Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Paul Connor]: -Yeah, maybe maybe.

[Anne Watson]: -Oh, we're live. We're live.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: -We're on deck. -Okay. Okay. Ready to start.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: -Okay. Good morning. This is Senate National Resources Energy and?

[Anne Watson]: Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs. And we welcome you to our joint hearing on issues This is our second in three joint hearings on issues that are cross jurisdictional, meaning we have jurisdiction of aspects of them, as does Senate Natural.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: So we are When we're so we're talking this morning about, tier one areas, particularly tier one b. And, and, in that, in the current state of act one eighty one, municipalities can opt in to being t one b areas, and wanna hear about how that is going or thoughts about that process.

[Anne Watson]: And in particular, we are hearing, because many of us have attended the RPCs, the Regional Planning Commission's hearings in all the towns that we represent, we are hearing increasingly concerns and reasons why towns aren't opting in to 1A or 1B, and we would really like to appreciate the barriers that towns are considering before they decide what to opt in out of. So that is, I think, also one of the

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: key things we want to hear. Yep, super. So we're going to start with folks from VLCT. Do you want to come up together?

[Paul Connor]: Okay,

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: great. Ms. Welcome. Sheehan, welcome. Thank you. Good

[Samantha Sheehan]: morning. For the record, I'm Samantha Sheehan, the municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. And sorry, I missed you last week, and thank you again for hosting these joint hearings. It's really great. I think maybe everyone giving testimony could say this again.

[Anne Watson]: While I begin

[Samantha Sheehan]: to share my screen, would the madam's chair give me an estimate on time?

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Well, that's a good question. So we're starting a little bit later. One, two, three, four, five. So I guess I would say, ten

[Samantha Sheehan]: minutes. Ten, fifteen minutes. Great.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Good ballpark. We need to be done by 11:15. Or, I mean, sorry,

[Anne Watson]: eleven No, 11:25.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: 11:25. Yeah. Okay.

[Anne Watson]: The plus in having it in this room is that the floor is up above us.

[Samantha Sheehan]: We will cruise then. Okay. So this is what I hope to get through today. So a reminder in a simple way, probably Tier 1D is created. A discussion of the LERB approval process, which is issued through guidance that the LERB created and sent to the RPCs. And then a discussion of planning for what is happening in these future land use areas which are tier eligible in areas across the state. So I wanted to ground the discussion today about tier 1B in a reminder that the creation of an Act two fifty exempt area is not a municipal authority. I think when, as Act 21 has been enacted and brought out and discussed in communities, the communities that you serve, we say, does the town want 1B or not want 1B? Are they going to do it or are they not going to do it? And I want to remind folks that the municipality and the action of the legislative body is one small part of process to establish a Tier 1B area. And it's largely not actually differential to the municipality and its goals for growth as it is an attempt at creating consistency in the town plan, the regional plan, and then the vision of Act 181 and the criteria set forth there, which the total authority breaths would be alert to really create one we are not clear. So the first thing that happens is the regional mapping process, which is led through the RPCs. And then FLUs are created in consultation with the appropriate municipal bodies. And that involves a Title 24 test. So they're using the statutory definitions of the future land use area types that exist in Title 24, which is elements of a regional footprint. And then the eligibility test for that area to be 1B or not 1B exists in Title 10 as created through Act 181. Once the map exists, then the town can take up the question. And the select board can choose and consider a resolution to seek 1B status for their eligible area. But again, the eligible area is created in the regional map. And then once those two things have happened, the mapping by the RPC and the action by the town to seek approval of Tier 1B status, then you go through the LERB approval process, which I'll describe more. And then the 1B area is adopted. And so this is very much a live process. It officially began in December and is expected to go to December. And the best information is from the first three regions. None of those regions maps have been approved at a final hearing of the LERB or have been adopted yet by the RPC. So currently, no 1B area exists. And I believe up until fifteen days before the LERB hearing, accounts still could have a meeting, call with a question, and pass a resolution to opt in. So this could change. But many towns have had the discussion of HIV, and we know that the vast majority of towns and cities with eligible 1B area are choosing to opt in, and it's the minority that are choosing to opt out. So this is a summary of the process that the LERB has created guidance for or set forth for the RPCs to follow. So again, the 1A and the 1B eligible areas are the same, really. They're the same future land use area types. Those are determined, adopted, and approved through the regional mapping process. And they are mapped according to statutory requirements and a shared methodology that VAPT UP is issued to all the RPCs. We'll talk more about that in a minute, which is why it's highlighted. There's local engagement that happens region wide, and then the RPCs submit the plan to the LERB. Then there's this sixty day process. That's what these I think it's now five regional maps are in right now, where they have a reviewer at the LERB that is working with one RPC and is providing feedback in advance of the hearing to approve the map. And that is a long process and has led to a restriction of the one eligible area. That's really important to know that the municipality had its plan, the RPC then created its plan, and now the LRRR is providing their own statutory test. And that is further constricting the total area that could be eligible for 1B.

