Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified witness (policy/land use advocate)]: But what came out of that process was an effort tied to the tier of land use framework that had real stakeholder buy in, and a shared belief that Vermont could advance housing production and protect natural resources together. That commitment carried forward into the legislative process the next year. Many of us spent months in your committee rooms working with you through drafts and questions, and in the final weeks of the session, the bill was rewritten multiple times. Staplers stayed at the table because Act 181 created a process, not just a policy outcome. That process intentionally shifted substantial work into implementation and rulemaking, with the understanding that refinement could continue and then transition would take time. A bill the size and the level of complexity as 181 was a massive undertaking, and as more time is spent turning the words from the page into action, we need to now take the time in this process to make some technical corrections and transitional certainty as things are rolled out. One hundred eighty one relied on interim mechanisms, including temporary Act two fifty exemptions, and to avoid regulatory gaps while municipalities and regions adapt to new responsibilities. It also assumed that rulemaking would allow for technical refinement, including tailored Act two fifty review in Tier three and the road rule to what was necessary to protect relevant natural resources. Those assumptions are now being tested. As implementation begins, we are hearing that many municipalities that could apply for tier 1A are not doing so. Similarly, many indicated that they will not opt in to tier 1B. The reasons vary, but include uncertainty around administrative capacity, coordination with regional plans, and clarity around review standards. At the same time, regional planning commissions are navigating significant statutory changes related to future land use mapping, targeted housing targets, and tier 1B designation process under titles twenty four and thirty two. If interim Act two fifty exemptions expire before these issues are resolved, Vermont risks creating an immediate regulatory gap. Large scale and rural housing projects alike, currently covered by interim extensions, would face renewed Act two fifty jurisdiction without a clear or functional alternative pathway. The practical consequences are straightforward, with uncertainty hitting the development community and slowing progress. That outcome would directly undermine the core purpose of Act 181 and conflict with statutory requirements that regional plans provide sufficient opportunity to meet housing targets. There are also emerging concerns about how tier one is being interpreted in practice. Again, the regional planning commissions have raised questions about guidance that may result in growth areas being mapped more narrowly, despite clear statutory direction to accommodate the substantial majority of regional housing targets. I know how much you all undertake, but I believe these committees would benefit from a focused hearing on tier one implementation. Without being condorned exemptions mean extending housing production could become a collateral damage while those questions are sorted out, and the state cannot afford that chance. Similar risks exist in tier three in the road roll. A central understanding of the Act 181 legislative process was that rule making would determine how Act two fifty criteria apply in Tier three and the road rule areas. Those legislative conversations explicitly contemplated that the Land Use Review Board may limit application criteria and tailor review to protect relevant natural resources. The determination that such tailoring is not allowable that was made by the Land Use Review Board, represents significant departure from what many participants understood to be the legislative intent. A strong reaction to the initial tier three draft rule and the determination that the road rule does not need rulemaking reflects that a disconnect exists. If tier three in the road rule move forward without additional time for refinement, Vermont risks implementing a framework that lacks stakeholder support, increases uncertainty, and invites conflict rather than collaboration. Act 181 worked because stakeholders shared responsibility for the outcome. The same collaborative approach is needed now. The questions before the legislature are not whether to change the goals of Act 181, it is whether to ensure the transition does not unintentionally undermine it. Thank you for your time and your continued engagement in this work.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Again, we're going to

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: hold questions till the end. We have a lot of witnesses to answer.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Super, thanks so much. Okay, so we're moving on to Representative Sebelius, who's joining us as a representative really of the rural councils. Yes, welcome, thank you.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Good morning, senators. Thank you for having me in and thank you Chair Watson, for joining us last week at the rural Congress. We have a bill H730 that is sponsored by bipartisan sponsors of the Rural Caucus looking at moving the deadlines forward. It is also looking at requiring notice to folks that are impacted, which is everyone in tier two and tier three. We are also looking at providing assessors and listeners some guidance on how to consider the tiers on the American Indian Valve Robert Buggeuse. I will be brief probably here at my comments and say to you something that I said to Chair Watson and to Senator Bongartz when they joined us, and that is, we all talk about this bill as a thousand dollar. We need to remember that in addition to making housing easier in many parts of our state as a stated goal, it also creates a very significant regulatory burden for rural Vermont. And because of that, we think that time is really, really important. And not included in our bill, but something I hope you would consider, and I've asked our environmental folks to think about our tools to help folks that live in these rural areas combine with this increased regulation, this increased conservation that is also a part of this. And so I will ask you to keep that in mind. This is not just a house bill, it is also a conservation bill, and the result of that is a significant amount of regulation for rural folks. I'd ask you to remember or to keep in mind that if you have enough money, if you have enough legal representation, if you have enough patients, you are likely going to be able to build wherever you would like in the state of Vermont that you can find and do so. And what is the effect of that? I would say already, I live in rural Vermont, I represent two C areas. We are one fifth residents, four fifths second homes. So I can see it with my eyes. We have rural gentrification, which is happening now. Without careful thought and tools for the Vermonters that live in rural Vermont, we will accelerate that. My neighbor who has lived on their land, their family for one hundred years, if they want to provide the opportunity for their child to have a piece of that land,

