Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning. It's Wednesday, January 14. We are going to spend a lot of time today talking about a very important issue to Vermont Farmers, which is the Supreme Court decision where they stepped in and said their towns have the right to regulate farming and dissolving. I don't

[Josh Hanford]: know if that's the correct

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: verbiage or where it is, but I think that's the gist of what we're going to get to today. I hadn't done this earlier yesterday because we were busy, but I would like to just introduce the committee. Yeah. Brian Collamore, representative of Rutland District, and I'm Rob Plunkett, senator from the Addison

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: County District.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Joe Major from Windsor and Vice Chair. Senator Russ Ingalls, Chair from Essex Orleans, and we have Linda Lehman,

[Linda Lehman (Committee Staff)]: Status Manager.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: With us this morning, we have Josh Hanford and Samantha Sheehan, welcome, and the floor is yours.

[Josh Hanford]: Excellent. Well, thanks. Thank you for having us. For the record, I'm Josh Hanford, director of intergovernmental relations at the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. Before that, I've worked a couple decades in the state government, most recently as housing commissioner, deputy commissioner at the Department of Housing and Community Development. Been involved in state government and policy making for a while. Live in Randolph Center, middle of farm community that Pinella Dairy Farm manages some of my property for pasture and pasture management.

[Samantha Sheehan]: My name is Samantha Gian. I'm the municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the league. I've been working with VLCT for just over a year, took about fourteen months, And most immediately before that, worked for the city of Burlington. Although, I'm not a Burlingtonian or even close to it. I live in Hancock in Addison County. School board member there, long time school board member, and previously worked on mostly related to labor, but for the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Hancock's in Addison?

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah. It is.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Or like a hanging chat.

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah. Yeah. It's over the mountain. It makes it Yeah. It's over the mountain. That makes it very disconnected. I used

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: to live in Brandon.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Okay. I love Brandon.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And I was in I worked for large agriculture service, and I've been through an and also there. Yeah. So that's kinda surprising. It's Addison County.

[Samantha Sheehan]: You and a couple people have been through.

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's very true. Well, you guys have was flooded there for a little bit there.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Back to back. Yeah. Both 2023 and 2020. Yeah. Yeah.

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah. So we're gonna give you a little overview of quick real quick what VLCT is and then what we're gonna talk about today. Yeah. We're gonna introduce VLCT, tell you a little bit about VLCT's adopted position by members on municipal authority for some agriculture activity, a little bit about Act 181 and how much it addresses or doesn't address or affects this issue. It's really important to understand because that's coming our way whether we might get act one eighty one, when

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: you get into that, can you

[Josh Hanford]: just give us a little blurb about what it is

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: for anybody that might be listening? Absolutely. If they wouldn't know what it is.

[Josh Hanford]: We'll even show you some maps. It's stumped. Mean, certainly, that agriculture in it, that the tier one a process for exempting act two fifty and why it matters. So VLCT is a member organization. All two fifty one municipalities in Vermont are members of VLCT. We've been around since 1967. We're nonpartisan. We're here to serve our members, which are anyone that works in municipal government. The elected officials, the appointed officials, the staff, the volunteers, they're all what we call members. We provide education, workshops, we provide comprehensive insurance coverage for municipalities. We provide legal guidance, support some legal matters within municipalities. We provide data to our members and to the legislature and others because we collect annual surveys. And we also participate in many legislative working groups, study committees, so that there's sort of one voice for municipalities because they're varied in size, and there's many of them, and many of them are run by volunteers, and so they ask us to help them. Forward. So a little bit about the two fifty one members, only eight have mayors, Two of those are what you call strong mayors. Only 66 have a town or city manager. 73% of our municipalities are under 2,500 in population, and many of these are governed by volunteers. 200 have an adopted municipal plan, and 142 are 10 acre towns, meaning they have planning and zoning, so Act two fifty triggers when you 10 affect 10 acres or you build 10 units of housing within five years, five miles, meaning that a whole bunch of our municipalities have no zoning. So this supreme court case

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: see that. Do you know the number of how many that do not have zoning?

[Samantha Sheehan]: A 109.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: 109? Good.

[Josh Hanford]: So for for starters, sort of to to come here and sort of maybe help lay some concerns about the sky's falling because of this court case. A 109 of our members couldn't implement zoning to regulate agriculture right now. And since that court case, other than the City Of Essex District, this happened. Sorry. Since this court case, I live in Essex Junction, we're aware of no municipalities that have adopted regs to regulate agriculture. So just just sort of, you know, we feel like being careful about this is probably important for farmers and community members and municipalities to really think through what could be in place, what the process is.