[Anne Watson]: And is it constricting the time, too?

[Samantha Sheehan]: What do you mean by the time?

[Anne Watson]: Well, it has to all be reviewed by all these different groups. It's not taking undue amount of time yet, is it?

[Samantha Sheehan]: It may, and you could hear from Devon, that Rutland is one of the three regions whose map expires this year. And so that does sort of put them in a corner. Other regions have maybe more flexibility to kind of go for perfect instead of done. Some of the regions are really looking at done instead of perfect. Then here's the thing. Even after the LERB has that hearing, the map is not adopted and the areas do not exist. They actually have to go back to the RPCs for adoption, and there's more public process at that point. Then after the plan is adopted, then there's a final extradite LERB, and now we have 1B. So it's bureaucratic. It's a lot of steps. Each step has public hearing, public comment. There is an objection opportunity before the LERB, before the hearing. And it's an incredible amount of work that the RPCs are taking on. But again, it's not led by the municipality. They're more like a party to it, is how I would describe their role in the creation of these eligible areas. And then now, once we're here at step five, there was another slide that I took about. Then we start 1A. The 1A approval process is even more stringent statutory requirement, harder to achieve criteria, and a separate standard and approval process before the LERB that has additional public comment, additional opportunities to object, additional public notice requirements and engagement requirements on the municipality. And again, the blurb is the authority on whether the 1A area is granted or not granted. So when I say this statutory criteria oh, shoot, I'm missing a slide. Am I? Oh no. So these are the statutory criteria. Can

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I just say one second clarify? Yes. Maybe I misheard you. But did you just say the LERD determines whether it's 1A? I thought you were talking about 1B. The learner

[Samantha Sheehan]: has the authority to approve or deny both 1A status or 1A status through two separate processes. But the area that's eligible is the same. So for example, Rutland City is in the first map in line. We expect them to go for 1A. They will indicate now 1B. And then when the regional plan is affirmed by the LERB, adopted by the Rutland Regional Plan, and then there's final action by the LERB, then Rutland will be 1B. And then they will begin their 1A process with the LERB. Oh. Yeah, so it's like a ladder.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Okay, so 1B, this is confusing, 1B comes before 1A?