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: to build a road to the

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: piece of that land. Perhaps they can't afford the engineering and afford that, but someone else from away may be able to. I don't think that's the intention that we had here was to make it so that rural Vermonters could not stay. We also want them to comply. I believe that we need to protect our environment. We need to help keep people safe. How do we make sure that we have tools and clips? Please, please consider that. I want to also say thank you for taking this up. The last thing that I will just share with you is the World Caucus, last year and this year, has had our friends at the RDCs, the OCT and others in over and over and have an alert and we've asked about public engagement. And I will say to you that Act 181 did not include the intentional type of outreach is really necessary for the amount of our monitors that are impacted, which is nearly every nearly every. And finally, I am a commissioner on my regional standing commission, and went recently to a meeting. We were fortunate enough to have Chair, believe in, Kristi Gendron, yes, from the LERD conference. We know that the LERD is working really hard. I see her in a lot of meetings. She came and explained to the commissioners and the process and where things were. And then we had a staff in the Woodland Regional Commission explaining where our commission was. And our commission will be one of the last to have their maps approved. Draft maps will be presented in May. What I think we're seeing right now is a pretty robust back and forth discussion between the RPCs and alert. So it's not expected that that will be, those maps will be finalized until early next week. The rule currently will bow into effect in July. That's a pretty significant mismatch in terms of our monitors being able to combat and understand. And so I thank you. I have been pawning the House leadership about the urgency of changing this up. They direct me here. And so thank you for this showing hearing and thank you for coming to the roadblocks. Really appreciate that.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: John, can you put that to read on?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: All right, super. Well, thank you. All right, so next we are going to move on to Mr. Baker from Baptum, also the Chisholm

[Catherine Dimitruk (Executive Director, Northwest RPC)]: County Regional Planning Commission, welcome.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Thank you very

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: much. Thank you for the opportunity. As I said, Chisholm Baker with the Chisholm County Commission during the day and also serve as a government relations committee chair for our state association. So I am really here speaking on behalf of all the RPCs. I'm gonna spend just a couple minutes kind of level setting kind of how things are going in our process and then turn it over to my peer friend, Catherine Bennington to talk about next opportunities for next steps. So first I I do want to kind of just follow-up the previous two speakers. This has been a good process for bringing alignment between regional and municipal planning. And I think when we get the state by then we'll have all three levels of government lined up, particularly on these growth areas, which is really important. And then in terms of process, it's also been really good. I think we're probably at over 500 community engagement meetings that RPCs have had. Some of them have been like formal with the County Planning Commission, others of them have been more informal at a farmer's market or something to get input from community members. But a lot of that has been focused more on this the tier one B elemental areas, the growth areas.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County RPC; speaking on behalf of VAPDA)]: So just for you to know

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: where our work has been focused. As representative Sebeli mentioned, all the RPCs are on track to present our plans to the LERB and be done by the end of the calendar year. So we are not asking for any extensions of those time frames, as I know we were talking about timeframes on different aspects of this law. So we're still on track and we are really working hard with every town to have at least some opportunity for a growth area in their town. Even if it's a small village, where they don't have a lot of infrastructure, those are still appearing on our maps as areas that could have growth maybe at some point in the future if the town wants, which is also a big factor. There's a lot of dynamic about what the town wants to do and what they want to be in the future. So far those growth areas, I think in our looking to draft maps draft, right, it's about 2.2% of the land area. It's very close to the same amount of land area that is in the interim exemption areas. The difference is really that the natural producing are more customized to what's going on in that town and where they want to grow. And a couple caveats on that, that number is a little low in that it doesn't include, don't have a good draft map from the Central Vermont, so this region. It's usually the first, but this gets implied a little bit. So that number will go up a little bit when Central Vermont's areas, right now it all includes the old legacy designation areas, so know, not failures in there, but it hasn't been flushed out. On the flip side, so that'll drive that overall number up a little bit, and comment was made already about this, the comments are getting from the blur are, as they're trying to diagnose and compliance statute, are likely to bring our maps a little tighter. And so we'll come back to that subject. And then with regards to the housing targets, a big part of what we're also doing is, can we fit a majority of the housing targets in these growth areas? The answers that have been coming up so far from the RPCs are yes, but I want to also make clear that not all the housing is in this urban area. So we're looking at an excess of 40% of housing growth having to be in rural areas. I just want to, for all of us to kind of keep that in mind, this is not rural versus urban, this is yes, and, and taking advantage of infrastructure and towns that are embracing growth and zoning is a key part, but we still need residential growth to be happening in the rural parts of the state as well. So I'll leave it at that and turn it over to Catherine for next steps. Thank you.