[Samantha Sheehan]: We're not aware of any municipalities that have even warmed the discussion.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That's totally true. Okay. And that's kind of where I

[Samantha Sheehan]: was Yeah.

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: Going going down. I mean, obviously, there may be a situation where some of the municipalities are are aware. Yeah. But when they become aware of or or the ones that are aware, have you got a feeling that they are going to go down this path? Or I'd

[Samantha Sheehan]: say they're generally aware. There's a monumental change in municipal authority that is pretty rare in Vermont state law, as it dilens law state. We've heard some interest, a little bit, questions coming into our attorneys. We hosted a we always host a twice annual planning zoning conference for zoning administrators. There's a little bit of discussion and information shared there. But that's not the kind of the to take up the issue, right? So, we've heard some individual officials asking questions of becoming educated on the issue and who may have local concerns that they're exploring how they can be resolved through local regulation. But like I said, we're not aware of any warnings, notices, planning commission discussions.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We're hearing a lot of angst.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We are. And we're hearing, and I don't even know where it's coming from, but man, it's, you know, sometimes just something takes the life of your own. And, You either have gossip or you have rumor or you just have something that's just solid. And it seems to be pretty solid that people are feeling that the Supreme Court, had they had a chance to revisit this, probably would have come up with a different solution or a different opinion as far as what they've had. I don't know if this is a last part of what we're seeing here, but we are dealing with what we have, that's why we're here today.

[Josh Hanford]: Absolutely. The last piece here, about only 43 municipalities even operate water and sewer will become more important as you understand what these maps and what this process we put forward in that way State one hundred eighty one will result in and what our position is. But certainly to address Senator Major's sort of question, BLCT board and its members and the public certainly discussed this issue and came to a policy decision to put forward, which we'll share with you. And we certainly had a number of great conversations all summer and fall with the agency of agriculture about how our positions could align or not align, what their concerns were, what their concerns were, that the reality is there are these nuisance lawsuits that happen between neighbors. And sometimes, like this one in Essex, they go to the Supreme Court and end up with consequences that maybe could have been avoided if a different process or that half acre farm hadn't been under RAS. This wouldn't have resulted in. So it's just an interesting thing to think about carefully what sort of triggers we pull and what the outcomes are.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think you're right on the head with that. Think that it would have been looked at reasonably from all sides, not just trying to ramp something through because it is precedent that there would have been a different outcome today.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah. We always say our zoning administrators want clarity. They want the opportunity to apply the laws and regulations of the state and the municipality fairly and evenly. And when there's a lack of clarity when it comes to land use use law, they can foster these type of neighborly conflicts. And so, try to avoid that with having in the regulation. So, this is our position. This is it. Hopefully this school submits. I hope folks and partners are listening or review this testimony. So, we have a buy in every other year prior to a biennium we adopt municipal policy. We had a board discussion following our work with the agencies over the summer and they acted to amend the LCT's long held position, which was really one purely in favor of local authority, to say that agriculture should be exempted. So exempt agricultural activity from municipal regulation except for an Act two fifty exempted areas. I think you heard some discussion about the designated growth areas in the law, they're now called FLUs, future land use areas. That's not actually what we propose. We propose only upon approval and adoption of an Act 50 exempted area, and we're going to explain what that means. So, Act two fifty exempt areas are tier 1A only. Tier 1A areas are not synonymous with the DGAs. The designated growth areas are the FLUs. These are like village centers, downtown designations.

[Josh Hanford]: Richard, just to clarify that the activity, the exempt areas are are not village centers, are not designators. They're

[Samantha Sheehan]: Eligible.

[Josh Hanford]: They're they're essentially the downtowns. Downtown Waupiliere. Those are the areas that will sort of show you how this this plays out. That, you know, in discussions to come to this position and working with I attended a few farm groups discussions over the summer as well, worked with Jackie Olson and others in different parts of of my career, and and sort of our thinking on this was in these areas where the state has mandated 20 units per acre of housing, these are our downtowns with water and sewer. Conflicts are going to arise, And we have to have clear standards when Act two fifty regulation doesn't apply, nor would municipal regulation of of agriculture in those areas. Who's gonna regulate? Well, the courts are gonna end up regulating, and that could be a series of economic injuries to farmers over and over again. And so it's really important to get this right, I think is our message.

[Samantha Sheehan]: And municipal governments. We don't.

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah. Like We don't like lawsuits. Yeah. Loss taxpayers money.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah.

[Josh Hanford]: Which we all are.

