Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, there are no changes on page one. Section one is in the legislative 10 secondtion. Section two is amending 10 BSA 6,001, which is the definition section of Act two fifty. And on page two, as you will recall, there are a few different parts that are being amended, but they're related to the dates. So on page two, the first amendment is to the road jurisdiction, jurisdictional trigger. The date here is for, it will apply to roads and driveways constructed after 12/31/2027. Next, comments about that. I think that is also, we're just talking about page two line four. I think there's consensus about that. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Oh, wait. So that's a year and a half extension.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I spent on the assumption that was a six month extension for the end of

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I thought we, now maybe there's so many dates in here, that we had talked about, maybe this is later in the draft, 2030, 01/01/2030. And I should put a note on that because I've been rethinking. There's apparently not as much consensus about two thousand thirty days. That's it. Good to make it. All right. Yeah. All right, there is consensus on this. So it's still on page two, changing the date on the sunset for the priority housing project exemptions. And so that date has also been changed to 12/31/2027. And just to know, the learner's recommendation was one day choir. No, from Addison. Addison. One day at Addison. It was 01/01/2020. So I don't think it matters. Unless, well, we can hear it from the learner as to what. Also in this subsection, the prior draft had referenced and had included all the related subdivisions, and then also had this language about areas that have been mapped as downtown villages and roof areas, that language has been removed. However, it is in section three, so we'll talk about there. And just to make, spell out, this exemption, once something is designated 1A or 1B, this is exempted, that's exempted. It covers the same, correct? This is the advantage to priority housing project currently is defined to designated areas. So it's affordable housing built in the designated areas. Those may or may not line up fully with tier

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: one A areas. I've done with them. Okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: There is an effort on the next page to line them up with those areas down at the bottom. Okay. So, will get there in a moment, but this is just about the date. Okay. So, further on this, on the top of page three, there's additional language that is being proposed here. So this is an exemption for any number of priority housing project units that meet the requirements of this subsection. So on page three, new language is proposed here. This exemption shall not apply to areas within mapped river corridors and floodplains, except those areas containing pre existing development and areas suitable for infill development as defined in the flood hazard area and river corridor rule in a municipality that has adopted flood hazard and river corridor bylaws applicable to the entire municipality that are consistent with the standards established in 10 BSA seven 75B and it's 1428A. No, think this is not something that we had talked about explicitly, but it was a part of the LURP's recommendations and it was easier to just include it. So it is consistent with most of the other income exemptions. So that language as passed in 01/1981 had this saying that you can't have exempt units in math recorder to work with.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Unless.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Unless. Yes. So section three is new language to consider, but it's on this topic of priority housing projects. So this is the definition of a priority housing project at Act two fifty. It's a discrete project located entirely on a single tract or multiple contiguous tracts of land that consists exclusively of mixed income housing or mixed use or any combination thereof and is located entirely within a designated downtown development district, designated Newtown Center, designated growth center, or designated neighborhood development area, or within an area mapped as a downtown center, village center, village area, or planned growth area under 4,348, and is not an approved tier 1B area. The municipality must have a regionally approved plan and permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. This is a proposal to update the definition of priority housing project because those old designations are going away. We wanted to preserve priority housing projects in places that could be tier 1B but were not, had not opted in. Okay, that's I think that's what it's

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: a computer case. 1B eligible, but they have not opted in. There are four housewants in their preparedness are allowed. And it is sort of one dealership.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think that is the intent. It might need to be slightly more clear.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I think that is the intent.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: But those are the areas. Yeah. Part of

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the state would be eligible, they haven't opted in, but I already got some contacts to the parent. That's the

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: only thing. They're still allowed and still exempt from F250, but only for that short period of time. This is indiscernible. This

