of accessory on farm business, there's two types of accessory on farm businesses. And so there's three sentences to address sort of the three types of businesses that might fall under it. And so currently in statute, there is no specific Act two fifty exemption for the hosting of recreational, recreational, social events that are considered accessory on farm businesses. Part of this is that to trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit, there needs to be construction of improvements. Not all events require construction. Some of them don't already already don't trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit. Some of the questions I heard you discussing when committees have reviewed this type of accessory on farm business in the past, weddings or concerts may fit into this definition of educational, recreational, social events, but they do have to feature agricultural practices or the qualifying products. So there has to be an agricultural emphasis as part of that. I think restaurants technically has fallen under the other type of accessory on farm business, which is the preparation and processing of qualifying products.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Do members have questions, representative

[Rep. Tom Charlton]: Hoyt? Question. Just I'm just trying to figure out what this actually does. I mean, the language deletes related to hosting events or farm stays, and it adds for educational, recreational, or social events.

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

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Is there a difference between hosting events or farm stays and then the specific events?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in '24 BSA forty four twelve eleven a two, one two, hosting events and farm stays are part of educational recreational and social events. Okay. And the definition in '24 BSA. And so I'll take a step back and remind you, until Act 181, the concept of accessory on farm business was only part of municipal zoning regulation. And there were these types of businesses that were accessory to a farm that may have included either the sales, storage, processing, preparation of products or educational, recreational, social events, including farm stays and other events. So there's sort of the two buckets of like food related or like events. And under that statute for a long time, it said municipalities couldn't prohibit these different types of businesses that farms may have. They could only use site plan review. Then in Act 181, you brought forward specific Act two fifty exemptions also based on that definition. So, don't think it's a substantive difference between just saying hosting events on a farm because it has the the cross reference regardless.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Yep.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You still need to base it on what it the factors are in the 24 VSA definition.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Yeah. I I appreciate the clarification. I I was just having difficulty

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: seeing what the difference Yeah. And so maybe I need you to say it more directly. What is the difference?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think there's a substantive difference.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Between the existing language and what's being proposed?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just that one part of the sentence. This amendment is currently, the statute says there is no exemption for hosting events or, farm stays that are would qualify as an accessory on farm business. This amendment proposes to say that there is an exemption for hosting events and farm stays that qualify under the definition. Chapin. But this amendment doesn't include farm stays. It does because that very last part on 17 into 18, the definition in 44, twelve, eleven, A. One. Two includes educational, recreational, social events, which includes hosting events and farm stays.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Thank you. Sorry if that took us a while to get No. This is a this

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is a complicated area, and I and where I have to go in a minute. So I'm trying to I'm rushing a little bit. I apologize.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Members have questions for Ela on this, further questions? Representative Austin? Just for neighbors

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: in Chittenden County, which again is more urban, where this is permitted, it is a nightmare. Communities and select boards, I think, with the amount of complaints that they have to deal with in terms of noise, traffic, and lighting of, you know, weddings that go on on farms really late. And I'm just wondering, would the municipality be able to say, you know, at 10:00, things need to shut down? This

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: amendment is not about municipal authority over those events.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Okay. So municipalities I mean, even with municipal authority and them doing that and saying that, it's still difficult to enforce, but okay. Sorry, what

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: was your answer? This amendment doesn't what?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is not, does not affect a municipal authority. So, under 4412, municipalities are not allowed to prohibit accessory on farm business. They do have site plan authority review site plan review authority. So they are able to set some basic conditions. However, wedding venues and wedding barns specifically may not, in and of themselves, actually trigger an exemption under accessory on farm business because it does require an agricultural connection as part of that business. And that years ago, the debates that the the legislature has had about wedding venues has included whether or not they are an agricultural business.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Or serve milk at the wedding.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Or demonstrations. Yes. I do think they have bet there have been creative ways that people have tried to meet it, but they may or may not just being a wedding venue does not necessarily mean you get access to the exemption because you haven't met the definition.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: I'll make a quick sorry. So this section, you don't need an act two fifty permit for the construction of improvement, storage or sale qualifying products or so right. So it'd be some exemptions, but it never exempted improvements related to hosting events or farm stays.

[Rep. Rob North]: Do you know why that was?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It is. It seems like

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: it doesn't the other ones, it exempts it from, like, your building, like, a farm stay. Right? And then this one says there's no exemption if you're gonna build

[Rep. Rob North]: a concert stage or something.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: I just I mean, I just

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: That's probably a question for the legislative history.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, and this committee worked on that. So I think perhaps they could also answer. The first exemption about sale and and storage was already exempt under active 50 largely because it qualifies for the definition of farming.

[Rep. Frank Burt]: Okay. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so then I do think this committee had a lot of discussion and debate about preparation and processing, which is, like, the value added step.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's why there's a qualifier on that. There has to be at least 50% of the the products coming from that actual farm

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Gotcha.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As the stat the statute currently says. And then the the hosting events and farm stays is is different than farming, and it already may or may not trigger an action 50 permit. Yeah. And I think it gets complicated when you start talking about individual events.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Thank you, Ela. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members, we're gonna take a five minute break, and then we have to go to an amendment on 02/23.