Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Great. Welcome everybody. It's the afternoon of Thursday, 01/15/2026. We are continuing our introductory testimony on what's working, what's not working, background, and where we ought to go with respect to housing. And Samantha Sheehan from the Remodel League of Cities and Towns started her testimony this morning, but we ran out of time and so she is back with us on short notice and we will continue her testimony. Samantha, take it away. Okay, I'm going go back to screen share.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Thanks for having me back so soon. Appreciate it. Okay. So

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: there's not any option to

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: slideshow. Here we go.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay,

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: so what were we talking about? We were talking about municipal authority to set code including fee and permitting and inspection sort of as required to support the zoning and the municipal plan of the community.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, and I have a question right off the top. Okay, cool. Not everybody says people when I say I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: have a question. Okay,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: one of the issues that's come up is the desire in certain circumstances for a truly uniform code in certain areas. It was like for example, there's a fear that it's difficult to do bulk orders of off-site prefabricated housing if each community has different, you know, requirements, building code requirements. But I guess I'd like a comment from you on whether communities have such authority to enact stricter, their own energy code, their own building code, number one, and number two, has anybody besides Burlington?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: So there are municipalities that have components of building code, I guess is a way you can think about it. There are many municipalities that require construction permits, and those permit conditions vary. There are municipalities that require building permits or construction permits for interior construction only, some that require for exterior construction only, some that require a site inspection, some just require a site plan or a building plan or a plan signed by the appropriate type of architect or engineer, but they're not using a municipal inspector or engineer. To my knowledge, are no Vermont municipalities that have code as rich as the International Building Code or the state's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They tend to be focused.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Building energy code, right? They're focused, right? So to use Burlington, for an example, has rental weatherization requirements in their local regs. Montpelier is working on sort of component that is a sort of climate driven building policy as well. I know that Rutland requires building permits for exterior construction, I think, with a site visit from the permitting inspector. There are many municipalities that require their own other types of technical permits, such as connection to potable water service and sewer, which is totally practical. It's the municipality that owns the sewer pipe and the drinking pipe and wants to ensure that it is safely getting inside the building and not being used or connected in a way that's going to damage the public infrastructure or tax the public structure. So again, BLCT advocates for the authority of municipalities to regulate building and development of all sorts, especially for housing in their community. But generally, as we've discussed here and committees across the building for as long as the LCT has been established, the authorities to generate revenues that support that capacity is extremely limited per state law. And generally, municipalities are operating to their capacity, which means a prioritization. There's good reasons for Burlington as a community to prioritize rental units and how they're built, how they're weatherized, and focusing on making them safe and affordable for renters and young people to live in. There's 10,000 college students there. So it's a priority of that community focus their inspection and enforcement resources in that way.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Go ahead.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Not to just keep talking about Burlington, but I do want to talk about form based code, which is a type of comprehensive zoning that an increasing number of Vermont municipalities are moving towards. I believe you heard testimony from Wet's Wild Homes last week about their concept for root zones, this is a important sort of foundational information I'm going to share. So just talk I about