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: is really that because deemed one be eligible and they haven't opted in, you still want to build priority housing context.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. And that's relevant to find out. Yes. Very good. Well, I'll just note that these are two different issues. On page two, that is the interim exemption for an unlimited number. There's an existing exemption in Act two fifty for a number of units and there's still some caps in the piece for priority projects generally. So this, for the language on page three, there's still caps that apply? Yes. So you may want to think about that. Okay. So next on page four, section four, again, this is going to have the date changes for the interim exemptions, but on page four in subdivision three, the language on line 12 through 16 is under. Can we go back to page three? I'm sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. This is supposed to be for areas that are one being eligible, but a town doesn't opt out. I think the language on line 19 is confusing, or at least is confusing to me because that's not what it says. Exactly. What I think perhaps could be clarified. So, those areas listed in lines seventeen and eighteen, there are areas that are eligible to become tier one In general. Those are the areas eligible for tier one. Okay, those are the areas eligible for tier one. So if they have been mapped as such, but are not approved as tier 1A or tier 1B, they are not eligible. So it doesn't say the word eligible, like he was using. Yeah, because I mean, I've already have my plan here and a lot of the towns in my area are apparently, they have one B areas in every single town in Addison County, but not all the towns are gonna opt into one B, but it's been mapped for one B. So my question is, if it's mapped as 1B and the regional plan is approved, but they don't opt into it, is priority housing still eligible under this language? Still succumbed. That was the intent of a say that. It says it usually doesn't work. Because it's a area of math as, but it's not approved as tier 1B. What is approved? Okay, so we can change approved. I'm sorry, Ellen. I didn't write this. I don't care. Yeah, I'm not, I'm just trying to make it, I didn't write either. So I'm just trying to make it under, so I understand it. Is not. Is not. Sure. Has not. I mean, because it is what you're suggesting is. Right. Yeah. So it's and it has not been and so that's something like that. And the round has folded too. The town has Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Tier tier I or tier one b.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And the town has not opted into tier one b.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I think that's almost slag because we don't use that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. That's what we keep saying. There is a better way to say it, I'm certainly open. Municipality.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It's not voting. So I have to go. The legislative body. Yeah, the legislative body.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, no, the proposal is not that. It would need both. But could it be as simple as it's eligible for TRuE1 data, has not yet been given that status? And maybe I think it needs more thought that I can't say right now and help. Okay. Okay. You can. All right.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So the board to be eligible for 1B, it has to have either physically water, sewer, or appropriate sewage. That permission will have been made ahead of time.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Does one of these have to have water and sewer? It has four.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: There's two All right.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we got lots of ores. Check any of the boxes.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Check one.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So on page four, section four, striking the language that the language review board and AMR don't have enforcement authority, unless that's being unstruck. This is if designation is revoked, it goes back, the enforcement goes back to No. No, sorry. This is the issue about towns enforcing. So as part of the exemptions that are under Z for tier one A, it says that a previously issued permit for a development located in Tier one A shall remain attached to the property. However, neither the board nor the agency shall enforce the permit or assert amendment jurisdiction on the tract or tract of lands unless the designation is revoked or the municipality has not taken any reasonable action to enforce the conditions of the permit. So this language was added to say that as part of Act 181, that tier one areas, towns are taking over fully, including enforcement authority. So the board and AMR do not have enforcement authority any longer. In the prior version of this, that was struck, has been unstrucked. Next is interim exemption BB. The date here is being changed to 01/01/2030. This is the temporary exemption for accessory dwelling units. And this is one that the LAMP fifty Board has a different recommendation, can hear it.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: On page five,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: in CC, the date again is 01/01/2030, and this is no permit or permanent amendment for the conversion of a structure used for a commercial permit to 29 or fewer units of housing. Again, this is one you should hear from me when I disagree. All right, still on page five. Now into the other interim housing infections. So first for 75 units of housing in a new town center, growth center, or designated neighborhood development area, the days being changed 01/01/2030, and also mixed use development This is one I've We should talk, but I wouldn't mind keeping it twenty third, we can talk. And mixed use development, is that defined somewhere? What is that? Read through the definition last time. I'm sorry. It's okay. It's okay. But I do think we So in the fire draft, this proposal had been about mixed use development being included in the house and exceptions. It's just actually being moved slightly, which I could go either way on, I guess. But no permanent or permanent matter is required for the subdivision for or the construction of housing projects and mixed use development with 75 units or fewer.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Okay. I think you have around the piece.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So mixed use development is, it's a mixture of uses. It has to be at least 40% of the square footage for housing. The rest can be commercial, not industrial. Okay. And it is defined in Act 56,001 number 28. And it is the construction of both mixed income housing and construction of space for any combination of retail, office, services, artisan, and recreational and communities facilities, provided that at least 40% of the gross floor area is mixed income housing. It does not include industrial use. The next interim exemption at the bottom and it's page six. So this is for the 50 units of housing. So it's changing the date to January 2030, and no permanent permit amendment is required for the subdivision for or the construction of housing projects and mixed development with 50 units or fewer constructed on 10 acres or less located entirely within either village center or the census designated urbanized area with 50,000 residents, kind of a word miles transit route. Same. Page six, Subdivision 3. This is the exemption for downtowns. So 01/01/2030, no permit or permit amendment is required for the Subdivision 4 or the construction of housing projects and mixed use development in downtown development districts. So, those are half of those at one. On page seven, there changes are a couple to the tier three rulemaking section. Down towards the bottom, page seven, new language has been inserted. That says, so what the language review board needs to do as part of the tier three rulemaking process. So they're gonna look at whether to allow for review under fewer than all the criteria under MSAA 6,086, one through 10, which is a criteria. That, I understand what this, I know this isn't your language, so I'm not suggesting that, but whether to allow for that seems really weird to me. I think we should be telling them what they should be writing rules on, not them deciding whether to allow or not. And if we want them to use fewer criteria for certain projects, then we should tell them, make rules on how to use fewer criteria up to four, whatever it is, doesn't decide, but whether to allow for review, that is super open ended. I agree. It could be, I agree, I think it could be clear that we should say, you should use a few words. I'm hesitant to say how many fewer, because that may depend. I am agreeing with the direction where you're going with that. Yeah, so how we reframe it, I'm not sure.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Well, I think the goal is

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: to

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: be that the criteria they imply are consistent with no instance. I guess I'm not bothered by getting to to figure this out because he would take us a lot of of thought to figure out. So my guess is pretty conservative.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: And it'll be the call. Yes. That are not applied, don't do it. So I don't know, I'm just not bothered by it.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I just don't like the word leather. Yeah, I'm thinking of language that would be something more like The Land Use of People shall only apply the criteria deemed relevant or something to that effect. They get to experiment which ones are relevant, but the directive is like, be Yeah, more because this is so open ended that they could say, No, we're to do all that. We're not going to. And I think we, it's been established that we would like them to do that. So

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: hasn't been not in my mind, it hasn't been established. I mean, I'm going to let them think about it, but I haven't, I'm not convinced we'll be sure it shouldn't be good with Newman, because there's going to be unintended consequences that we're not going to see. I'd rather let them just think, I'm willing then figure it out.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, if they're figuring this out in rulemaking, then by process, they'll come back to ALCAR for rulemaking. But it just seems to me, yeah, again, I don't really like the term whether, what if it said something more like determine which criteria shall apply?

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah. Because it could be all. If they really reach, I I don't think they will. But, yeah, in front of which criteria.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: What's the word left? It's not as direct.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It's just that with looking at other tier three.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, consistent with the intent of tier three, determine how to apply fewer Act two fifty criteria. Something like that. Is that helpful, Alan? You want to say determine which criteria. I think it was consistent, that was what Senator Bongartz wants with tier three. That may be implied, but just saying, determine how to allow review for fewer than all the criteria.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So I think the thing we have to be careful about here is what if what if it's a shopping center Mhmm. And then shopping center, we would want the entirety of active 52 at. Mhmm. So it's in lab it because there's nothing saying unless it would otherwise be triggered by active. So we have to this is why I'm just complimenting the order and figure it out, whether and and how.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's raising an interesting question, which is does tier three sit on top of regular Act two fifty or does it replace ACT two fifty? So if a shopping center would normally trigger ACT two fifty and it's in a tier three area, does both apply? I mean, I could just say how to, like, when appropriate or something like that, because I don't think any, I mean, maybe a few people are, but I don't think anybody is really saying, we'd never want to have all the criteria applied, but there are many circumstances where having narrower criteria or fewer criteria apply to the review would make sense. I mean, we've talked about a lot of examples and, you know, the examples of kinds of projects and examples of the criteria that wouldn't apply. So I think using the term weather leaves it up to them. They could say, no, we want all criteria to apply all the time. And what I think we're saying, at least what I'm saying is, No, there are some circumstances when we don't want all the criteria to apply and we want you to figure that, how to do that out.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Just the fact that we're saying it has an option suggests that it's something that you should think about seriously without being prescriptive. How

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: are you feeling about this language about, with the intent of tier three, determining how to allow for fewer than all.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Whether and how. Whether and how.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Or like, how about like when appropriate? Instead of weather, like when it's appropriate to