[Catherine Dimitruk (Executive Director, Northwest RPC)]: Welcome. Thank you. I'm Catherine Demetriuk, Executive Director of Northwest Regional Planning Commission. I'm following up on Charlie's testimony, I wanted to talk about next steps from the Regional Planning Commission perspective. So first, many of you know that we do have some recommended changes to tweak the implementation related to clarify and simplifying the RPC mapping criteria, as well as realigning the designation benefits associated with our regional plan mapped areas to better support our store acceptors and still allow additional benefits for our smaller communities. So we've shared that with a few people and look forward to a future opportunity to talk about that. In terms of timelines specifically, as Charlie noted, all the regional planning are on track to meet our deadline for adopting regional plans. So we don't see a need to adjust that timeline at this time. In terms of looking to the future, however, when regional planning commissions would like to make changes to their regional plans, Right now, the timelines for the med takes about six to nine months just for the adoption process. And so part of our recommendations is to add the ability, I think statute for RPCs to have a simpler, faster amendment process to really keep this act 181 implementation framework, a living responsive process where we can regularly update our plans to reflect changing situations at the local level. So we think that's a real needed improvement moving forward to address the time units of implementation. It's

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: clarified. Is there an appeals process?

[Catherine Dimitruk (Executive Director, Northwest RPC)]: In the regional plan. Ask the land use review board. You know, the people can object to the land use review board approving them plans, and then that's

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: what it is.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And they object to the LERP.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: In the LERP, you're on schedule too?

[Catherine Dimitruk (Executive Director, Northwest RPC)]: Yes, the LERP makes it a suggestion for our client. We do support time for the LERD to get things right on the rule and tier three. We think that's really very important because public trust in those processes are key to making the whole system work. And so it's important to get it right, not to get it on time where everybody thought it should be three years ago. So the important part is getting it right. So we do support that. Additionally, we don't have any concerns about sending the interim exemptions. Representatives, Celia noted kind of the interplay of timelines, but also as you know, not all communities are opting into tier one B. So when those interim exemptions go away, exemptions don't continue in those towns. And because it takes a while to ramp up housing projects and get ready to go, there's definitely a possibility we could strand some projects in those communities. And so extension of the interim exemption really will help cover those communities as well. And those add sort of court processes, which still take a long time.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: That's all. Super, thank you so much. Okay, super. So we're gonna move now to Josh Hanford with BLCT. Welcome.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. I just bring Sharon here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And is Sam not with you? She is out sick today.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Oh, no. No.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: That's okay. That's fun. So