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: look forward to your telling us what form based code really means.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Great, because it sounds like it means nothing, right?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, no, they just, you know, the people with Let's Build Homes, should be like we're supposed to understand it. They think we're smarter than we are.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Know. They're all okay.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Well, here, Mr. Chairs, in the future I should be scheduled first and Okay, so form based code is a concept. We're talking at the concept level. I think it's a really confusing set of three words. It's sort of like tax increment financing. It's a powerful and exciting policy that has a really poorly chosen name. Form based code sounds like the most boring thing we could ever dive into. But what it is, is a type of municipal regulation that is written at a generally higher standard than other types of comprehensive zoning by law. And in particular, it is more prescriptive and it is less subjective, the goal being not at all subjective. And several Vermont municipalities have adopted form based code already for a portion of their community, so a zoning district or more than one zoning district in their community. I believe the oldest is the city of Newport, which was adopted in 2010 for their downtown. And the newest is Jericho, which was adopted late last year. And also Munisky, Burlington and South Burlington have form based code in their downtown areas and importantly also where their TIF districts are, which has really helped those three TIF communities capitalize on the potential of that growth area. And I think in all three cases, I think Winooski had their tip and then passed their form based code. So developing form based code can be a long and arduous process because if you remember from my testimony earlier this morning, state law prescribes the process that municipality use to develop local regulation. And the level of detail and specificity and breadth of component in form based code requires a lot of public process to reach consensus on what's in the code.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You got a question, Elizabeth? I'm sorry, but I still don't know what form based code is. She's getting there, I think. She's just winding up.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: It's zoning and bylaw. It's a type of zoning and bylaw.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What type of zoning? That doesn't say what it is. Zoning and bylaws that have enough She said the keywords, It's less is to limit discretion. Yeah. So that all these decisions about it could be what do the buildings look like? Where are they? How do you deal with all kinds of environmental problems? All of that is spelled out in the zoning code.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So, as opposed to what?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: As opposed to the permit. So, it means that it's all worked out at the plan level and the zoning code. So, that means the idea is the developer comes in and they know what they can put together and basically it's just a yes or no. Right.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Yeah, they write it themselves through the process that is laid out in state law for developing local bylaw.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's yes, the whole idea is the building permit, you just come in for a building permit and it's yes or no. And you don't have to it's see right now in most zoning, they tell you what the use is and the setbacks, but a lot of communities, the rest of it is up to the DRB at the time of the permit. The idea here is to eliminate that so that it's all done at the zoning, worked out at the zone level.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: So I've read all of our Formbase code except for Jericho's, that's on my TBR, to be read list. Formbase code says things like it lists the type of material that the siding can be on a building, including on the 1st And 2nd Floor, these five materials can be used. On the 3rd And 4th and above floor, these 10 materials can be used. It provides a ratio of window to wall. It says if you have an awning, the awning can be made from these types of materials. If you have shutters, scale relationship of the shutter to the window has to be within this range. That's what we mean by prescriptive. Then the zoning administrator is not testing because there are places where the bylaw says if you have shutters, they have to be consistent with the types of shutters used historically in this community. Where the form based code says it can't be this much bigger than a window or this much smaller than a window, and you just have to know if that's true in order to get the permit.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just to clarify one important thing. This scheme, the whole idea of having that level of detail in the form based code means that you don't have a hearing before the DRB, where the DRB can say, well, we don't know we like that siding, how about this siding instead? How about that siding? You've decided ahead of time, if it's one of these five types of siding, you're in. That's it.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm looking for some way to have enough consistency between communities that off-site manufactured homes don't have to be redesigned every single time they build one. This will start a revolt in my community. Forming service. Plus, the form, you know, the size of the shutters in one town and the size of the shutters in another town aren't gonna be consistent anyway. So there's some detailing. So is there an in between here? This just screams HOA, which is great if that's where somebody wants to be. But for like just a state level way to circumvent local details, which are a problem for off-site. If this applies to anything else, but off-site, I mean, this is just important to apply in general.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: These codes are don't apply they they're by community. Yeah.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Which okay. So that but does that help?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Here's an idea.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: If this prescriptive with off-site housing, it'll kill it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You're saying if each community is being extremely prescriptive to their tastes and desires, then there's gonna be inconsistency for the builders that are trying to do off-site production. They'll have to meet If all