[Samantha Sheehan]: So we're gonna keep talking about this. I'm gonna show examples, but hold in your mind. There are tier one a and one b eligible areas. Those are the FLUs. Then a long series of public process and state oversight must occur and municipal actions must occur to achieve tier one a, which is the act 50 exemption. So the total amount of eligible area is currently estimated in the ongoing mapping process to end up below 3% of the state. And that ranges significantly per county to 0.5% in the Northeast Kingdom region to 11% is the largest amount of future tier one or a or b eligible area in Chittenden County. This is a process that officially began last month, with now three draft plans before the LERM and a pre application process and is directed to go through December year you know, per act one eighty one. We'll see if it's done by December, but we believe, as I think it's broadly estimated, that in this initial adoption of this set of regional plans, all 11 regional plans, there will be 10 to 12 communities ready to meet the statutory requirements for tier one A or Act two fifty exemption. I'm not going to speculate the exact list, but it's pretty close to synonymous with the list of TIF channels that have the standard of regulation and resources at the local level to achieve tier planning. So what is Act 181? Act 181 creates a location based jurisdiction of Act two fifty. This means that rather than applying jurisdiction only based on density or the number of housing units in a project or the acreage of the development, Act two fifty can now be triggered or exempted based on the location of a project. So this is a big change from how Act two fifty permit review has been applied over the last fifty years. There are three tiers, but really it's four, and then there's a fifth jurisdictional trigger, which is called the road rule. So we have tier one A, which is again total Act two fifty exemption, 10 to 12 communities we estimate will have a portion of their community in tier one A. Tier one B is partial Act two fifty exemption, but it's really only for having developments up to 50 units of housing. So, it can be 50 houses, it can be an apartment building with 50 units, but those could be exempt after this process. Tier two is Act two fifty as usual, and these are infill existing residential areas, rural, general, and transitional. And then tier three is a new enhanced Act two fifty jurisdiction where any development development is in quotes because that is to be defined by the LERB. Like, what is the development? Is it a shed? Is it a garage? Is it a deck? Is it an equipment building? So any development in tier three may be subject to Act two fifty permit review. Tier three is a resource based mapping process. Tier one is a land use based bounding process. They're happening separate from each other. The road rule is in statute. It will take effect in July, barring any change to the current law. And this would also trigger Act two fifty permit review for any, again, to be defined development that happens 800 feet or more away from a road. Doesn't matter what tier you're in. It's important, I think, for this committee to understand that in all the draft rules, agriculture remains totally exempt. So, there is not a new tier or a new jurisdictional trigger where agriculture would now be subject to Act two fifty review. Same with logging. So, here's I think it's helpful maybe to go straight to a picture. So, we have three draft maps that are currently before the legislature. I mean, sorry, not the legislature. The Land Use Review Board in this pre app sixty day pre application period. The first one in line was Rutland County. So this is an example from Rutland County, which is the town of Pittsford. Pittsburgh has around 3,500 people and is over 40 square miles. They have municipal water and sewer and they have permanent zoning and by law. So in concept, they could in the future achieve one of the two types of Act two fifty exemption if they chose to and if the state agreed. So in the maps on the what side of that screen? So on the left side of your screen are the land use categories that are mapped, and the ones with the red star are the land use categories that are included in the FLU and could in the future be eligible for tier one. All of the other land use categories are not eligible for tier one. And as you can see, I also asterisked that in this mapping process ag land is being mapped, as well as conserved land. Maybe it's self evident, but conserved land, there's no logical reason to include conserved land in Act two fifty exemption planning.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: And how accurate, sorry,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: do you

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: have a go ahead? How accurate are these maps that, I'll take a case that I know that the conservation line, they just dropped it down into what was already being built in. And so any future building can't be done because that that conservation line, somebody just drew a line. Are they taking the time to make sure that the lines, like, follow the very base of the mountain, not three, four hundred feet past the base of the mountain. Or the farm meadow that's that do they take the time or is it somebody who decides where that line is? Is it a group of people?

[Samantha Sheehan]: We'll talk about the process to determine these maps and adopt them in a minute, because I don't want to jump ahead too much. I can't speak to the integrity of the parcel data, but I think it's sort of good information in, good information out system. I would agree that more local review would be better in this situation.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: And what concerns me with it is how long it gets it to change, like, yes, we did make a mistake.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Mhmm. That's a concern I

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: We have as have that the onus is

[Josh Hanford]: on the individual property or to say your map is wrong.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah.

[Josh Hanford]: And that could be an expense. You know, we're looking at this more from areas that have been put into a new after 50 jurisdiction. To build one house, you're gonna have to prove that you're not in that jurisdiction. Otherwise, you're gonna trigger after 50. Different context than we're trying to show heat view here is really probably that deepest pink area

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah.