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: apply for you. Something like that as long as there's total flexibility to really kind of through carefully.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm not sure it would be legal for them to change without the statutory change, the number of criteria they review without statutory changes. I'll just put that up. Yeah, that's a fair point. The language around your opinion in the statute right now is vague. It references the rules of the board. So I do think you should consider how clear you want to be on I have to go. Absolutely. You have to go. So, yes, 09:30. Maybe

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: just the fact that we've had a discussion, the board can actually end up suggesting to us that voting changes, if that's okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, maybe they have to come back with a report to tell us that that's really it.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: We'll just probably tell us. So

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the next part, which is related to this at the top community, is that they will be reporting on any necessary changes to how it should be administered. We can add more specific language to that before potentially. Yeah. We may want to review the entire, this entire wound became essential. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay. Excuse me, continued on that. And so we're going to move now to Ms. Bronice from, and also Ms. Anne, welcome. The ladies review board. So, and they have a set of suggestions to recommend. Oh no, that's Oh, the morning to see. Yes. Yeah. Which I think I forwarded to the committee. Okay. Hard copies. Oh, amazing. But I need most. And I have it. It's the same as the document that I sent you guys on February 26 Okay, welcome. Thank you for having us. Yeah, so we have talked through some of your recommendations already, so I don't know that we need to, unless you have comments about things, updates. I'm Jenny Ronis, I'm General Counsel to the Land Use Review Board. I'm joined by Sarah Hudd, our vice chair.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I think it might be easiest or most comprehensive if we just track through the red version that's got our comments against draft 2.2, because I think there's a lot of stuff that came out very quickly. Okay. Cool. Starting with H2 on the dates. So generally, the board was recommending that all of the tier deadlines happened over the turn of the new year into 2027, and that would include the rules for approval, and that all of the housing exemptions would carry on through 2029.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: We see that you guys have proposed 2030 for the housing exemptions. I don't believe we have any concerns with that. So there would be a period in which you would, municipalities would have their tiers set up, their ability to use that, but still wrap up on the housing exemption that we need more notes.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yes. Just a thought about that. The whole point of the continuing exemptions was to give time for the two years to get fully into place. They'll be fully into place by the '29. Is that correct?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think it would be more accurate to say our system for reviewing and approving tiers will be fully in place, but whether every municipality has taken advantage or gotten to apply or gone through that process might not be.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So the longer you wait, the more they

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I just had a lovely chat with half a dozen QAs are considering tier 1A before coming here so there are some that are

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So you're going to continue but you'll have you will have to determine which areas are tier 1A and tier will be eligible by early in '27, because the maps will be

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: We'll have gone through all those mutual information.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: And the communities will decide whether to apply. They'll have all of '27 and '28 if we were to make the deadline '29. That's a long time. Do they really need almost three years instead of two years?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I think one of the reasons why just reading this this morning, and this hasn't gone to the whole board to consider the extension of the deadlines, but it's something that I don't think we would be opposed to. As we've started to go through some of these different regional entities, Moab, for instance, we've just gone through, we were just discussing that yesterday. There are quite a few communities that are not going for tier 1B because they don't have locally adopted regulations in this program. So great conversations are occurring right now between the occupancies and their municipalities. I think the same as that is true, but if you unfortunately inspire municipal plants, it would be great to allow those communities to get municipal plants take at least a year to get off the tape. So recognizing all the great planning that's happening and recognizing to a lot of that's dependent upon your allocation of additional planning grants to do that, think the company should not a bad thing. I mean, as an example, the town of Middlebury's plan is expired. They want to be tier one A. They need to go through the whole planning process. And like with Montpelier, people in Middlebury got opinions. So it will take a while and they need the time. Yeah. Okay, thank you, and I appreciate that. I'll note there was a slight disagreement, that's way she's drawn. On page two, line 13, I had played 01/01/2028 because I was reading the language to make sure that we didn't have a one day gap, but Ellen may need it. I would also listen to Ellen if she thinks a sound issue. I think that was just consistent with the date above. I'm not sure that if you have opinions that it should be 01/01/2028, I don't know that. Just a bit of phrasing, we're not up to this date or starting on this date change when those don't think it's anything company has strong Okay. Work in twenty four hours. Okay. We agree with the striking out of the other language and would also note So in the original draft that's not here now, around line 16, was the addition of the new abbreviated types that would fold this into it would basically require us to look at multiple sets of maps and think that the board is happy to flare up from existing temporary housing guidance that the existing designated downtown development districts, designated development areas, designated growth centers are going to remain eligible even if they have their future land use maps approved for purposes of determining whether they can still use the housing, except for those areas. So that doesn't change on anybody for the purpose of that. We like that. Turning to page three. This is the language, the environmental justice language that's excluding minority housing from flood zones. So we had proposed two parts to this. The first part is lines three through six. If you put a period there, that is the language that's in all of the other temporary housing exemptions. Starting in line seven, in a municipality that is adopted by deserts, reporters, etcetera. That language is actually part of title 24 and I believe the standard that municipalities will be held to on a permanent basis. I think there's some concern that the way that those two different parts interact might be overly restrictive, and we're perfectly fine with putting a period at the end of rule on line six and striking the rest of it, and I believe that brings us into alignment with ANR. So striking lines seven through 10 on page three. Sorry, can you explain just one more time why We that's a don't want to be more restrictive on priority housing than we are with other areas of the

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Thanks. But with my opinion, we did the systems, the 24, the P26 or whatever it was two years ago, that language about bureaucracy was key to it. And we're saying strike it?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're saying strike it out of the priority housing temporary exemption because like Sarah was just talking about, a lot of times we're still standing up a lot of this work.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: We're still on the temporary