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah, totally. And also, let me just say that one of the things that the planners are asking for and we support is an amendment process. Because right now in the LERD guidelines for both 1B and 1A, if you want to change, you have to do this all over again. And that's not how things work on the ground. Property may be acquired, development plans may change, sewer programs may be expanded, conservation easements may take effect and of change the trajectory or the balance on the ground. Things change. Things change. And so one of the important things is this is such a long, bureaucratic public process that could go wrong or right at every turn. And so we think there needs to be a reasonable, efficient way to make small changes that enable

[Anne Watson]: May I just say that I have to say, Well, we didn't design this. When we passed this, I'm just speaking for myself. I had no idea this would be so lengthy or so bureaucratic. I don't know who did these final rules in this way, but this is sort of what we were all hoping to avoid, was bureaucratic entrenchment. And it does strike me that we need to charge whoever is responsible for this to speed it up. I mean, just seems to me is like

[Unidentified Senator]: I actually don't like the word bureaucratic, because I think it actually was designed for a lot of public input. We heard there was a lot of testimony about the need for a lot of public input and a real process so that it was fair to everybody. So that's what's built into this. And actually, isn't taking that long. It's actually moving fairly quickly. There's a lot of steps, but it's moving. So I actually think it's working the way it was intended to work in large measure, although I'm sympathetic to the part about the small changes.

[Samantha Sheehan]: I think a fair statement would be administrative. It's a long intensive administrative process that is happening in the public. So with all of those administrative burdens that come with that, right? Opening Office of the Records Act, public hearing, public comment, reporting. Okay, I'm going keep moving. So this is something you did do, or the legislature did in 2024, those of you who are patent drafters. So this is the criteria created by Act 180 one(four-1B). In that sentence highlighted, it says, as included in subdivision 24 BSA, etcetera. That is the subdivision of elements of a regional plan that describe a village area. And so what is happening in these decisions that are being made amongst the regional planners and between the regional planners and the citizen commissions at the municipal level is they are trying to look at how village area is described in statute and then design an FLU district that could be 1B that looks like a village area, which is their plan to grow. And then the LERB is asking themselves the same question. Does this map area look like a village area in Title 24? And then that is where that constriction is happening as this process moves forward. That's why the 1B eligible area is shrinking as we get closer to adoption. This is the description for village area. I won't read it. You have it. And I encourage you to use it as a reference as we keep talking about Act 181 implementation in Tier 1B. But it asks for a mixed use historic settlement area, but it has this keyword that's sort of operative to us, which is a traditional settlement area or a proposed new settlement area. And that's where this sort of subjective difference of opinion is happening for communities like Fulton, which I talked to your committee about last time we testified. So here's what that looks like. So here's Middlebury. I just really picked towns that were a square because they were easier to get in a paper point. So there are some towns from some of your districts. But you can all use the tools available to you through the future land use map and the Tier three map viewer. But I provided some examples that are mostly square shaped municipalities. So these four FLUs remember, these are FLUs that are described in elements of a regional plan. These are the four areas that the methodology and the LERB have said could be 1B eligible. So the RPC creates this map, and it's these pink colors. This deep violet here is Downtown Middlebury, a former existing downtown center. The village center is the area surrounding that. Then Middlebury has not the village area down here to the Southeast. East Middlebury. East Middlebury Village area. So these four areas are what Middlebury could choose in the next six to nine months to seek 1b status for and to take up the question to opt in. Now, you heard, and this is related. Is related because imagine you're the Middlebury Planning Commission, and you're thinking, Okay, where do we want Act two fifty relief? Where do we want to use regulatory relief to encourage the type of development that we make legal, that our community has need, that we have studied and assessed as important for the community of Middlebury? And you're drawing those lines. And someone's going to be in and someone's going to be out. You're choosing for the vermonitor, right? Meanwhile, the LERB is working on tier three, and the law has created the road rule. So I've used the map layers on them. So this is now Westford. So Westford is in Where is Westford? Chittany County. So Westford is in Chittany County on the way to the Northwest Region, and it has a number of state highways and many Plaques II roads. It is a well settled municipality, and so you can see on the left is their FLUs as mapped in the Chittenden County Regional Plan. And then on the right is the current draft tier three map and the road rule. So I'm showing you the road rules in red. These yellow blocks are the proposed habitat connectors, which apply to a number of major town and state highways in the town of Westford. And so I have to ask, I think we have to ask, would Westford have made a different decision about their planned area for growth, having known that the road rule and the potential tier three jurisdiction would be applied to their community in this way. And so this is part of the discussion that we believe we need more time for, and it's sort of lacking a certain richness and openness. Here's Moncton, another example, in Addison County. And then I had to show you a tip, the state's newest approved tip district in the town of Killington, former Gold Town. You can kind of see through the fog here that there's the resort. And then this is what Killington has identified. It would like Act two fifty relief from. That is the existing developed area that follows the Killington Access Road, which is the TIF district, which the state has approved an incredible amount of private and public investment in over the next twenty years. They said, we want Act two fifty relief here so we can invest more sooner. And again, would they have gone bigger? Would they have made different decisions? You're going to talk to Devon. Devon was involved in this mapping. If the community, if the businesses of the stakeholders in Killington had an awareness of the restriction and the new jurisdiction to be applied to them through these other triggers, the road rule and tier three. And that's all I have. Happy to answer any questions.