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: they can deliver a home without shutters, trim and siding and the community can do whatever they want with it locally, a local contractor, that makes some sense.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Okay, I should have started with the number one pro of form based code, which is it virtually ends the opportunity for appeal of the municipal permit. In Vermont, the court data shows that two thirds of the permit appeals are against the municipal permit. This is in part because the older regulations, they contain more subjective language, such as the character of the neighborhood test, because oftentimes the builder gets that permit first before going to Act two fifty because of the Act two fifty process. There's more than one reason why the municipal permit appeals are larger in volume, but the fact remains true that they are. Most of the projects that are held up in appeal are held up on the municipal appeal. The major advantage of adopting form based code, which is why these communities that have done so already have gone after it, is because it dramatically reduces the opportunity for appeal because it's so specific and you're not asking any of the appropriate municipal panels to make a discretionary decision, nor are you asking the court to make a discretionary decision if it goes to court. So that's the major pro. Your questions of the discussion so far have identified some of the cons, which is the length of public process to reach consensus on the code. The level of prescriptiveness is a criticism that folks have made, including architects and homebuilders who are like, I don't like that. Well, I don't like these choices. And there are solutions for those, such as the opportunity for expedited public process, the opportunity to provide municipalities with model code, the opportunity to provide municipalities with the technical resources and professional planning support that they need to get through this, the opportunity to provide a minimum and a maximum standard or a prescriptiveness in the code. There are ways that this could be made easier. What we have right now are some sort of very housing ambitious, very housing ready communities that have taken this step forward, primarily also because they've been incented to do so through something like the clicking talk of the TIF district.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just clarify one way this works. Legally two types of decisions in all the law. Discretionary and non discretionary. A classic discretionary decision is a DRB decision about whether to approve a project in most towns. Much, you know, design review, they're going look at the design. Do I like it? I know it when I see it. Right? The classic case, I'm using classic, not form based code, classic case of a non discretionary is a building code. Because the building officer, they just have a checklist, it's yes or no, it has to be yes or no. You know, did you comply with all the building code requirements? If you do, you get your building code. That's a classic non discretionary decision. Generally speaking, when non discretionary decisions are reviewed by anybody, whoever it is, it's easy. You know, did they check the wrong box? Or didn't they check the wrong box? If they checked the right box, end of story. You can't argue that a project shouldn't have been approved. If you're at the building permit stage, you can't someone who tries to appeal it isn't going to get very far, they can't argue that they don't like it, that it violates, it has too much impact on traffic, that it has you know, whatever the argument is, they can't use it because that's all passed. It's just what's in the building code, yes or no. And so they'd have to show that literally the wrong box was checked. Discretionary decisions are appealable, of course, and I think what Samantha is saying is that the more you decide, let's take the example she just gave. Let's say a community cares about what it looks like, and ordinarily the design review board would decide that. They would just decide, do we think it's pretty, do we like it, it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and some towns might put pastels, nothing too bright, and you know, there's criteria, but they apply then. This one instead says we're going to decide all that ahead of time at the zoning level. We're just going to decide here's 10 different sightings, here's the catalog. You're in the catalog, then the building permit just checks yes. You're not in the catalog, no. And the idea of this is that if someone has an opinion about that, the time for them to yell about it is the time when the zoning code is adopted.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: When they're building a catalog.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: When the building catalog is there. Once that's done, it's over. Then at that point, that's consistent with it is approved. One thing a community can do is say, okay, if you don't want to be in the catalog, then you go to the DRB.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That was my question. Are any communities doing that, where they give the option of catalog or you go the hard route and the uncertain route of going through DRB?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Or is it you just don't get a building permit? But every community I know of in Vermont, the form based code does not apply municipality wide.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right, it's like a zone.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: It's like their highest density district, their designated growth area, their designated neighborhood area. It's not everywhere.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Which when we use those terms, what we're talking about is the main street of your town that everybody's going to go by or in front of your school or in front of the main library or community.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Yeah, it's more like five by five block radius. It's about the size of the growth area or the tip district. The Burlington Form Baseco District overlaps with their tip district in the South Burlington Center. If you've been there and you've been to the South Burlington TIFF, it's awesome and it feels like everything looks the It's St. Albans. I don't think St. Albans has form based code. If you walk around the South Burlington TIP District and you remember that I told you it was form based code, you'll be like, Oh, right, right, right. Because you see the same types of Like Market Street? Where's our TIP district? Yeah, it's like where