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: exemption Yes, so the idea is just to bring priority housing into the existing level. Lower on page three, this is about the, this is the new language. We haven't had a chance to review it with the board, but I think we're generally very happy with the idea of priority housing projects still being eligible, of areas that have tier one status being eligible for priority housing. Just for everyone's quick reference, priority housing allows for 75 units, whereas the tier one exemption is for 50 units. So depending on how you practice about whether or not tier one recruit tier one need areas are included, it could get you 25 more units of housing tier one need areas than they would have been required to get back. That was just my thought to share with you guys. Any questions? We had talked about rephrasing some of that and you have any opinions about that discussion? My gut reaction was Anne is eligible for other tier 1B, which, or, and you can say, and not get approved, but if you say, and not get approved, the tier 1B, then hold us last twenty five minutes. Great. But Sarah had some thoughts as well. I worry, and the idea is, maybe could be considered for tier one B just to the point of to be eligible for tier one B, you have to have the approved municipal plans. You might not have that. I get the, you know, the concept of it, I think adding in something about not yet approved might be helpful. The behavior is, yes. I think this, mean, does approved mean? Because I think that they, tier 1B areas have been approved in the regional plan, maybe approved by the board, but the town has decided not to ask for tier 1B. So they are- the town has to ask formally for tier 1B in order to have it be approved with the regional plan. So you won't get it coming through the regional plan for approval for tier 1B unless you have a municipal resolution. Well, it's been, in a lot of the towns in Addison County, they've matched tier one B areas that the town is not going to use, I think. So, different levels of it. There are four areas with your future land use map, downtown, village center, plain growth area, village area, that are, once you approve those to your regional plan, those are areas that you could come and ask for tier one deals. You have some communities that will ask for that with the regional plan approval, so it's an all in one deal. You have other municipalities that are working really hard on advancing a town plan or may not have that municipal resolution yet. That could be considered for because they have the future land use type. So I know what this is trying to get at, but the eligibility determination is ultimately made by the board either with the regional plan or as a separate action thereafter. There is a stand alone for tier 1B process as well. If you, for whatever reason, as a municipality, you didn't have your DUNS narrow or were not committed to being tier 1B at the time the regional plan was approved, then the board will consider that separate. So they're not missing out on the future ability to be tier 1B for now. Gordon, I'm confused. How do you feel about this possible alternate language that is in is eligible for tier one B? Are you asking me? Oh yeah, are you asking me to add? I mean, I think that's okay. I think.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: I think it's eligible for Kaiser Permanente to be eligible.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, I'm just, I'm confused by what you guys are saying versus what I heard from my towns during break. I talk to a lot of them. So I don't know if it's just brain on a Tuesday morning, understanding it, or if they're not understanding it, or I'm not sure. Sure. And I just want to make sure that for towns that have land in their town that could be tier one B land, but they're deciding not to do it for whatever reason, that they get these, they get this exemption. Yeah, I think you could say that by saying he's not yet approved for Teal. Sure, but I feel like there's lots of ways to get there. I'm wondering about, is there confusion around approved by who? Yeah, exactly. Approved by whom? Because it could be, is it approved by which board? There an approval to be eligible and then there's an approval to be tier one B status. So just clarifying like which approval we're talking about. Yeah. Is that, yeah. That could be the approver. Yes. Yeah, okay. I could say not yet conferred tier 1B because I think the way that the board, the board refers to any guidance as conferring tier 1B. This feels like something that we can work on some wordsmithing around. And I think we've all got what the intent is. It's just a matter of finding the right words to make it as clear as possible. I would trust Elle in the headline. Okay, all right.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Very

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: good. I had full opinion. That's not normal, that's just me. Fair enough. So then on page four, there's the restoration of some language regarding the transfer of enforcement of permit, duration, and then the enforcement that would go with it. We agree with restoring the language that's there. So that's, we're fine with that. The one thing I wanted to point out on page five, I think the addition of mixed use development hasn't been explicitly discussed by the board, but I don't see that there would be any particular concern on that. I'm your markup now. Going back and forth. Can we go back to the language that got unstruck? Yes. Again, I'm confused, but is un striking this language trying to address the issue of who is enforcing permits in 1A area? Correct. And how is un striking this not, because this is current, un striking it means we're going back to current law. Correct. I thought the whole point was we wanted to change current law to make it clear that municipalities are not, they're not required to enforce the permits. So if we're going back to current law, isn't that not changing? There's two parts of what you're recommending to correct. So there's the part in 1681, which is federal 10, actually, that's ours part. And that's where we want to have this language that specifically allows us to step back in if the designated agendas revoked for the municipality is not taking reasonable action to enforce the conditions of permit. Would be on our side. There's other language that we can, we're gonna do- Later. Okay. It's page 11. Yeah. Okay. It's on the title, Municipal is shy, that clarifies when your transfer of permits. Okay. I'll wait then. Okay. Okay. So on page five of your markup, there's an addition to mixed use development, like I said, the one thing I wanna note for you is that mixed development, it is our statute, it does require some mixed income housing, which has an affordability component, just so that you're aware, the type of housing that would be created in a mixed use development would have some aspects of the ordinance. That's like a capital A, affordable A. Yes. I mean, I think we have a slightly different, we don't use the word affordable housing, but Well, you it's in that district. There's income limits. Okay, thank you. I just thought that that's the good one. Okay. So then, the next thing that we would bring to your attention is on page seven of your markup. This is the section about the reviewing under the criteria. I think we are on the same page as Ellen, which is that as the statute is currently written, sixteen eighty six requires findings under all 10 criteria for a permanent issue. Were, this is the language that we proposed and are happy to work with you guys on something better. The idea is that this would go into the two or three rule mini game, and then it would result in potential recommendations in order to bridge that statutory gap, if that's where we found it. So, you need to speak a little bit to like how that report refers, so a report that comes back to us and then we need to approve it or you're just telling us this is what we're proposing. Is what we're proposing. Yeah. Don't know. And I think that I can't speak to the whole, what selection of criteria is current, I mean, we haven't gotten there. Yeah. But the idea is what are the final practices with statutory recommendations for the exercise to review so that in the event that you go and fewer than all 10 criteria, we can work on sixteen eighty six, which would otherwise prevent us from doing that. I think I am understanding now with, because you need some statutory backup, So you'd be proposing statutory changes based on, gosh, you could go to- Well, that's the case, I don't think it should be in the rule making section, because that would have, having it in the rule making section implied that they're going make rules about it. This is really just, they should report back to us on their recommendations for how to use fewer than all of the criteria in tier one B, or tier three. Three, yes, sorry. I just think as a technical matter, we can't propose rules to shortcut. And I think- We're protecting the- Exactly, that's why it shouldn't be. Okay, yeah. Okay. And then that was sort of, well, it's, so just getting to top, on top page eight then, because this is, any, is that what's encompassed by like any changes to how- How should we administer or about speaking with statutory languages? This is the part then where we might say, you know, figure out how to do this when appropriate with fewer than all of the criteria. Yes. And then we would have to change this along right after they come back with a proposal. Yeah. Yep. Yep. That makes sense to me. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So that's where the comments with Ellen left off. The other thing that I flagged in the draft week was too, and then you have to go for a good meal, then blend that to our red line and make sure I covered everything. On page 11, there's a strikeout of subparagraph H starting on line four. This is the second half of the infositive handover issue. We recommend restoring sub paragraph H and then striking the word not from the end of line five, so that it will say within a tier area, the appropriate municipal panel shall endorse any existing permits. I think there's also grant working there. Wait, wait, you're on page I'm on page 11 of draft 2.2. The original draft 1.1, and then again in this draft, both recommends striking sub paragraph H. We recommend restoring it with the striking of the word not. So then the word, it would say within a tier one area, the appropriate municipal panel shall enforce any existing permits issued under 10 BSA Chapter 51 that has had permit conditions transferred to municipal permit pursuant to subsection G section.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: That makes sense.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: That would, we think that makes that clear that at that point, the municipality is responsible for that enforcement. I could get really wonky about how we were recommending this because municipalities are in Dylan's role and have to be authorized to do things for us. So that's what we were hoping to have accomplished. So my only concern about that is pursuant to subsection G of this section, because I want to make sure that it's still doing what we, that G is doing what we want it to do in terms of municipalities having enforcement authority just for a trans I guess my question is about how do we know when the transfer has occurred? I believe that's within subsection, well, generally sets out the process. I do believe there is a notice requirement at the end of the trip. Subparagraph six, which is actually at the top of this page. Okay, yep. Talks about the final action by the appropriate maintenance tool panel. And there's actually all the language for your substance use is here and throughout. I think you don't have concerns with what that process is as far as the transfer of an individual permit. Okay. Yes, ma'am.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: But just to make sure we have it, what we're the goal here is you continue to enforce the west of town makes anybody permanent at which point the permits you guys are.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Correct. It would be on a permit by permit basis after chair motion. Yes,