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: for the record, Schandberg, director of intergovernmental relations with Motleya Cities and Founds. As everyone else has said, thanks for having us join here. It really helps to have everyone split our time up and these are important discussions. This was a landmark bill, know changing land use, statewide land use long time in the making. So it's important to get this right like everyone said, I have a short presentation here if I can get this to work. Know BLCT represents all two fifty one municipalities urban, rural, small, large. The reality is you know over 73% of municipalities are below 2,500 but the number one issue over the last at least three years, I think it's as much as five years when we survey is housing availability and affordability across municipalities of all sizes shapes and regions. And so what we want to do is help support the creation of new housing that municipalities need, envision and plan for and allow in local zoning. And so we're going to be just real high level basic here, we want to extend the temporary act to 50 exemptions like the curve. We want to delay not stop or repeal, delay the implementation of the road rule and tier three jurisdiction, and we want to eliminate the requirements for municipalities to enforce the existing Act two fifty permits when they become tier one a areas. Doesn't seem to make sense and that is been cited as one of the main reasons why municipalities are hesitant to pursue tier one. So as you know this is a review to everyone, but you know what is Act 181? It's location based jurisdiction rather than applying it based on the density or the number of units, And how is it triggered under the new process? Well we have these new areas, the tier 1a is totally exempt from Act two fifty if approved, tier 1b is partial exemption from Act two fifty housing units up to 50 or fewer would be exempt. Tier two existing Act two fifty applies including the existing five five ten rule on housing you know five up to 10 units five years five miles. The Tier three it's enhanced that two fifty jurisdiction, any development may require an Act two fifty permit review and subject to final rules determined by the learner. And then there's the road rule, which is all development 800 feet or more combination driveway, know this stuff, but just trying to set the sort of ground rules we're all talking about the same thing. So what is development? In Act 21 it asks the LERB to determine what development is for tier three. The final rule could change, but the current draft for tier three contains this information that any improvements to existing homes or structures that's larger than 200 square feet or than 50 feet of an existing structure will be considered development. The construction of new wastewater or drinking water systems, you know we've asked DC to permit those, is it right to also have a second review under Act two fifty for those same structures and confuse that process. You know any new homes or structures larger than that 200 square feet obviously, and then when it comes to roads and driveways and utilities again, there's overlapping jurisdiction and permit processes that not sure we intended it to be duplicative at this point. And then trails this this may be one of the easier ones for alert to work out, but that's pretty high restrictions on trail that go into some of our you know areas where there is a sense of habitat that people you know low density enjoyment of this conservation land it is a pretty important ethic in Vermont. So again what we're calling for is the delay in the implementation of the road rule and tier three jurisdiction. This allows the municipal bodies to see, understand, and plan for this new jurisdiction while the regional maps and adoption process unfold. I think it's important to make sure folks understand that the future land use maps which the RPCs are assisting communities with. I'm on my local planning commission in Randolph, we've got a view and then it goes to the select boards being discussed right now, do not include the new F two fifty restrictions that come with the rule rule or tier three, but not on that map. So we're creating a map that has new future land use, says here's what we want you to build, but those maps don't contain the contemplated restrictions. That's a different set of maps that the LERB has that are for regulatory purposes, then that's going to be confusing for a lot of public and a lot of select forts and a lot of planning commissions that have been working very hard with their original planning commissions and their citizens to come up with these future land maps, these future growth areas. We think that all homeowners and landowners need time to participate in this process and understand, we need time for the local zoning to catch up and to really align with the guidance from the LRRP, particularly on the RoTE group. I mean that's mere months away really, I know it's a harder winter, but it's really in the scheme of things not that far off and we need to have those rules and understanding how to implement it, therefore we're calling for a delay. And it's also appropriate for legislative oversight between the adoption and when this new jurisdiction takes effect. Know this all happens all off cycle this summer and we come back and we realize, uh-oh we didn't have time to like tweak. I think that could be confusing and problematic and others said it maybe undermine that trust of this process. You know pictures are worth a thousand words, so what's a map maybe a million? I don't know. But so Pittsburgh is in Rutland County one of the first counties to have be part of this loan in this process. You know you can see that Pittsburgh is a mid sized town, has water and sewer, has planning and zoning, it's got some professional staff, it also has some areas in the future land use map. It doesn't have a downtown center but it's got a village center, prime book area and village area, pink area is all but the dark pink, So that's what's being mapped for some level of Act two fifty relief. Whether they ever are eligible to pursue tier 1a, I don't believe so, but probably tier 1b in these areas will be approved at some point. So great that's the areas we're going to see growth and reduced jurisdiction. What I want to show you next is sort of how the other two new jurisdictions kick in. On the left is the road rule, all the shaded areas, and and then on the right is the tier three. Some of you've heard this before so sorry repeat here. You know in most of the tier three mapping and habitat, the significant natural communities perfectly appropriate. There's some endangered species, there's small parts of that, but same with the head wash. The headwaters where we have steep slopes, poorly drained soil, it's not appropriately developed there. It's the habitat connectors, which are by definition around roads where there's forest on both sides. That's problematic when people live in those areas and we've invested resources in those areas. So this is that corner road, pretty significant road, there's existing homes and small neighborhoods in this area, and you can see that when you place the habitat connectors that's in the proposed rule for tier three, the darker yellow is the 800 foot buffer that's being considered, lighter yellow shaded area is the 2,000 we don't know which one it's going to be, but you can see what that does any structure more than 200 square feet would trigger at two fifty and then outside of that the gray area is the row group So you're essentially forced with don't we want to develop along the road where we already have driveways and fiber and utility poles and three acre stormwater ditches and we're treating our human impact rather than have someone bypass that and go deeper into the forest and the road either way it's sort of cutting off the choice for many rural communities and this isn't isolated. When we go to

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: down, down.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Sorry, got some other math here,