[Anne Watson]: I just I think I need to move.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Yes. Thank you. Okay. Great. Appreciate that. And we're gonna actually switch up the order a little bit because if I if I may say so, so, Megan and Katie, we we know that you're in the building.

[Anne Watson]: Well,

[Paul Connor]: I was going

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: to say yeah, right, exactly. So we're going to jump to Devon Neary from the Rutland Regional Planning Commission Paul. And then Paul Connor from South Burlington. And we'll talk about this another with you too.

[Anne Watson]: And we'll do we're gonna have to continue it.

[Paul Connor]: Sam, thank you.

[Anne Watson]: That was that was terrific. I mean, setting up some of the Yes. Challenges that was helpful.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: So we'll go to mister Neary. Welcome.

[Devon Neary]: Good morning. Thanks for having me. So yeah. Thanks to Sam for covering that sort of broad basis. I'm sure you all are aware of where we stand right now. So I'm gonna speak to why we're here today with opt in versus opt out, and then I can touch on some of the pieces Sam referenced in relation to our region, especially since yesterday we warned our first public hearing for our planned adoption post pre application phase with the LERB. I think the opt in versus opt out discussion is a really interesting one. I think policy wise, it's good policy to consider the opt out. However, I think a lot of RPCs have done laid so much groundwork and we're really in the middle or even towards the end of the process for some of us that, you know, making a change at this point may cause and create some confusion with our municipalities because they have been prepped and are expecting the opt in model. So I'm not sure how much it would really impact the current layout of tier one b across Vermont because of all the groundwork that the RPs have sees have done. So our our our region's a great example where just the updated numbers, Sam had referenced some. We have new numbers sort of based on this final draft that is in the the public hearing phase. So we expect 10 communities to opt in. Brandon, Castleton, Fairhaven, Killington, Pollet, Pittsford, Pulteony, Proctor, Wallingford, and West Rutland. Those are very expected. They have capacity. They have water wastewater. There's four that are currently looking like they will opt out. One actually is Rutland City. I know we talked about the latter before, and that is likely the case for many communities. However, Rutland City is deciding they will not opt into tier one b. And the rationale behind that is they want to go for tier one a. And the interim act two fifty exemptions for them are actually greater than the tier one b exemptions are. So because they're a downtown, you know, the interim exemptions allow for greater benefit through that rule. So they're saying, no, we're gonna skip skip to tier one b because we wanna retain that benefit in the short term, and then they're feeling pretty confident that they'll get tier one a. I agree if they were to be denied tier one a, I would question as to what community actually could be tier one a, seeing as they're the third biggest city in Vermont. The other two communities or three communities, sir, that are looking like they're opting out are Benson, Men Mendon, and Shrewsbury. And all three are very, very small. Mendon has the most capacity of the three, but, you know, their their, eligible areas are really small, limited to just a small corridor along Roof 4. There's a lot of, like, physical constraints that limit their ability to grow in that eligible area. Then Bennington District, it's much more about their internal capacity to manage this.