[Josh Hanford]: Is all that's gonna be if the town applies, big f. If the RPC agrees and if the LERB agrees and approves it over a multiyear process of public input, including agency of agriculture review, that's probably the only area that our belief that having the authority to regulate all businesses, all property owners because of the density and the conflict makes sense. Otherwise, we don't wanna regulate farms. Many of these towns, most of their select boards are made up of farmers. You know? So it's very close to our membership and our origins. But in those dense areas, when you have this type of business and this type of business and

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: a

[Josh Hanford]: 20 unit apartment building next door and you're on public water and sewer, a lot of people's tax money and a lot of resources have been put into those areas. There's gotta be a fair way to protect everyone's interests, including a farmer that could be in that area on a small piece of property. That's really our interest.

[Samantha Sheehan]: And to to be fair about the integrity of the map, the only the only municipalities that could navigate this process to the end would have a municipal plan, would have permanent zoning and bylaw, would most likely have pretty intensely coded overlay districts is what we call, in order to meet the standards we'll talk about in a minute. And so by the time they that the municipal plan would be possible to bring forward to the LORP for approval, they would have figured out those parcel lines. Correct. Yeah. So

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I was trying to find the right time to say it, but I'm gonna say it now. We are, this committee, which I'm very proud of, they're gonna get sick of me saying that, that I am, because they dive in and they work hard. We are protectors of all agriculture, all farmers. That's what we do. That's what we believe. So I get the pink area as far as where the regulation is, and I get it that that isn't the right place for a duck to farm, But it might be the right place for the woman that's in there baking 12 loaves of bread and somehow making it happen. And somehow creating a business that eventually she's going to move out of, but the water and sewer part of it is very, very important to her. But also, we are sitting here making decisions every day. We did it last year. I don't remember the direct amount of dollars, but we're sitting here saying, okay, well, yeah, that $300 permit is just too much. That makes a difference of whether that person makes it or not. And so we're just as concerned about those peak areas as somebody trying to get a head start and trying to create something that eventually they're probably going to grow out of and move on. So we are concerned about the regulation, are concerned about the cost of them to do business in that area because it isn't just a duck farmer growing marijuana. It is somebody that is trying to get a foothold in our industry that's gonna be probably, maybe, hopefully, if we support them well enough, gonna be bigger than what it is. So that's what that's where our angst is.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah. We thank you for taking that conversation in that direction because what we're talking about in this little pink donut here is not a ban on agriculture activity or structures.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But I'm worried about I'm worried about the process of what it's going to take for somebody to go in there and what somebody's going to do. Oh, it's a $300 fee. You know, listen, I'm sorry, but Act two fifty is something that nobody goes into willingly and says, Oh boy, am I ready to do that again? It's just not. I mean, real it's story, but all of sudden, it's a $300 fee here. Now it's a review. And now it's this. It's that. And so that person who is on a shoestring budget and just has a dream and a few dollars might never might never get a chance to to get this thing off the ground. So we're willing to fight for that.

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah. Absolutely. I I understand, senator. I think where it comes to head in a in a more concerning way is, you know, fire protection, safety. Let's say there's a business that has a real risk of of fire protection right next to a 20 unit apartment building. The fire department ought to have some input on how that is operated for the protection of others around. That's all that's all we're sort of saying. What is the EGRIPS? What is the so those are fair treatment of any business because the other business next door that may not be ag also has those interests to stay in that community, pay their taxes, be successful, employ people, and so do the neighbors that live there. And these areas are filled with the most conflict. Human nature is the beginning of time. You know, if you have an industry, a practice, a job that sort of creates more, you tend to move away, and we can't help it. That's just the fact that there are those conflicts that will arise, and there's safety concerns, and there's gotta be a bare process that everyone can understand so that that starting out baker that's using grain from out in the the hinter you know, the back 40 understands that they might not lose their shirt and invest in that property because there will be these conflicts and know that they could be treated fairly, that another neighbor, another business isn't gonna have that same impact on them. And so I, you know Yeah. I just try, you know, I I completely I think we want those businesses in our towns. They're taxpayers. We have grand less value growing when that happens, and so completely understand what what you're saying.

[Samantha Sheehan]: If these dense areas are the most likely to have these types of conflicts, because but it's also where the awesome stuff is happening, including, like, babies and baby strollers and pedestrians and cyclists and this is where our traffic infrastructure is and our public and civic spaces. And we are saying that fair application of the municipal regulation that enables all of that to work together and be successful is what we're proposing in these very limited areas.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: So my question is, we protect who is currently there and then he gets a 20 housing unit put beside him and now all of a sudden they're the problem and they were there decades before.

[Samantha Sheehan]: That's part of the message here because there are incompatible land uses. This is not about applying a restriction to agriculture, it's about equal application of the code. Oh, we better understand it, but

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: as somebody that's been there for decades.