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Permit by permit is what trickles in if there's amendment. That's we're doing.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. At that point, it would be a municipal permit that might have some special activity, polar conditions based on the process that fourth and paragraph G And we would let go of it.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: We would

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: not need to amend if we have anything. We would get notice that that's because of course, we

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: will prove it's based on permit. Is Much less scary. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So then just to switch back over to my red graph to make sure that I didn't miss anything. Okay. So there's still on page 11 and then Which version? Version?

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: That one's page 11 of yours.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So Page 10, the top of page 10 of my red line version. Reviews, okay. I believe we recommended breaking that section based on the conversation that we would have had with the committee, I think the last time we were here about our ongoing updating of the procedural, of our processes, and we weren't sure what it was going accomplished. To this was, the aim here was in thinking about how municipalities have gone, we're not these ones, how regions have gone through the process that Ministry of Review Board has grown or understood more about how to apply things as the process has gone on. And so wanting to make sure that those who went through the process first have consistent application with those who had gone last. And in the last conversation that we had with Janet, she was mentioning that, Oh yeah, know I'm about to send a letter to the people from Rutland County about their masks, adjusting things. But the thought was, you know, how procedurally are we ensuring that that happens consistently? And so that was the intent here, and I appreciate that the thought from you all is that there's no need to do that. Unless there's something more you want to ask. So, the language as you currently have it is specific to tier one A. We might not have our first tier one A community before October. I think what we were specifically talking about is the future land use. So that is what you want. I'd say that's not what you have in your collection. That's true. Thank you. If we're going to keep this sentiment, then maybe it's update its guidelines just in general, to ensure consistent allocation of requirements, maybe just period, which we have been continually doing. So, yeah, Karen, I think hopefully Ben, you have BACDA votes to speak later, but I think what you heard from the work and from back to the last time we were both in was we're continuing to work on this together. And we don't really see a need to require that legislatively, but if that's your intent, I'd say we are not going to be all through the land use maps by October either, hopefully by the end of next year. There are one last about April's. So the last part is, it's now section 10 in the new draft. It is section eight. We're not on page 10 of my deadlines. Keep watching. We were recommending that this report being moved to any appeals bill. It seems to be more related to that than I agree. Well, and I also understood that the very least, you all did not want to be in charge of running this report. Not without more structure. I think a lot of what is proposed is giving us more time because we need more time. So adding in one more thing that we need to do at a time that we're trying to accomplish the other priorities, this is a little bit fraught, but I think the general sentiment was, we do not have appeals jurisdiction yet. And so for us to pass judgment on something that's not yet in effect was a little bit early. There are two things that I'm not sure are in here and I wanted One is to allow the updating of regional plans interim to have a shorter process if they have just an amendment to their plan midway through. That was discussed and wondered if you had thoughts on that. That was in the VACDA proposals. We had some ideas about reorganizing that section conceptually, but content wise, we agree with the proposal that there should be, essentially, overall, we'll make three tracks for students, so a full blown regional panned feature land use map, pre application application act, which is going on right now. There are minor future land use map changes and that's set out in statute. And then, so this is used to go to middle road for separate tier 1B regional plan amendments and non minor future land use amendments that would have less process than the full blown pre applications instead of now, but slightly more than the minor. Okay. So we agree with it on some of that. Okay. And then the second one was the road restriction. We had a conversation about whether or not it applies in areas that have been mapped for 1B, but have not opted or been approved, whatever the right word is, don't become 1B, but they're mapped as 1B. And saying that the road restriction would not apply to those areas, even if they don't choose to become 1B. And I don't know what, if you follow that conversation or have thoughts on that. My thoughts from an administrative side is that if we could get some clarity on whether those areas, the ones that are eligible, but aren't opted in, if they remain tier two, then I would assume that the road rule would apply to them if it applies to tier two. If you're gonna create a sort of subcategory of tier one, the eligible, but not exercised, that are exempt from the road rule, then I think we would need some more statutory language to straighten that up. I think we should. How's tier two? Well, so I mean, is again, a lot of the towns in my area have, apparently, they're mapped in the Marine Prevail Plan as 1B and the towns may not decide to go for 1B. I think under our current system, then they would be considered tier two until they become unneeded. Right, so that's what I'm suggesting is that for those areas that have been mapped but not become, a lot of those areas are in towns. And so they may not be able to or not want to become 1B for a variety of reasons, but they could be eligible to become 1B. And the question is whether or not the board should apply for it and apply to it. And I think it should not. Okay. Well, let's put a pin in that one because I think that's gonna be a good point of discussion. Okay. Yeah. I think that's something we haven't discussed this board. A bit challenging, because I think the chamber has stated, I think that the terminology around tier one B eligible is something that I would want to see flushed out more because technically to be tier one B eligible, you have to have that adopted plan. So right now, Middlebury is not tier one B eligible because it doesn't have its adopted plan as a but major land it hasn't done all the other things needed on the checkbooks for our Act 101. Okay, I just need to have a conversation with you guys about the whole, I'm still confused about what that whole thing is. Okay. Yes, go ahead.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: You've just touched on something that I think we will take through a little bit as you said, actually. Because you said that the term eligible is not really defined or it's defined in a way that it's maybe not the way we're thinking about it. It's on the map as potentially eligible defendant's polio, like it's gonna have to happen.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: And I think some of the time we've been talking about it's on the map in the eligible amount. But in fact, that's not the right terminology. So, okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, and this is why I'm here to