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: but my up top is breathing.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Well, while you're doing that, I just wanna say I, oh sorry, do. Yeah. Clarifying Well, I mean, I hope BLTT could get to this, but I feel like it's a real failure on the legislative part to have done anything with tier two. But like there's nothing that is tier two. And I maybe we can all work on that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: But let's talk more about that, okay I'm jotting.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: So just more maps right, so Moretown, Ripton, I think that's in Chichen County up there, maybe Westford. This is this issue is not isolated is the point of these other maps. Know and we're talking about state highways, some cases we're talking about neighborhoods where there's a lot of investment, and so this will impact a lot of promoters that have private property along these roads. Roads are where people live, roads where investment has happened, roads arguably where we want to continue to grow, so we think this is a specific reason why we want to hold on, make sure we've got this right, make sure all the final rules, there's comment, there's notice, there's a lot of this dialogue going on so we can better understand how this will impact our own our property owners. Well maybe I should just stop there I know I have a closing slide but this is freezing on me here.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I think your point as well has been.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: Yeah you've heard this before the sort of range that we're talking about here with the new tier one area that will allow more development you know may be roughly the same size as our existing Act two fifty exempted areas. But the new areas that could be under increased jurisdiction could be a significant portion of the state. And so that sort of grand bargain that this represented folks would call into question that if we don't take the time to make sure we understand what we're doing what the intent was. That's it, that's you know I know you have a lot of witnesses and many of you heard this before but.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No it's great, mean you've actually heard it once you hear it two or 10 times right. So we're gonna hold questions and

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: then people write down your questions because

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I think there will be time at the end.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh I think we have

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: a lot of robust questions so great.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: I think say, but the staff they're working very hard. They've been doing their job trying to implement statutes that are passed. This is not any way a dig at them. I want to be very clear they have been working very hard to try to move this process along. I think they took benefits from some clarity here of the pushback they've heard, they've heard from citizens.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And we were hoping they would be with us today. They're out on an on-site visit and aren't able to join us but will be with us for our next hearing.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Yes, thank you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Thank you. All right, so we're up to Mr. Gromit from BNRC, welcome.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Thank you.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: the opportunity to testify. So for the record, I'm John Grommet, I'm the Policy and Motor Program, Director for Vermont Athletic Resources Council. I I submitted testimony that I put together with Kate Gallagher who's here who's our director of sustainable communities. Thank you, we all. Tara Miller who's behind you who's our new forest program director.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Oh great, Tara. Tara.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: So, the DRC as I think most of you know, hopefully you do, you know we've been around almost as long as actually 50, you know we're over 60 years old, and a couple of points I want to make is, so you know, DRC's DNA, you've always been about sustainable communities, you know, formed by foresters and forests, but farmers and forests were concerned about the changing landscape, development pressure in the 70s when we were implementing a lot of these landmark environmental lines at the state federal level. And we've always been about all aspects of sustainable communities. So where we grow and live and build houses, but also protecting working lands, forests, farms, and our critical natural resources. And you know we were involved with the creation of Act two fifty and we've been involved in implementing Act two fifty over the years, and we were heavily involved at that point, along with everyone who prefer you know. And you know I would say like I never really thought about 2081 as a grand bargain. Really I thought of it as, and think of it as really generational change to how we look at land use and implement land use policies in the state of Vermont. Recognizing the need for housing, ERC clearly recognizes the need for housing. And the tier one process, vocational jurisdiction will identify areas where we want to grow, we're very supportive of that. We've engaged in reviewing every map that's coming through, we're attending site visits, we're really digging in with the regional planning commissions and I will second that not only is I think the LERB, this is very early days of the LERB, they have so much on their plate, but they are working hard to implement tier one, tier three, the road rule, the regional planning commissions are doing an incredible job working with their cities and towns, so it's really heartening to see this incredible generational change to our land use on being going into effect. So and I was really I was really hard to hear the comments that I listened to as I was going to testify, but I think there's a lot of agreement. The university also supports these extensions to the time for the road rule to go into effect, the time for tier three rules to be adopted to even the forest protection criteria and the interim act immunity. I just want to take some time to explain why and talk a little bit about why it's premature to really like I understand you know showing maps that are based on traps that are coming out now, but the work is fluid and really in the beginning phases, BRMC's been at the table with I think everyone in this room, business groups, environmental groups, groups, the municipalities, we want to get the vote right, we want to get tier three right, we want to get all of this right because it is so important and we do need more time, we agree with that. And the fact that we need more time I think is evidence that I would just caution people about, you know, it's fine to show maps of drafts and what things are in this moment in time, but that's not the way that it's going to end up and I think it's impossible to say right now, I don't know, what's your three is going look like in terms of the mapping, in terms of other, it might not just be the maps, it could be the size of our projects, how, what is that size, I think BLCT alluded to that, totally agree, we haven't figured that out and as part of the stakeholder process and BRC is a stakeholder in all of these groups along with everyone that you've heard from, we just said this to the LIRD, we're like hey we're not comfortable with how these early maps look, we're not comfortable with some of these definitions that are about sugar development, we want to protect critical natural resources and getting back to like why I don't really love the Graham Martin term is that this is really about doing, we could do more than one thing at one time, We can identify areas where we need housing and grow, but we have to deal with climate change, the floods that we're seeing, forests are a huge part of mitigating flood impacts. We're losing habitat, we're losing biodiversity. These are not opinions, this is documented. You can have scientists in, I know the Senate Natural Resources Committee. So that's what I can do anyway when anyone was, it was to try to look at our whole system and update it. There are areas where we know we want to grow or need housing where F-two 50 is not adding value. I'll say as I always say I don't think F-two 50 or other regulations are the main impediments of why we're not having enough housing in the state. But if there is something that we can do to make it easier to build housing, we're poor. But there are a lot, as you know, who've looked about sort of a lot of stressors out there and why we're not seeing housing go. So we support that, but we equally and it was really great to hear, I heard support, we have to go forward and at some point implement the road rule, implement tier three, but we we need to get it right. It's more important to get it right than to go fast. So we support those extensions. You know, on the road rule, I I just I wanna you know, there's so much that's set on the road rule, and I hate that name for it actually. I I wish I could call it something else.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Well, you can always propose another one. I do try. And a blur of bar.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: You know? But we don't know. So this whole, you know, 800 foot road, 2,000 feet of combined roads and driveways, the LERB is defining what's a road, what's a driveway. We don't even know why that is going to look like at the end of the day when the LERB implements guidance and actually we ask the LERB to actually promulgate a rule because we think it would give them more power to more narrowly tailor how the rule rule is applied, but whether it's a rule or a guidance we don't really know the answer to that question yet but I can guarantee you that you know one house in 800 feet off a driveway is not going to trigger the road rule. That's a driveway, maybe two houses if we haven't determined that what's the size of the houses that are being served, what is the footprint of the development, these are all the factors that we're debating and discussing even more than debating and we need more time for that. But I just want to caution you all as you are in the building and there's a lot of conversations that are going on, If you have questions about how the world is going to end up at the end of the day, let's