[Josh Hanford]: There is presumption of nuisance in state ag law, in law right now. Yeah. That if you were are you were there first when people move around, you you don't have as much of a nuisance claim because they were there first. You knew you were moving next to that pig farm. You knew you were moving next to that commercial, you know, poultry facility. And there so there are we could we could bring those and review those laws exist.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: And the burden should be not on the person that was there all the time,

[Josh Hanford]: but that's what often happens. Yes. We're different scenario, but out

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: of the lake, they're using their their money sources to overburden who they're going after because they can't afford it. Yeah. And eventually, just what Chair said, they end up folding because so we need to protect. It's like, you build it here, they're

[Josh Hanford]: good until they close their doors. Right. It's kind of the same thing with housing, right? You know, someone already lived in this neighborhood and then someone builds a new house, a new apartment, and then it's sort of the it's the beginning of time, you know? Mhmm. Conflicts with your neighbors and good defensive, could you know, all those cliches, but they're true.

[Samantha Sheehan]: We we're not I didn't include it in this because there's only so much time, but the Home Act required municipal preemptions for parking minimums. More you have to go up to four floors in these areas already. That's separate from Act one eighty one, and nonprofit housing development fits both five. So regardless of what the municipality wants or has planned for prior, these areas are zoned by density under the obligations of state law.

[Josh Hanford]: The last few years, the municipal zoning has been preempted, that if you've got water and sewer, then you've gotta allow 20 units per acre, has you have to allow up to five stories if it's got affordable housing, You have to allow conversion of hotels, motels into transitional emergency housing. You have to allow it used by right, duplexes by right, as well as homeless shelters by right without any input. So these things are coming, and and this act 21 further requires municipalities to plan out how they're gonna meet their housing goals in these dense areas where there's water and sewer. So conflict is coming if if there are incompatible uses, and we're trying to have a raft and a way to minimize that, especially if there's agriculture activities that will be the brunt of that. How can they plan for this and know that, they could have some economic injuries and sort of if we know the defined area where that is more likely, it might be better planning. Not that it's not exempt, but you at least have a fair shot at being treated fair in regards to all your neighbors, because the rules apply the same. It's not a ban on that. It's, say, parking requirements, same police and fire restrictions, if there's danger perceived for your neighbors and your borders, etcetera. But I I think we should probably

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah. We've got a lot. So just to sort of wrap up the map examples, on the left side of the screen, this models the road rule. So this so everywhere in gray would be triggered for every type of development except for agriculture or logging, a full act two fifty permit review. And then on the right side of the screen is the current draft map for tier three. And so all these color splotches, there is a little bit of pink so that, like, an endangered species blob. The yellow is habitat connectors, which only applies to roads, a significant length of state highway and class two highway. And then the, like, bright lime green that looks like it's the top of the mountain is those are really steep slopes, which feed the headwaters. So any properties in this area are triggered through act or sorry. Tier three. In fairness, I wanted to show you an urban center in Rutland County, which is, of course, beloved Rutland City, city of Rutland. So you can see here in the post Pittsburgh, there's substantially more tier one area or FLU area, that if the city of Rutland chooses, it could achieve Act two fifty exemption in some or all of this area, and we do expect that they will. They will probably be the first in line, to go for tier 1A exemption. They're on their second TIF now and sort of have big plans and requirements to meet the state's goals for growth.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Just curious, Senator Collamore, does that look familiar to you as far as, I mean, I just comment on that map as far as is that recognizable to you as far as it making sense and being that it's a city that you're representing?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yeah. For the most part. I'm quite often in conversation with the mayor and the board of all of them down there. So the actual downtown area, there would be absolutely no way for agriculture to move in there because there's no more land. We're building a big hotel and remodeling across the street, so I'm hoping that they do have exemption.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I'm looking at that map, right, Dan, just again, it means we have the benefit of having a Southern Collamore here. The dark green, the rural conservation, what does that mean? The rural what's rural conservation? What's that mean?

[Samantha Sheehan]: I couldn't if you want, I can pull up the definition, but this is basically under easement. Like, some type of permanent conservation in easement. Okay. Can extracted from

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the in any way, shape, or form. It can't be it can't be agriculture. It can't be anything.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Well, it

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: It has to stay in the state that it is.

[Samantha Sheehan]: In some cases, it could be. It depends on the on the yeah. Like like my town, we have several actually municipally owned parcels that were gifted, and they you're not allowed to build on it, but it can be used for agriculture, logging, staff, you know.

[Josh Hanford]: Permanently conserved for Yeah.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sort

[Josh Hanford]: of working lands activity. Yeah. It Absolutely. Yeah. It can be. Okay.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Don't know this parcel, but

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But, Sharon Collamore, is that familiar to you as far as where those lands are? Somewhat.