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it's like, you know where the library is?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, yeah. Market Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, that's Market Street. Sorry, I'm tired. That's all right.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: It's that area and then, Around the the new area. And I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: welcome anyone to come visit anytime. It's awesome.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: So, the chair said, when you approach local regulation in this way with this tool, Formby's Code, the process for input and feedback and the democratic process that says this is not just what we want to be built in our community, but what we're going to make legal to build in our community that happens upfront, not on the back end, not through the citizen lay panel of the design and review board, not done by the zoning administrator in the permitting process. So I actually really wanted to use Windham as sort of a test case to walk through how this comes about because I think adoption was the fastest, and I like to learn from things that move really fast. But I think Winooski went beginning to end for three years for them to adopt in Burlington from, depending on how you measure this event, a long identified plan and priority of the city's planning department. And then the project really got underway in earnest with a HUD grant in 2010. And then in '20 when was the joint committee formed? So between 2010 and 2014, the Planning Commission led basically a series of assessments and studies in preparation for the form based code process. And then mayor at the time, Mayor Weinberger, and the city council at the time took action to create a joint committee of the city council and the planning commission that really undertook the code, which according to the same report, included more than 30 public meetings. And then the code was finally adopted in the downtown in 2017 and was most recently amended last year. But since 2017 until now, there has not been an appeal of the municipal permit in the downtown since the Form Based Code was adopted, while hundreds of housing units have been built and permitted. And you'll remember that since the passage of Act 181, that area has also been totally Act two fifty exempt. So together, these two tools, the local regulation and approach to writing that regulation and the decision to exempt Act two fifty in that growth center have been really productive.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Was that decision just a one off? What? The exemption.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: That's the temporary exemption.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, it's the temporary because it's because it's exemption.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Okay. Alright.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Because it's a foreign based code. Yeah. Because it's a city because it's tier one. It's a city what do they call it? Yeah. Designated. Designated city center or whatever the hell. Downtown

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: is what we used to call it. Now we're going to call it an FLU and in the future we're going call it a tier one man. And remember, we want to extend, we advocate to extend the Act two fifty exemption for those downtown areas and village centers through 2030, our housing goal, period. I'm going to come back to this at the end. I think I want to go straight into talking about the path for a municipality to achieve some or total Act two fifty exemption.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Before you do, I just want to reiterate what Tom said. Definitely something for us to think about. If we really want to promote standardized statewide accessibility to off-site manufactured housing, we're going to have to think about how we do with form based code. And there's lots of ways we could, but we definitely have to or it wouldn't work.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Right, you can't have both. It

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: might be if eventually we get to eight zero two Homes and it's one of the five or the 10 approved home standards, then that has to be approved and deemed approved. There's all kinds of ways we could do it.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: That's a preemption way.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We'd have to do something, a partial preemption or something, or else he's right. Can I ask a really dumb question? He's always right, yes. So the catalogue of beautifully That's eight zero two Homes.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Are they automatically okay in these towns? Or now they are not automatically okay? Okay. Probably. The places I listed in Vermont that currently use Farmbase code are zoned for density and growth. And probably that would be a real home there, from what I recall, but it's not written in. These codes are much older than eight zero two. Those are just different things.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: So as of last month, the LERB has begun officially to receive the regional plans that identify the tier 1A and 1B eligible areas, and these are the maps that will create 1B. When you're 1B, you get Act two fifty exemption up to 50 units. 1A status is total exemption of Act two fifty regulation in these really important growth centers in the community, such as Downtown Burlington, Downtown Lewinsky, the South Burlington TIP, etcetera. Those three are all 1A eligible. So we commonly, I think in this building and elsewhere, and even as we, the LCT, have been educating our members, we've been referring to 1A as the places that have zoning and sewer. That's not totally true. It's the places that have zoning and sewer and meet eight other statutory requirements of Act 181, and that's what these are. So these are from statute, this list. So you have to have a municipal plan, 200 towns have that. You have to have boundaries consistent with the FLUs, formerly the DGAs. What does FLU stand for? Future land use area. You have to have that regional plan map and those boundaries for the FLG as a permit approved to the process first before you can buy. You have to have adopted flood hazard and river corridors that meet the statutory standard. You have to have permanent land development regulations that support smart growth. I'll identify that's subjective. That's a subjective test in the law that's up to the LERB to decide. You have to be consistent and compatible with the character of adjacent national historic sites and other areas of cultural significance. I'll point out that's also subjective. And then there's more things. And so it's hard to just be a community that could reach tier 1A.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Public water and wastewater systems have the capacity to support development. Where is the language of suitable soils coming here? Because That's not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's not in one A.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: That's not one B.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Then