[Anne Watson]: Devin, we have a question here. Since

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: you brought it up, I'm not sure you're the right person to ask, but you brought it up. So I'm still trying to figure out all of this, but you said that Rutland City, that's a great example. They're not going to the opt in for tier 1B because they wanna stick with tier 1A and they hope they're getting approved for tier 1A so that they can use the interim exemptions.

[Devon Neary]: Yes.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I thought a town or municipality could have some sections that are 1A and some sections that are 1B. It wasn't an all or a nothing thing. Is that not true?

[Devon Neary]: I think I'm not 100% positive, to be honest.

[Samantha Sheehan]: We know a lot more.

[Devon Neary]: We haven't come across that issue yet. In terms of Rutland, it's such a dense, city. You know, it's only seven square miles that they would be unlikely to sort of split things up.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Okay. So they're trying to

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: be 1A for basically the entire city?

[Devon Neary]: Correct. Yeah. I can show you guys the draft map if I'm allowed to share my screen. They're pretty much all covered under the planned growth area because they have a designated downtown and a neighborhood development area. So they stand to benefit significantly with 1A across pretty much all of Rutland City.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So they're not opting into 1B?

[Anne Watson]: Longer to do the interim exemptions.

[Devon Neary]: Yeah, those interim exemptions are just too good for them to pass up. Obviously, they're putting all their eggs in one basket, assuming they're gonna get tier one a. Otherwise, you know, the interims will run out. I know there's some discussion about extending those, which I think would be wise. But even still, you know, I think in terms of who's opting in, who's opting out, they're not surprising for us. You know, they really generally align with municipal capacity. And in terms of whether, you know, it's really important for us to shift this to an opt in or opt out, I think the time may have passed for that to be really impactful. Early on, that would have been a really good policy. But for now, if it didn't happen, I don't think that would be devastating for communities who are coming in or coming out because the RPCs have done all that engagement. Any questions on opt in and opt out? I just want to spend a couple more minutes talking about more general.

[Anne Watson]: -Great. I think our time is so tight, Devin. Let's do that, then we'll turn to Paul, and we'll hold questions till the end.

[Devon Neary]: Okay. There are some elements referenced about the LERB process and changes and statutory definitions and how those are being interpreted. I will say, you know, from the time we went through first in October through the pre application process to now that Addison and Lamoille are going through, it's evolved a lot. And I think the lurb is trying to change to sort of be more deferential to RPCs and more importantly, and looking at, okay, maybe now we should look more at the town's future land use map and see where they have identified areas for growth versus when we when we went through, it was a pretty narrow, more conservative interpretation. So for instance, if I can share, I'll just show you. We were able to develop a tool for towns to see, like, how have things changed from the pre application draft, which is on the left versus the first public hearing draft, which is on the right. And you can see reduction in those tier one b eligible areas. And this was all directly based on feedback from the LERB. Their interpretation is that, you know, village areas should not surround planned growth areas, and they really are not happy with linear growth along a corridor regardless of whether that's a historic development pattern or not. Now they are being differential to when there's an established legacy village center. But in the case of sort of Route 140 where there's sidewalks, water, wastewater, they felt like without more density along this corridor, which the reason there's not is there's sort of physical constraints like a river and some just sort of natural features that limit that expansion. But it's sort of the chicken or the egg. Right? Like, which is gonna come first? Are the exemptions gonna allow that infill and depth to happen if we allow it? So, you know, currently in our region, you know, you can see this. Oops. Sorry. You can see this very much present too in the Fairhaven Castleton region where we lost quite a bit of, land area that was targeted. And I do wanna show Killington was also one of those communities discussed. So they there we knew this village center was likely pushing the limit on what would be allowable. So now that's been reduced to just what is along the Route 4 And 100 intersection area, which will will encompass their workforce development housing projects. So or workforce housing projects. So, you know, it is evolving. I I hope that the lurb will continue to just sort of relax, and then maybe through these statutory revisions, we may be able to create some better def more clear definitions to reduce the ambiguity so that we can stretch these land use areas to at least be greater than what the interim exemptions are now. Because for us, we're looking at only 2% of our region when really we should be looking at two and a half, 3% plus based on our land use characteristics and our growth patterns. So I'm hopeful. You know, we like Sam had referenced, our plan expires in June. So we have to keep moving along as is. If things change, we will be more than happy to amend the map as things evolve. That would be awesome to see an amendment process streamlined to allow us to do that. Because as she referenced, with the LERP pre application all the way through, it's like a six to nine month process that's really expensive. It takes a lot of time. And, you know, for minor map revisions or changes based on a town's eligibility or a change in their development characteristics, we should be able to sort of adapt quickly to get them the benefit and capture that so we can grow housing and businesses. So I'll see the rest of the time so that Paul can get a chance to speak, and I'll be happy to answer questions after.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Thank you so much. And we'll move now to Mr. Connor, and then we'll take more questions at the end. Welcome.