[Josh Hanford]: I think we zoomed in. I think that some of them are actually sort of hay hay hay. Some of it obviously is along the our creek, the river, where there's gonna be some blood Right? Right. Which, you know, many plant conservation allows agricultural activity because, you know, it can return to its natural state and

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Sure.

[Josh Hanford]: Whatnot, but we can get more of those details.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I just when I was right here, when I was up there, and we had the benefit of having somebody that would build the landscape, so we're good. We're good in the product.

[Samantha Sheehan]: I lost my train of thought. What does it mean? Oh,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: able to do that too. I'm sorry.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah. That's okay. Alright. Buckle up. This I'm not gonna read all of I'm not gonna read all of them.

[Josh Hanford]: We didn't we didn't create

[Samantha Sheehan]: this show. This is what I already knew.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We get all that. There's gonna be

[Josh Hanford]: a long time before we have tier one a two Act two fifty exempt areas.

[Samantha Sheehan]: We I will make a pitch. We are asking for a slowdown of Act 21 implementation. It's our top priority. We're really concerned about how it's gonna impact all types of priorities of rural communities in Vermont, which, again, are most of them that we represent. And we would love more time to sort all this out.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And while you're on that, in the slowdown and all that, what is your organization's, what is your opinion on the road rule, the 800 foot road rule? We're asking

[Josh Hanford]: for that to be delayed too. We think it's gonna have consequences. Your friend, Buster, that was just here worried about farm worker housing, Well, some of that housing is gonna need to be in these areas. Right.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Most of it.

[Josh Hanford]: Most of it. Right. And I the really challenging thing to understand, because they're on two different maps, as you saw, and they're two different processes, and the real world goes effect July 1, unless we stop it, And the tier three areas, tier three creates a habitat connector along roads that are have forest. Right. That means anything except agriculture, but a road, a single family home triggers active 50, and then the interior road rule triggers it as well. So if you can't build next to the road and you can't build 800,000 feet away from the road, where can you build? Right. And that is disproportionately gonna fall on rural communities, people that have owned land for some time maybe, and maybe thought that was the perfect parcel for family, new housing, employees for the farm, what have you. So we are calling for a delay on all these and and and really following the rural caucuses bill that asked for a delay and notification to these owners before checks are back in.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: And what sort of delay?

[Samantha Sheehan]: We we're asking for a delay until after an accession, to be totally frank about it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: So 07/01/1928? Yep.

[Josh Hanford]: And an extension of the existing Act two fifty exemptions, because the whole theory was, well, we don't need these exemptions anymore because we've got this new process, but we're not sure the new process is gonna really Support. Support the goals, and maybe, at the end of the day, a lot less area of Act two fifty exemption than currently exists today, and a disproportionate impact on lower ruled property owners.

[Samantha Sheehan]: And you're talking about the concerns you have with a $300, you know, permit to go to market.

[Josh Hanford]: Imagine getting an active fifteen

[Samantha Sheehan]: fifty Imagine getting an active permit 15 to replace your septic tank, which is what's being proposed. And we know

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We thank you for that. Yeah. Because that is that is real pain and real cost. And we do thank you for

[Josh Hanford]: that. Yep.

[Samantha Sheehan]: So on that note, there is a path to act two fifty exemption that is identified in law, and this is what it is. It's not a municipal authority. Zoning districts are a municipal authority. Permanent by law is municipal authority. This is not. In fact, the municipality has only incremental an incremental role in a sort of strange way. So the first thing that happens is these FLM maps that I showed you with the pink and the green. Those are created by the RPCs. They go through a regional planning process. It includes local level outreach. At that point, the municipalities can engage and put input feedback. We hear mixed reviews about how that goes. Sometimes really well, sometimes not. Then the RPC as of last month may submit the regional plan to the land use review board. Then the Land Use Review Board has a minimum seventy five day process, which includes a sixty day pre application period. That's what we're in now for three of the maps. That pre application period includes public comment requirements on the RPC and a public comment process at the LERB and statutory notice requirements, a long list of entities, agencies, and organizations that must be notified of the maps. This already includes heard by law, agriculture, food, and markets. Then at this time, the tier one B eligible, future eligible municipalities may indicate their request for status and they're sort of a parallel public comment, public hearing path for the one piece. Then the LERP holds a public hearing and then by law in fifteen days, they have to make a decision to either affirm or deny the plan. If the plan is denied, the RPC has eighteen months to have a do over. And if the plan is affirmed, it is not adopted. It goes back to the RPC, is adopted by the RPC, and there's more public hearing, public comment, including an objection process, and then it goes back to the LERB, and then the LERB finally affirms or denies the regional plan. Now, no tier one As have been created, Only potentially tier one b's, which is housing exemption up to 50 units. So, then Rutland City can apply, again, we think they're going be first, hope they are, I hope it goes well. Then Rutland City can officially apply for tier one a exemption. That has a separate set of guidelines. It includes all the same characteristics of the pre application process, a one on one review with a member of the LERB, public comment at the municipal level, also and by the way, skipped over the fact that this has to pass the board to alderman. They have to make many several in public meeting actions to even authorize the planning director to put together the application and submit. So

[Josh Hanford]: Can I just stop you?