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: if you, the town, so I'm gonna pretend here for the rest of this conversation that I'm Rutland City, the city of Rutland, which we think is going be the first urban center in Vermont that's going to be in line to apply for tier 1A, and we believe that they will. And most of the municipality is within this area mapped in the draft RPC map for Rutland County. The city of Rutland has gone through all of these municipal planning processes required by law for their plan, their zoning and their permanent bylaw that we talked about this morning. That has happened and in many cases took years to get to. Then they have gone through this last eighteen months of being first in line for the regional planning process. And their regional planning director and staff have led the entire county of Rutland County through this planning process and gone through community input and outreach. There's been meetings and there's been draft maps and changes to the maps. All the planning commissions have been involved countywide. And now the Rutland RPC has their draft map that has been officially submitted to the LERB. Now we start here at number one. So the draft maps, sorry, now we start at number two. It's now officially before the LERB. There's a sixty day pre application period. Ignore this AAFM, I pulled this from my testimony to agriculture yesterday. So there's a sixty day pre application period with statutory notice requirements. So these are all the organizations, neighboring areas and communities and regions, and interested stakeholders that have to receive notice of the map and that it's been submitted. Then there's a pre application process adjacent to this for the Tier 1B status communities and the municipalities that want to opt into Tier 1B. And then there is a public hearing at the LERB. Throughout this period, there's an opportunity for formal objection and just public comment at the LERB. And then the LERB will issue a decision within fifteen days. So it's a minimum seventy five day process with multiple opportunities for the public to engage or intervene in that. Then the regional plan goes back to the RPC. They go through a public process and then adopt the map. And then the map goes back to the LERB, and then the LERB will have another final hearing and public process to make a final determination and either deny or affirm the map. If it's denied, the RPC takes eighteen months to do a redo. If it's affirmed, the FLUs are now in place and the 1B statuses are affirmed. Are then if

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you sticking your hand up The in your

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: FLUs, so I understand they're being used to determine the 1A, 1B.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Do they have other future functions as with regard to zoning development?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: mean, actually, this point, do we anticipate them having trails or next?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Probably, but not as a requirement of Act 181.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: And where can I find the RPC's draft maps according to statutory requirements, assuming this Act 181 and shared methodology, where can I

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: I have all of that linked in and I'll give you a little preview of it before I finish? So now we'll assume that we're in the future and in about a month from now, the LERP has approved and affirmed the Rutland County Regional Map. Now the City Of Rutland can begin its Tier 1A application process, which really mirrors the first process substantially with a different set of guidelines that the LERB has developed and now are available for you to look at. And so there's a pre application period. They get connected with a member of the LERB that goes through a pre application review. There's a hearing date that's set. At that time, Rutland has its own public comment process requirements where it has to send the map out to even more stakeholders than are actually required in laws, even longer statutory notice lists. They have to collect all the public comments from that people. They have to make a report. They have to include that in their application. And all the while, they're working with a member to prepare their application according to the full 1A guidelines, which again are going to test some of these standards. Like, is it consistent with the National Historic Sites? Is it consistent with SMART Growth Planning Principles? Prove that your flood plain language as written is up to the state standard, etcetera. Then after that pre application period, the LERB holds a public hearing. Again, there's an opportunity for public comment, including objection. And then the LERB deliberates, affirms, or denies the Tier 1A. And that's how a municipality gets 3% or less of its community exempted from Act two fifty. It's a very long

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Wait, you mean, that's how

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: That's on average.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's how we get 3%, is if everybody in