[Paul Connor]: Thank you. Paul Connor, Director of Planning and Zoning, City of South Burlington. Thank you for the opportunity to come and chat with you. Thank you

[Anne Watson]: for coming in. Of course.

[Paul Connor]: I'm here primarily to speak to one specific Tier 1A issue. And then just a quick note regarding the last conversation. So one of the elements that's in the draft bill in front of you concerns administration and of the existing Act two fifty permits under tier 1A. So just a quick reminder, 1B is something that municipalities can opt into as part of the application for the Regional Plan. Tier 1A is an application that the municipality makes afterwards. It's a higher bar intentionally, municipalities need to demonstrate that we have administrative capacity regulations in place, etcetera, water sewer infrastructure in order to with tier one A have a essentially full Act two fifty exemption moving forward. We're excited, we're moving forward to have pace at this. I think we were the first community in the state to request tier 1B last May. We're also part of, me and my colleagues are part of a little working group that has been working through the issues of tier 1A. There's about eight or 10 communities doing this in four different counties. This sort of pure learning group with this. I think I can say that the number one challenge that we're looking at is this element that the draft bill is looking to address, which is at present the legislation as soon as the community takes over tier 1A. We are responsible for the administration enforcement portion of all existing Acting 15 permits. It then creates a process by which that same property comes in for an amendment, they come to the local DRB and the local development review board can through a process there determine which criteria of conditions remain relevant and then the permit is transferred, I think it's a word in the legislation to the municipality. That part of it to us makes a lot of sense. There is concern about administrative capacity in a number of our communities to take on the entirety of the permits. And so the draft legislation that's in front of you would essentially keep that at Act two fifty. And I think that the intent of the legislation is that it would keep it at Act two fifty until it goes through this transfer process. We reviewed the language and I think it could use a little bit of tidying that I think it intends to transfer it, but it might keep some jurisdiction with Act two fifty in the future. I think a cleaner at that time of the local application, it goes to the municipality would be tidy and well appreciated. I think some communities would be potentially interested in taking all of it. So an option could be to request it, could be that, but if you were to choose one or the other, I think that it would be, it would remove a substantial obstacle to municipalities to something against the legislation drafts in front of you, keep it with that two fifty until

[Anne Watson]: So Paul, on that drafting, the eight or 10 communities include do you have draft language and could we put you directly in touch with Ellen Tchaikowski

[Paul Connor]: to I'm responding to the language that I saw in the bill earlier in the speech, yes, we'd be happy to specifically weigh in on that.

[Anne Watson]: Great. That would be helpful.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Before we get to a question Hi. Yes.

[Paul Connor]: Go ahead.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: This is a draft that's in the Natural Resources Committee. Correct, yes. You just send it to the chair instead of to Ellen? Yes. It's the process.