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I'm I'm just I'm sorry.

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I I mean, I I I know that we are a government, but just your explaining of the bureaucracy of that, it is ridiculous. It it it it it has more hurdles than a steeplechase in the Olympics. And I I I wow. I I don't I'm

[Josh Hanford]: Exactly. Thank you.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Thank you for your comment. Yeah. So, maybe I'll just you get the point. Then the clerk can say yes, they can say no, they can say they wanna make changes. There's a opportunity for formal objection, that triggers another hearing. And a

[Josh Hanford]: assault in the wounds. Currently, if you get tier one a status, guess what? You get all the existing state Act two fifty permits to enforce in your own community, The state doesn't enforce them anymore. Which Russ The counties we're talking to don't wanna do that. Yeah. Because those Act two fifty permits have old authorities and old regulations that may be in opposite to the ones they currently have adopted to get this approval. Hoping they change that because that's gonna prevent most municipalities from even seeking this great opportunity to balance where we can build new housing, have more investment and growth, grow the tax base with new Act two fifty requirements in the rural areas so we don't impact farming. But right now, we're not sure that we're getting that balance.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah. And so these are in act one eighty one, these are the statutory standards for tier one a total exemption. The LERB basically went through a process to create a process, that ensures that tier one a as approved matches the statutory requirements. You may commonly hear, like, tier one a has zoning and sewer. It also has to have eight other things, and this is what they are. So they have to prove staff capacity, capital planning revenues sufficient to support the public infrastructure in the tier one a. They have to be consistent with the character of adjacent national registered historic districts and other significant cultural and natural resources. They have to meet smart growth planning principles in their local code. I'll add commentary that that is subjective, but is spoken to in the alert, tier money guidelines, etcetera. So there are probably gonna be a 100 or maybe a third of all Vermont municipalities that could get tier one b based off of what we know about the character of communities in Vermont. There are very few that will be able to achieve this for a long time, barring other significant interventions and supports. Do you wanna do this one? Sure. Okay.

[Josh Hanford]: This all matters because a lot of the HOME Act and others have sort of set regional and municipal targets to achieve our housing goals, which are estimated at 30 to 40,000 by 2030. This is important because if we get this right or we get it wrong, it could reduce conflicts between farmers and neighbors in dense growth areas. We know those result in costs and conflicts that are are are bad to farming, frankly. This t one t one a areas represent these dense residential mixed use districts that have water and sewer that are near major transportation corridors. So we need to get this right because there's a lot of interest in those areas and a lot of public investment at stake here. The municipality must first meet these requirements, demonstrate all of this planning and growth that aligns with state and regional goals for housing, and in these small growth centers, you know, this is where we're saying we this is where the municipalities must have broad regulatory power to realize this type of development, the community needs, and to allow for local ordinances to treat people fairly. In a nutshell, this is why it all matters and why we we think that their concerns around how municipalities might impact housing because of new zoning regulations, because of the supreme court case might not come to pass right now. And this is the real show. Act two fifty implementation and how it plays out. And that's what we should be focused on and figure out how those impacts are going to impact goals of this committee, the goals of the housing committee, and the municipalities that are trying to grow the grand list, be successful for all of their residents, businesses, taxpayers, and a sort of reaction that may move this to a different venue very fast in this building or outside it may have just the opposite sort of consequences that I think our municipalities and our board and our members agree with you that we don't wanna impact farmers when they'll put them out of business. We value them. They're often part of our local government. In these dense areas, it really matters to get this right because we we don't want the sort of consequences that we've seen that sort of this court case resulted in where we are today.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Real quickly, I just wanted to show you what I've provided today in this PDF version. So, these are links and resources on the municipal planning and zoning process, which has its whole other separate prescription in law, and you can look through those if you have more questions. Some sort of complicated resources and easy ones. And then same thing for Act 181. So these are all the source materials for the information about one eighty one that we've provided you, as well as I think the most important one, you probably wanna go right home and look at your own town and your own Senate District. So, that top link is the place where you can view the current three draft maps, which are North

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Northwest.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Northwest. Chittenden. Chittenden, and Rutland. And then I didn't go into this, but this is the current explanation of what is the development that would trigger act two fifty review in the areas we discussed with the road rule on tier three, and then this is an outline of municipal authorities that exists now over other types of development and activity except for agriculture, cannabis, and renewable energy. Those are the current full exemptions. So those are there for you. Happy to come back, meet one on one, talk to your constituents and other partners.