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: talk

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: about them, let's get the bourbon, let's get other people in to talk about it. But please don't assume that we know like we're locked in, that this is the way it's going to be. And so with more time we can refine these issues, we can engage the public better, courts agree with that, it's good government, we need to inform people, we need to educate people about these changes. We don't know what they are yet exactly, so it's a little early to tell people this is what is going to happen, but with more time we could, and the Lurbin has done a good job of bringing people into the process, this has been, know, it's really interesting because people know more about some of these changes and they know not the way the law has worked for a long time. Have seen comments like I didn't know like in the regional plan like there's a map that shows that's a conservation area and my property's in it. That's been for twenty years, like this person's property has been in this conservation area. And the regional plan doesn't determine action 50, jurisdiction, or any regulatory requirements. So I think what's happening is people are engaged in this process and they're looking for the first time about regional plans, maps, Act two fifty, and they're learning about things that aren't even new things and blah blah blah, and that's a good But I just want to urge as these conversations go forward to ask questions, ask the LERB, ask the ERC, ask all the other parties in the room, don't please just jump to conclusions about like how this is going to end up. And so with more time I think we could get these rules and initiatives and provisions tailored appropriately and do both things and have priorities for housing and growth and have protected critical natural resources and that's what BNSC's goal has always been, is critical natural resources. It's not looking to wide swaths of land, you know, pulled into F-two 50, does not be easy to do that. And the last thing I'll say is, well two more things, one is I do think that, and I think Megan Sullivan said this, but I think there is a bit of a dispute, like we feel that the law gives the authority to only apply certain active duty criteria if the road rule triggers active duty if tier three does, and so you know we're going to continue to advocate, that's a way to narrow sort of the scope, we haven't determined what's the jurisdictional triggers are, but once we do, the next question is well like what is the review involved? So those are issues that are being discussed and that could further narrow or tailor the review to what the issues are. And then on the interim exemption it's just they want to be clear that obviously you know I think there's evidence that it's helped you know facilitates on housing you know while we're developing all the maps I think it makes sense to leave those in place for you know a period of time and so we do we do support that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Great, and