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: If everybody, right. So if you remember, so currently the estimated area eligible to be tier 1A full two fifty exempt is less than 3%, and it's a range of 0.5% in the NEK to up to 11% in Chittenden County. And Chittenden County is one of the draft maps available and before the RPC. So that's the ongoing process that we're in now. And remember, that regional and state led process all comes after the local processes. I'm going to quickly show you what you can access here through this particular PowerPoint. So, there's a list of municipal charters, the statutes that prescribe zoning and bylaw and municipal planning processes, some tools that are developed by, is Two Rivers Otakuichi, that's my regional planning district, has some guidance issued to town officials on how to navigate that public planning process that might be interesting for you to look at. And I thought I linked some sample form based codes in here, but I didn't. I'm happy to send those along. And then here are the references to the Act 181 related So this is the map viewer where you can see the three maps that are in the pre application period. So it's North, West, Chittenden, and Rutland. The Tier 1A guidelines are there, the draft Tier three rule, the draft Tier three map. And then we hosted a webinar where members of the ALERP participated and explained these things, and that's recorded. I have even more. I'm realizing this is only half of a slide here, but I can send those to you through Miriam. I can give you a link to the shared methodology that all the RPCs use to set the FLUs, also the document that describes the required RPC process that I paraphrased for you that the LERP set out for the adoption of the regional plans. But that was all.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I have one.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Oh, wait. No, that actually wasn't all. These are my suggestions, but I'll leave it up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I have one comment that I just want to share from my own past experience. You see how elaborate this process is? This planning process? Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your, I guess, viewpoint. But the advantage of the planning process is, the idea is you give as much process as is necessary to give everybody a chance to really express what their feelings are about the plan and get as much buy in as you can get. And the theory, if you're going to really take advantage of all of that work, the theory is you've done a lot of the work and you try to bleed as much as you can out of the individual permit that a developer has to do and try to make the permitting itself as easy as possible after all that work and the planning. And there's just a movement around the country to try to move as much as possible out of the permitting process, the individual permit into the planning process. If you are a builder or a housing advocate, the advantage of that is the people who tend to become involved in these planning processes are people who really care about planning. They tend to be, a lot of them are professionals, a lot of them are savvy about planning. A lot of the environmental organizations and environmentalists involved are the same kinds of people, the people that really understand planning and get, you know, aren't just anti development, etcetera. They're into where should it be, where shouldn't it be, about which there's plenty to disagree. The people who don't tend to show up are people who really don't care about that stuff until it comes down to what happens in their immediate vicinity or a project that's next door to them. Or their own land. Or their own land. They don't show up. So, the disadvantage from the point of view of participation, a lot of people argue, well, we really want to let the DRB, the local, you know, a project comes up, we want to let there be hearings, full hearings, all the issues should be up for grabs again, so that people who are neighbors can make whatever argument they want. The counter argument, which you'll hear from a lot of the housing people is, no. It should all be decided at the plan and then that's it, it's over. And if we don't do that, we won't build housing. Because hearing what you hear again and again from the housing community, true or not, is hearings kill housing. So that's kind of the duality here, is the more, and that's why she started with form based code, the more elaborate and detailed your plan is, like in San Francisco downtown plan, actually gives rules on the shape of your high rise. Once that was decided, everybody built to that shape. And some architects had inputs in that and they were happy, and other architects who came into town later were upset, because they didn't get to have their design. It was all decided, but it was much quicker, and much easier.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: And it can always be amended. The Burlington code's been amended many times. Is it up for amendments yet?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Or I saw something on the agenda.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: They're going through a process that I can't totally accurately answer. I know they're going through a process in the South end plan. Yeah, saw some, I'm not sure about that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I watched Burlington City Council riveting.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Yeah. And I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: saw something about it. But I had another question. I don't know if I'm

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: first or not. Go first. You know what, he's had so much chance to talk to you No, about fine, that's fine.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just kidding, I take that space all the time. We, I believe I've requested, we're going to possibly have some folks who are doing this