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah. Thanks for having us in so early. Yeah. And, you know, we've we've had very cordial and productive conversations with the agency of agriculture because they I think they understand the challenges. They're looking at another way to respond that maybe takes a different approach, but it sort of tries to reduce these conflicts in just a different way. And I think our takeaway message is that the real challenge, real conflict is the implication of Act one eighty one, and we wanna get that right to make sure it doesn't have bigger consequences than this one Supreme Court case in one small dense neighborhood.

[Samantha Sheehan]: One last thing, one point where we totally agree is the right to grow food.

[Josh Hanford]: Yes.

[Samantha Sheehan]: So regardless of in one a, out one a, municipal authority, municipal no authority Yep. We totally agree. So we agree in the vast majority of the state, municipalities should not be regulating agriculture. That can be productively be done best by the agency. We disagree that in these small, precious areas achieved through extraordinary public process and pain bloodletting, that the that the municipal regulation needs to reign supreme and work the way it was created to. But even in those areas, homeowners should have gardens, chickens, whatever they want. Everyone should grow food.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yeah. Bennington? Yes. So it sounds

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: like Rutland might be the first one to try to be able to get to tier one a status. It's your rough estimate on what that could even possibly happen.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Ours? Well, they're in sixty days. When did they go in? November mid November. So, mid January. So, February. So, I guess mid February they could apply in concept. Yep.

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: And I'm I'm looking for rough.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Is it Yeah.

[Josh Hanford]: Months from now, years from now? Think I think this summer, roughly

[Samantha Sheehan]: I was gonna say

[Josh Hanford]: know if they would likely be approved for tier one a.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah.

[Josh Hanford]: Okay. And then Whether they choose you or not, an actual prover would come later than that, but they could know

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: I was

[Samantha Sheehan]: gonna say something. I think So

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: when could there be a tier one a in Roughly. Give me, you know,

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: two years, one year, three year.

[Josh Hanford]: Probably about this time next year. Okay. So a year. That that's my best guess.

[Samantha Sheehan]: I actually think legally it's earlier.

[Josh Hanford]: Legally it's earlier. Yeah. There's a lot. Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And now I was just thinking Yeah. If you want

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: to Yeah. Five Right. It's a different different

[Josh Hanford]: And so for the region that's last, I think is it 2 Rivers?

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah. Does.

[Josh Hanford]: Yeah. 2 Rivers are both from our region. The region you represent, Senator Major. We're we're Ten years.

[Samantha Sheehan]: We're, like, three years legally. The first opportunity for Middlebury, for example. Yeah.

[Josh Hanford]: Josh. Happy to answer your more questions. Come back. We're gonna speak with House Ag next week. Largely just have the same message and wanna be partners in this. Don't wanna really create waves within the community of concerns around this. We understand the issue and the importance of what you're charged with in this case.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Sorry, if I could throw in one more thing. I think in observing your discussions earlier on this issue, the question of how quickly this could get changed up on a farm was a concern. And so right now, in that big, very long process, you can make a minor amendment while it's live. After the final adoption of the plan, the law and the LERB do not allow a change until the next regional plan ten years later. To to be totally transparent, we disagree. We think that there should be an opportunity for a substantial change if the reasons are good and the process supports it. And the reason might be a landowner conserves their land for the purpose of agriculture, and the municipality wants to remove it from the growth area and add the growth area on the other end of Main Street. That's like a very logical reason. The changing of conservation easement, property acquisition, etcetera. Because, again, it's a little bit of area. We've got big goals. It's a hard process to navigate. And if we wanna build 40,000 homes in three years

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That's not gonna happen.

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: We gotta pull some levers psyched out on that. Yeah.

[Samantha Sheehan]: But right now, it could but right now, it could not change faster than every ten years.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, I wanna thank you guys for coming in. I didn't know how this discussion was gonna go, but I think it was a very powerful testimony. You guys did a really nice job. I think we're leaving here with some allies of how we feel. I hope you guys stick to your convictions all along, what you've said and what you want to oppose or what you want to slow down. It would be helpful to all of this data, I believe. Very complex stuff. You guys masterfully explained it, and I want to thank you guys for coming in.

[Senator Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: Appreciate it. You. Yep. Luck.