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: on that

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: note, I'm going to ask the first question, which is, if you're all in that we need to extend, what is the agreement on the timeframe? What is the timeline you would propose? You're the planners, you're the towns, you are the natural resources community, what's the timeframe that you would like us to consider? Because we obviously have our own timeframes, but you're all in agreement, we'd like to know about

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Yeah, I would suggest, I mean, we could all agree. It would be great if you give us some time, you know, and let's see what everyone has to say and like, you could just like kind of talk it out a little bit, but it's good to start with an agreement that we should extend them and it should be for a meaningful period of time but I don't I don't know my my lawyer Katie Gallagher won't let me say what that day. Like you know I'm in trouble.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But I think we can really appreciate actually some suggestions from the stakeholder community what those timeframes, what a timeline would

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: be for each of those.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Maybe we can agree if not you can have a menu of dates that could discuss and share some.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think that'll be.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Well, and I could also see that some of the extensions are related to each other, right?

[Unidentified witness (policy/land use advocate)]: Like, this one needs to be CPL's after that one,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: and so there's some linked logic to how these deadlines go. If we're going extend one, we should probably think about the others well. So it seems like there's a package, right? And so, I'm going ask one other follow-up question, let's see if have.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, I just like, I think we'd like that back if we could. Yeah,

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: I'm just asking for a little bit of time, as I assume this is going to turn into a bill and there'll be an opportunity to come in as you're going

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: through

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: language.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yes, just to clarify, that is the intention that we're going to have a bill that encompasses these requests and others. We'll see that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We'd like this as soon as we can.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: I know you said something.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Because our next joint hearing is Friday, and then we'll have another one on Tuesday. So we would love to have these ASA. And so

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: have one further follow-up question, which is actually pretty good.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: I don't have to sit here either. Agree with you. And then

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I see, I can sense that Senator Hardy's question. Yeah. And there

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: are some other questions I think Thomas, David, and I think

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: they're And

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: just to, before we jump into it, I do wanna at least say for everyone's benefit that this is not the last time that we will have you in so to our we don't have to necessarily get all of our questions out at this moment. We're going have the opportunity for a deeper dive. My follow-up question for Mr. Baker, it's in our house. I was very interested that as part of your outreach process that it sounded like it's very robust, it went to farmer's markets, was all of that mandated through the outreach, through statute basically?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: There's some kind of general guidance to do significant engagement. I can't remember the exact terminology, you know there was some clear intention that we understood from the legislature to do as much outreach as we could.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, well I ask that mainly because I'm thinking about the parity with the tier three. So I think there's more there that I'd like to dig into about that outreach. Okay.

[Unidentified legislator]: I don't know who these questions are for. There were some

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: other, let

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: me see here. But

[Unidentified legislator]: the three things that I was confused about or want to know more about that I was hearing was one about the stranded projects.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: A term that people use.

[Unidentified legislator]: What does that mean and how would that happen exactly? And if we extend the date, would we then strand different projects along the road? So just a question of how extending the exemptions can, yeah, the extension extension on on the the exemptions exemptions and the stranded projects and how those interact. And then someone mentioned, or multiple people, I think, the elimination of the requirements for municipalities to enforce Act two fifty exemptions. And I don't understand that. That's apparently been one of the reasons why communities aren't opting into tier one B or one A. A. One them, Sorry, but that's all. I don't understand that as And then the Habitat Connectors, Josh's maps, I'm just interested in what that definition is that's in the law and how that definition is being applied. And maybe this is more of a question for

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the LERB, if you're, if those things you

[Unidentified legislator]: were showing were from LERB maps, because that's not my understanding of what a habitat connector is, but I might be None of this is my area of expertise, so I'm just trying to understand it better as we're trying to figure out these things. So those were three areas of confusion for me.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I think

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: you would like to, and I will add that we will have, particularly, I'll just want to hang in from the ladies' report to come in to dig into that. If you have something to offer on that,

[Unidentified legislator]: that's mostly just getting these on the table. Yeah, that's great. So helpful.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: So I was on the tier three working group and my understanding of the habitat connector based on input from fictional wildlife is roads with forest 75% or greater forest cover on either side. Those are areas that critters plants are more likely to travel through, but they're not exclusive right, you also see critters travel through fields and down riparian river corridors right, and but that is the my understanding of the natural resource criteria that's being applied here, which also comes from sort of like conservation design work that was done earlier, that was done through some landowners volunteering to put game cameras and such on their property, and so there I think there's a history there that you might want to talk more about because I certainly attended the Lemoyle County input session on tier three and the former ANR secretary was quite concerned about that being used, those voluntary sort of data points being used in this regulatory fashion.