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: work,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: planners, etc, etc. So, maybe we can work with your organization to get some folks here. I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it could be good to hear how things are for those folks who are doing the work that we're seeing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I'm really interested in Tier 1B and Tier two because so much of the state is in Tier two.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, and our South Burlington guy, I watch all those city council meetings as well, city council queen. So yeah, I'd love to hear from some It doesn't have to be him. The Montpelier one as well was recommended and right down the road. I'd to hear more about their perspective of what you're talking about.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: So I had talked with Josh. We knew this would be a primarily educational discussion with you today about the existing processes and authorities and the limitations that municipalities have right now to support development through regulation. That said, we discussed what are some concepts, like if your committee of the legislature state government wants to really push on those existing authorities and opportunities and make them move faster and come out with better outcomes, What are some concepts that we could use to support that in legislation this year? And so this is kind of what we came up with. So one is to streamline the local adoption of state preemptions and model code. So if the state does present model code now or in the future and more preemptions, which of course, VLCT officially opposes preemptions to local code, but they exist now in law and may in the future. If that happens, we just think we shouldn't have to have 15 to 30 public hearings in order to update the bylaw. The professional staff and the select board should be able to update the bylaw so that it's consistent with the changes in state law, And those public processes should be used and focused on other efforts and priorities of the community. You had language in your housing bill from this committee last year and it was taken out in the Senate.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That would have done.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Yeah, so thank you for that. Love to see it come back. Is there anything that you heard from the Senate that would have allowed it?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It got lost.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Was chaos. Do you remember that period It of was the generally accepted it natural to get out. I think. Or had a concern about it. We also, of course, forever and will continue to advocate against the duplicative state and local regulatory process. A tool for this is the concept of municipal delegation, which has been used in the past. The state has over 100 permits. Of course, some of those permits only apply to airports, but the state has over 100 permits. Many of them are technical. Many of them are duplicated in local regulations and permit requirements, especially in our urban and growth centers where sewer and water is and stormwater infrastructure. We suggest strengthening the existing programs that are available to support municipalities in these processes and this codevelopment and bringing up the standard of their local regulations. The primary tool right now is the municipal planning grants given out through DHCV. And there was a program called MTAP made in an FY23 budget, and that was not funded in the FY26 budget. And this is, again, conceptual, but the idea of de risking these entrepreneurial type endeavors, whether it's buying a bunch of off-site built homes together with another community, going into a public private development through a proposed CHIP project, going all the way through a TIF district, these sort of big ambitious approaches to building housing where the municipality is in the driver's seat. In that case, you need to de risk it for the voters. What are you asking the voters, your constituents, our shared constituents to put up in terms of cost, risk, and liability prior to the housing being built and the new brandless growth coming in? And the more we can make it less risky for them, less of a tax pressure on the municipal tax rate that they pay, then the more popular these projects are going to be, and we'll get them through these local processes. And then lastly, you've heard it here before, you'll hear it again, we support expanded municipal revenue authorities so that they can take on these types of projects.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So that's all. We are just a few minutes away from the floor. Tom, did you have one last question?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Or have you forgotten? Just to, from the very beginning, express my concern that we balance consistent code with property owners' freedoms, because the ones who won't show up are the ones who are independent, don't want to be told by the team. I've seen this play out in Chester. I'm watching it play out in other towns. And right now the FLU map the Rutland, which are still being worked on, have new mysterious decisions made on them that involved in tracks of lands that need to be actioned. So I just want to express my caution with regard to over regulating what a property worker did. Because that would have been in touch with foreigners that will

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, that case Wouldn't it be hard it

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: would be harder to get those codes passed through if there was a huge roar from the community.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: I just want to remind you that FLUs, the regional plans, those are not a municipal process. And the exemption, the tiered exemption is not a municipal authority. That's a regional planning They create the maps, they do the outreach, they're bringing the folks. Some of their,

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: yeah, I'm trying to figure out how they judge some of their lines in some areas. Yeah. What criteria they use because there's adjacent parcels of land that are

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: It's old, but also not the it doesn't change private property rights. It move somebody's property boundary. It doesn't affect the municipal code. That is derived from a separate authority in the law, and that is only created and enforced by the town of Chester. The Cedar exemptions, you mean. No, like whatever Chester says about how, if what its downtown district did, what happens and doesn't happen in a residential district, that is separate from the FLU mapping process. The FLU mapping process will affect those things in the way that it will say only up to here is eligible for tier one. And everything not in here in the pink donut is not eligible for tier one. So if there's a property owner or a redevelopment or a big brownfield or a certain civic place in your community that the town wants in to the future eligible exempted area, that's really important to get right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you, we've got to stop. But hey Samantha, thank you so much.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You're so knowledgeable.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I appreciate it a lot.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Very helpful. Wish I could just mind melt. I know.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It is a real problem because property owners don't tend to pay attention until their property wants to do something. So, you