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: say that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So you're absolutely correct. There are four future land use map categories that you need to have in order to get that first checklist towards eligibility. Downtown, building center, playing growth, village area. And then there's a bunch of other things we need to do on the checklist for us to consider in regard to. So you might want to start with that first.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, so we were talking about the eligible, we meant that. We meant on the map. So we have to make sure that that's what we're actually saying.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: As opposed to, and you've checked all these other boxes. Yes. You just haven't opted in.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yes. Because that's what we were thinking to make sure we're saying that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And I think that there is another discussion we would absolutely love to see as many tier-1B communities as possible, and why people aren't opting in is perhaps another conversation. And again, more incentives that we can offer, great. If we're taking them and making them into something else, not giving that to be a specifically tier one B benefit, then are we eroding at the number of communities who would take that off once these confirm exemptions are done. So that's, yeah. Another issue that I heard about in my conversations was that some of the areas that are mapped as tier 1B are conserved and therefore can't be built on, and so they're technically in the 1B area, but they can't be built on. And so there are issues that the towns are trying to figure out, like, what do we do with this? Because this would be a perfect place to build housing right near our, you know, little downtown, but we can't even do it. So I don't know if there's a fix to that, but has that been an issue that you guys have come passed on? It's only we've discussed this. It's come up with multiples of my time. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. Good to know. No drama. Okay. Well, thank you. It. We're going to move now to Sumitrik, who is going to walk us through some Baptist recommendations.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: So

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: this one, I understand it, we don't have hard copies yet, but it is online.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: We could probably get that in a few months.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Maybe we'll wait for them to come out. So

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: thank you for having So yeah.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was thinking of the bottle. Someone wants to mute. Okay, great. Thank you.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Would you like me to share our proposed language on the screen?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Would that be helpful? I think that would be useful.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: I've joined and it didn't do

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: that yet because I wasn't sure. Yeah, no worries.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: And we've been here before to talk about this gene theory. And so this, what I'll be going through next is just giving an overview of the specific changes that we would like to recommend.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, I've seen this one stated 02/18. I've got 2.6.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: There's a 02/18 version.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Have we had that previously?

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: I don't it was posted online briefly and then it went away. So now it's back. So okay. So under today's date,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: it didn't come back. Okay. Sherry's Okay. Not turned on. Oh, no. But

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: we have it.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do have it online. Is that is that 02/18? Yeah. It was just So that's what

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: we were doing over there is trying to figure

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: out what's posted for me. Okay. I'm gonna go there. Great, too many versions. Lots of versions. Okay, well, it is posted online and we all got it digitally. Okay, so I think you can go ahead. Go ahead and start.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Yes, sure. I will go ahead and start. So, and the version that you have online that's posted under today's date. So this, as a quick reminder, the regional planning commission are proposing changes that go really into a couple of buckets. One being process related and making process go more smoothly. And the other is to attain some consistency between sections of statute that were amended under act one meeting one to actually function a little bit better. And there's a

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: lot of pages here, but it should go pretty quick. All right. So

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: the first change is at the top of page one, and that's simply to move when we get the community investment board comments in the process to happen earlier in the process rather than

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the year. So it's a

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: very simple change to make the comments more effective in terms of when they get there. The second change.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can I ask about that? Can you just give us like one or so why that's important?

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Because they comment on whether the designated areas, the centers and neighborhoods make sense. Okay, great, thank you. And the sooner we get comments in the process, easier to just incorporate. Yeah. And then the next change is related to the land use review boards to make sure that our plan meets all of the criteria. We're suggesting adding some language that has the land use review board confirmed that our areas planned for growth or the core four areas, as you started to call them, do have enough land and redevelopment Sorry, is that E? That is E on line 22. Good. And then moving down lines 27 through lines 12 on the next page, that creates a new process for regional planning commissions to amend our region plan. Right now, statute does not give us a process to make amends that's simple and efficient. It requires us to go through the whole six to eight month adoption process. This would create a new process for allowing us to do amendments. The land use review board had some recommended modifications to

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: this language and think it will update that, but we didn't, it's not incorporated in here, but I- when you get there, you're okay. Just to go to let you to move over very quickly, you all are okay with this idea being incorporated, but you may have some truths. I want make sure I understand. I believe we shared a markup of that desk markup with you on February 26 as well. Okay.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: And then I'll just note that there's two additional things that need to happen here. One is that we did propose this language for amendments. There's a couple other places in the statute that refer to the adoption process that might need some tweaking, but we just want to bring that to your attention to incorporate this adoption, the amended process, but we didn't include it here because that's

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: for knowledge council, so we'll make it that little. I just want to

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: make note of that. And then finally we have a couple of three, at least that I know

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: of regional plans that are

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: expiring within the next few months. And if this does, know, these changes do come into they would like some time to adjust their plans. So there would need to be possible some statutory extension to those extensions. So that regional planning officials have until the end of the calendar year to actually get this done. Wait, wait.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's not for amendments.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: That's not for amendments. That's just in terms of regional plan adoption process. That's just an additional utility unit.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So that's not language that's in here yet? Correct.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Okay. Because we, It's my understanding that would be like a session lot and that's sort of drafting stuff that- Okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And I just want to make sure that I have the wording of that right. What is it that is needed? It is an extension- Of the

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: expiration of regional plans until the December 2026. December 2026 for any plans that were expired before then.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: 2026.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Do you have it here at the list? Yeah,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: in blue. Oh, you do? Yeah. Not the exact language, but

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I don't think you're wrong with

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the same thing. You're Is there an extra one of those? You know, I thought I gave you a minute. No, that wasn't it. I was using, if you don't, I'm like, you can take money and I feel like I can follow-up.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: The other change we made into regional plan adoption. We're gonna take a little, we're gonna take a side journey and this is starting on slide 18 of page two, little side journey to enhance energy planning. So when regional planning commissions do what's called an enhanced energy plan that gets some additional benefits and public utilities commission proceedings, the plan gets additional consideration. Every time we adopt a plan, we have to do a full review of that enhanced energy plan by the department of public service. This language would just note that if we're adopting plans and not changing the energy plan, the Department of Public Service doesn't need to do their full review. So it's just a streamlining of the process for the regions and the county department.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: That seems like a new issue.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: so just to say it out loud, mean, I do have some concerns about this, so I would want to hear a little bit more testimony about that. I mean, I appreciate the idea of streamlining the plan, I just want to flag that I have questions about implications.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Yeah. And we have talked to