[Paul Connor]: I'll read it back to you.

[Anne Watson]: That's not the guy who's I'm more direct. That would be great.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: I would love to see. That would

[Anne Watson]: be great. And there are two bills because you have your draft bill and then there's the earlier bill that was introduced.

[Paul Connor]: And there's a version of that in there as well. So that's primarily what I was here to speak to. Just also a tag to what Devon was speaking about, I was in private sector resources a few weeks ago, and just noted as a medium to longer term thing to look at how could we help emerging centers in our communities to be eligible for these benefits as well, because a lot of the statutory language is rooted in historic centers. And we know this meet our housing targets and we do thoughtful planning that emerging centers aren't focused on. All I want to say.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Thank you. Yes. Appreciate And so at this point, I think we're ready to move to any other Patient has

[Anne Watson]: questions. Yeah.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: You can

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: as well. Senator Rambansale, I know you had a question. Wonder if you are

[Samantha Sheehan]: No, it's Okay. That was like ten minutes ago.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Any other questions folks have for either Mr. Neary or Mr. Connor?

[Paul Connor]: Come on. Yes, go ahead. If you have time.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes. This is a question I think for Mr. Neary.

[Devon Neary]: My first testimony.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: My question was about the community engagement process, because it sounds like it's been really robust by design to Senator Bahamas Green. And that was part of what the intent was, was to make sure communities could weigh in on maps of literally the places where they live. You were the first region to go forward. So how did it work? Is the community engagement process working well?

[Devon Neary]: Yeah, I think so. And it's quite iterative. And for us, ours was baked into a much larger three year strategy because we actually rewrote our plan starting in 2023. So we had been engaging with our communities through a three phase extended process from 2023 on. So we, when Act 181 was enacted, we quickly sort of rolled that into our process and were able to sort of pair it with our plan update, which was great because I think through all this ACT twenty eighty one discussion, we've lost the fact that the plan itself is just as important as the map in terms of where the plan policies are encouraged. So yeah, our engagement process included nearly 100 meetings with our municipalities to make sure the maps were done right. And that's sort of the interesting part of this process is from the initial, it's a very much bottom up approach, right? Like we give the town every single benefit that they can possibly get while passing the straight face test. But then the sort of top down meets that when the LERB reviews it and does their own sort of interpretation and definition. So there definitely needs to be some further clarity of sort of the role of the LERB in their review and how much deference we're giving to the RPCs and the towns during that process. So our towns have been very engaged from the get go to the point of like, know, drawing down individual parcels that they have the best knowledge of where they want to grow. Giving

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: them This

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: was the best testimony I've ever seen.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Job.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: You're doing the community engagement are, and I don't mean this, this sounds weird, but are real people showing up like actual Vermonters who are not town officials or RPC officials? Like, just like neighbors showing up who want to know what's happening in their town?

[Devon Neary]: Yeah, in certain cases, yes. So every RBC is structuring it a bit differently. We structured it around, we are going to work through the select board and actually empower those select boards to actually do another layer of engagement directly with their communities. And some towns have gone as far as to hold public events or meetings to engage more of their residential population. So that has actually been a great way to expand our outreach. It is really challenging with a 200 page law to get people to engage and understand what this all means. So we typically do work with the municipality at the end of the day to make the final decision because it's got to rest with somebody. But we take in all that feedback and use it to sort of help draft the map. So yes, in a lot of circumstances, other just non municipal officials have been involved. But obviously, the primary users and influencers are the planning commissions and select boards in our towns.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Okay, great. Thank you very, very much for your testimony.

[Devon Neary]: Thank you guys for being flexible and allowing me to do daddy daycare while still testing.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Thank you, course.

[Unidentified Co-Chair (Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Thank you. Any other questions at this point? The bell is ringing, so we are going to adjourn. Thank you, everybody.

[Devon Neary]: Thank you all. See you.