[Unidentified witness (policy/land use advocate)]: Okay, it's just confusing because I

[Unidentified legislator]: mean my gut reaction is that we don't want habitat using our roads as connectors. It's not safe for them. They're going to get hit. And it's not safe for drivers either. So I would think that we would, if we're going to try to encourage habitat connectors,

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: they would actually not be

[Unidentified legislator]: on roads. So that's why I don't understand this. All those

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: tunnels under the road.

[Unidentified legislator]: Yeah, mean, they're culverts, but also just like you want them to go where it's safer and where it makes more sense and are not passing over roads. But we have to build roads through there. But I'm obviously missing something, I just want to understand about Absolutely,

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: I think some of our roads, they do cross Green Mountain National Forest. And part of our comments to Alex and that working group was well if we have significant public lands that allow the road crossings or permanently conserved properties perhaps those could be the ones that are included in tier three that have a requirement because they're not going to be developed anyways and someone's private property that happens to have trees on both sides wouldn't be caught up in this if we have adequate habitat connectors already gained through conservation.

[Unidentified legislator]: Exactly, so anyway we can dig into that.

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: And then the other question was about Tier 1A, so if you achieve Tier 1A status there's a big long list of things you need to have in place and what you need to meet. Basically to be determined you do at least everything required in I-two 50 and perhaps more to get complete relief. So then the question becomes if you get complete relief why are you then enforcing twenty year old Act two fifty permits that have conditions which may be in conflict with your current zoning, current regulations. And so you could have a housing project that under the municipality that achieved tier one requires less parking, but now you're enforcing an Act two fifty permit that has even more parking that's required, requiring two sets of reviews and appeals and you know archaeologists in Cambrian Rise and Burlington as an example of an existing Act two fifty permit, and so it just doesn't I mean this house aren't interested in taking on those responsibilities of permits that they never put in place and that especially when their current land use regulations have been deemed to be meeting the intent requirements.

[Unidentified legislator]: Right, that's helpful, so maybe digging in

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: on that a little bit more too.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Let me say that just these are good questions, but I think you should have Alex and you should have the AR people in.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: They were invited.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Yeah. I think that's the way to really wrap the note of how this is all being defined, and it's all in flux. Again, that's my main point is that none of this is set in independent court, so

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any questions from Southern Economic Development now, just to set the table for

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: the fourth time's converter plan for clean energy? I emailed you a bunch. Did just To Oh, both of you. Oh, one thing, John Brogman, you know, I'm gonna pick on you a little bit. As long

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: as it's on all that.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: No, you know, you said something about, I don't know if it would be one house or two houses, but our intent with the Home Act onward was to try and get rid of discrimination against multifamily housing, right? So we don't want to still be using language and deference to the idea of you build, you cut a big path to one McMansion, right? That's the problem with tier two and tier three, is you have the ten fifty five. And you have a lot of deference in the law to large 10 acre properties, not to multifamily housing that could enrich a place like Pittsburgh.

[Jon Groveman (Policy and Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Yeah, no that's a good point and a fair point. I would just say that, you know, out in tier three if you really narrow the area down, it's just a matter of making sure whatever, I didn't make this point, but none of this is to prohibit development, it's you could have, you know, a road rule could be avoided, if you know shorter road, maybe two or three could be avoided based on these triggers. The LERB is actually having a robust conversation now about how homes that have ADUs would not trigger the road rule, so that is in the mix of conversation, but

[Catherine Dimitruk (Executive Director, Northwest RPC)]: Both have duplicates as well, so I

[Unidentified witness (policy/land use advocate)]: think that's part

[Josh Hanford (Director of Intergovernmental Relations, VLCT)]: of the

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: opportunity to introduce yourself to the room through

[Catherine Dimitruk (Executive Director, Northwest RPC)]: Terry Miller, of course, about a program director at the NRC. That's part of the conversation, but I think that's great feedback, so getting back to the learner of what the legislative intent is for both and all the way and if it's

[Unidentified witness (policy/land use advocate)]: to I apologize to shut

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the floor. We have lost a quorum, which I would just like to say is unfortunate because this is a very important topic. And I was willing to go till noon, it is now noon.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But this is a great start

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to our joint hearings and thank everybody, know, for all the women who I just wanna point out who is left here.

[Unidentified witness (policy/land use advocate)]: Right. That's right. Who are willing to stay. Who's standing

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: there? I think it was over the ballot too.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: But I know.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I can touch too many peppers.