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the department about this language and I will know

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: simultaneously there's a bill under consideration in the house that may make similar changes, but nowhere to cause us break it. All right, so now we get into the elements of a regional plan, starting on the top of page three. And this is the section where we are applying to start to attain consistency in statute with the overall whole being that definitions of future land use areas, designations, etcetera, are all in one place in statute. And that place is the future land use area descriptions in title 24. So the other thing we're trying to do here is to clear up some of the language that has caused some challenges as we're doing this mapping, not in theory, but in real life. And working with the land use review board with our communities and others, and trying to figure out how to clarify some of this language so that we can really map the areas that are logically planned for growth. And I can go through them all individually, or I can simply note that and take any questions. I think it'd be good to go through it. Okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I just want to make sure you had time before I, think it's important to understand.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Okay. So we'll start at, the top of page three, aligned five. We would just like to add language that clarifies that our future land use maps at the regional level will be compatible with the local level of plans

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: that we get approved. So just to

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: make that perfectly clear that it's local to the region. So does this ultimately create more deference to the municipal plans? It creates a little bit more deference to

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the regional plans.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: The But local it only creates that as the local plans have already been reviewed and approved by the regional planning commission. So it's like a feedback loop.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Okay? Alright.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: What is it a feedback loop?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Because

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: is it possible that regional land, regional thinking it's a regional level would be different? Look. It this part of the idea here was it had the local and original coming together and combination of down and up. And this sounds like more just up.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Because the regional planning commission needs to approve a municipal plan in order to get this consideration, that's the loop back down.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: But the municipal plan isn't gonna be thinking regionally?

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: The municipal plan is not going to be thinking regionally, but when we approve a municipal plan, it has to be compatible with the regional plan and the neighboring use of palace. And so that process, that's the regional review of the local camp.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So what is this adding that's not already in that field?

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: I think it adds it explicitly that we

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: are

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: relying on the local plans as a starting point for our planning at the regional level, and then making sure that we incorporate regional thinking and statutory criteria. Okay, thanks. Let's keep going. Line 11. We also think it's important for all of our future landing series to be consistent with the smart growth principles, which we'll get

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: to in an end.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: All right. And then when we talk about the downtowns and village centers, that's the next section starting on line 16. There's several tweaks to language here to really reflect the smart road principles and guidelines and refer to Vermont's historic and traditional pattern of development of concentrated areas for growth and working landscape and countryside. It's trying to respect that goal, but treat the language to make it actually work for land use planning that we're doing today.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any questions about that? Just on line 21, traditional or historic core or, I mean, just core something, core something, seems like. Yeah. I mean, I think it just seems odd. I don't know. It seems like it's missing a word. It seems like it's missing a word. All clarifications.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: And then moving on to the planned growth area, starting on line 29, this changes on line thirty two and thirty three. Actually, I go back?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry. So back in line 21. So when we talk about village center or downtowns of village centers that are traditional, originally it said traditional and historic, and now we're saying traditional or historic, are there any examples that you can give me of places that would be either traditional but not historic, or vice versa? I want to give you examples, but I don't want to give you any in our region that are going to be before the land use treaty before the land So let me think. You can also get back to us on that question if you want to think about it, but that is a question that I have. Like, what is that distinction? All right, here's

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: had to think about

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: that. Okay.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Because the examples I have coming up with are my region,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: and I don't want to talk about that. You are. That's something that you could follow-up with us about, that would be helpful for thinking about that.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: This is changing the way that the programming work.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: This isn't the program though, this is the- This

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: is the future land, this is how we would map the areas. And I think it reflects how Vermont has developed. You may have, you have areas that are traditional core areas that function that way, that serve communities that way that are developed that way, but are not historic in terms of how you might think of historic. They might be old, but not. This is a different circumstance.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: In the interest of time, let's keep going. Okay.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Plan growth areas, line thirty two and thirty three there, we're simply clarifying that those should surround centers, because that's actually not statue. So we're clarifying that those wouldn't be standalone, they would surround centers.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: And then to the next page, four lines one through 11 are just more of the clarifications and references.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: This in the rural areas section. And are you taking out the new town centers, downtowns and village

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: centers? Because those are in the centers.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Because those are in the suburbs. Okay. And so it's actually, would you say it's confusing that it is also here? Yes. Okay.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: And in every case, have been mapped in

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: centers and not been. Right, because those are centers, not the planned growth areas. Okay,

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: good. And then continuing on planned growth areas. Lines 13 through 16 are adding clarifications on the housing targets. The planned growth areas are supposed to show areas that are available for development to meet the housing targets. This is clarification that redevelopment comes to, it doesn't have to be currently making an equity building process. And then line 17 or 19 through 20 is bringing that definition to be more consistent with other parts of the definition that are already included.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, where are you now? I'm still on page four.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Lines 13 through, I'm sorry, lines 17 through 20. Okay, thank you. So deleting this language about pedestrian access directly to the center, that's proved very problematic in terms of mapping. Instead, the goals of complete streets and multimodal access is much more appropriate.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Which is the earlier instance. Exactly, which is existing.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Okay. The village areas. Multi mobile is referred to within the smart growth principles. Complete streets. So with the end within concrete streets. Why is complete streets in any hopes there? That's a good question. I don't know if that's existing statute. A defined term.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Don't know if it's, I don't know. Yeah, it's like we use other defined terms without using phrase. Yeah, it makes me suspicious that that's not a real thing, even though I know it's a real thing. When you use quotes. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Yep. Okay. Village areas moving on to starting at line 23. So village areas of the areas planned for growth around village centers. So like main growth areas, but smaller scale. And there, we are just proposing some tweaks to clarify here. And then one major deletion on lines 28 to 30. It says that these areas include village center designations, and we're proposing deleting that because those extra centers are not the village areas. Okay, all right. Page nine. So again, we're still in the village areas. Line one is simply a term of statutory art changing municipal to public water.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: lines five through six, just refer adding markets to housing targets. So just knowing that village areas are an area that a community should be looking to to meet the housing targets. Now we're moving on to a new land use area, enterprise areas. And this is industrial parks, airports, single use high intensity areas. There's a lion statue we'd like to delete that says they're not adjacent to planned growth areas, because in fact, many of them actually are.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Maybe they shouldn't be, shouldn't we? And I just didn't ask to help you. But they just are. I mean, the

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: reality of them is they are, they take advantage often of the infrastructure that exists. St. Albinstown, Industrial Park would

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: be great, it's integrated, right adjacent to the functions well. So it's an interesting- Well, mean, having them right next to housing. That's changed. Airports. Yeah, let's, I was just going to say, let's put a pin in that one because that one's worth discussing.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Okay, let's keep going. Okay. So under, we're moving on to another land use area, the rural conservation heritage on lines 21 to 24. We are suggesting that you delete the requirement that we map, that we show on our maps, tier three areas designed by the Land Use Review Board for a couple of reasons. One is that it's a regulatory function and our regional plan maps are not regulatory. And the second is that the LERP has the ability to change that at any time through their rulemaking. And so you could have a regional plan that shows this area and then it's actually not accurate. And then we're also proposing deleting reference to the 10 BSA chapter 89, which is the 50 by 50 legislation. Our masks are not regulatory, so we don't really see how they help meet that requirement. So our rural conservation areas. Where are you now? Lines 21 through 24 on page five. Right, but it's to achieve this achieved through a variety of ways, having something shown in a planning document as something that conservation goals are the highest consideration, I don't think is one of best ways of meeting that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Interesting. Yes, because- Is that paragraph D that you're suggesting? No. Libraries 21 through 24 and- Oh, one through 24. Okay.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: I thought that, okay. That was the There's a lot in that. We're supposed to relax.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, okay. So if I can jump in, unless you have a board of the past amendment. Is 10 BSA chapter 89, that's the- 50 by 50. 50 by 50, okay. Were you speaking about the last sentence first? I did. Okay. That's okay. Can you just give me one more time with that last sentence? This is maybe not the place to do that. Exactly. And I think

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: that we're moving in that direction of having that available, especially online, where it can actually be reflective of

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the reality. Well, I guess it leaves a question of like, where is the right place? Who should house that? And one possibility is it is the land use review for it, but future conversation. Wasn't that the purpose of

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the term overlay? That it's not part of the truth.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Is often an assumption that if something is an overlay, it's not officially part of it, but if it's in it, it's in it.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Okay. Okay.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: And then line 26 through 32. We're proposing deleting this paragraph. You said

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: as a non regulatory overlay.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: If it's the annual requirement for our regional plans, which is what the section is, it's part of our regional plans. And then

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It's gonna fully just like the transparency of the power of the children to your police office.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: But it wouldn't necessarily be accurate. We have to make our plans are eight year plans.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so you're we would be going

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: on the assumption that running issues going away with changes. Okay. Let's keep going. Yes. Lines 26 through 32. We are simply suggesting deleting all of this because it's already said up above in other places and slightly better ways. Okay. What's the name?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry about it. Okay. All

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: right. And then we're moving on to chapter 139, which is a state community investment program. These proposed changes are in line with the goal of having the definitions be in one place and in the future land use area. So the Community Investment Board section is the designation and incentives program. The boundaries are based on the future land use map boundaries. So we are proposing deleting the extra definition language that's included in this section, instead referring back to the future land use area definitions. That's it in like the big picture of it. And so you can see that right away in number eight, which is talking about the plain growth areas and lines five through nine, where we're proposing to, instead of having lots of different languages, just say a plain growth area is what's defined in the future landings area.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep, so just making the reference in statute rather than trying to define the design time. It's like a different way. And then, but then, is the reference to designated as a neighborhood, that's an old, is that from

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: the old definitions? No, that's

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: from the new, the new definitions. The neighborhood is

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: a new designation for program. Okay, you. Okay. And then sprawl repair, we are making it clear that definition is currently in statute, but it refers to smart growth principles,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: which were inadvertently deleted and Merck was adopted.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Okay. And then the proposed changes on lines 13 through 19 relate to the state designated centers. So under the designation program, once our land use maps are approved by the Land Use Review Board, the centers are eligible for designation candidates. This language adjustments would pull that definition back to our future steps and just say it's math on the center approved by the language review board, it's designated as a center, then state designation.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So Seth, I really think this too, because it's a pretty major change from not requiring historic because the program has always been about historic.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And it's, and I

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: would say that if you go back to the definition of, I agree with you, it is something to definitely think about. What we're trying to do is pull it back to the definition of future land use area instead, which includes traditional and historic or areas. So not getting rid of the focus on historic, but just having it said one way in one place in mutual amnesty area damage.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: think I need to spend some time with that. Where are you specifically talking about right now?

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: I'm sorry, you've lost me. So I'm on page six. Lines 13 through 19. And I think specifically what Senator Bongartz says, I that was on line 15. Where we're proposing deleting a portion of which is eligible for or listed on the National Register Historic Basis. I

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: think my confusion is in that, it was previously in the planned growth areas, We're referencing the planned growth areas from the future of nineties maps. It would make sense to me to do this assembly similar here to reference. Anyway, and I was not seeing a reference. Oh, I'm seeing it. So, I appreciated like not trying to define things twice, but if we're not going to define things twice, then it needs to be a reference.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: So simplify that even Just add a

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: second. Yes. You have testified on this bill before, right? But we haven't seen, you haven't proposed these things before, have you? We haven't provided them before, but we haven't walked through it like this. Okay, this just seems like a lot to be changing right now, and I'm not sure of the implications of all this, and I'm feeling a little uncomfortable. Well, we don't have to accept all of it. No, I understand that. It just, I mean, it is a lot. It's just a lot to figure out what's going on here.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: If the goal here is weeks and deadline changes to making things you're to need the best

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: year, what is this work you're

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: thinking about, which is major, which is real policy. Sure.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, and I think it's fair to ask the question with what is, especially if we push out the deadlines, what is necessary to do in the next year for functionality versus what could be changed next year?

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Well, to answer that question, I will say that we've carried this list down quite a lot.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: We've carried this list down quite a lot. Okay. To those things that we

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: actually do think are necessary to make it work now. And the reason why is all the, even though you're extending the interim deadline, interim extensions, all of the regional planning commissions are working on our regional plans now and have a December 31 deadline.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: so some of these are actually really, most of them are really important to making that mapping process actually hard. And these recommendations came from our real life experience doing the mapping and trying to use the statutory language as well as the comments we received from the LERB

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: and our preliminary hearing. List troubles in context. Okay. I'm anticipating that our legislative council is going to walk in the door any minute for a different bill, but let's keep going until he arrives.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Madam Chair?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, Mr. Baker, go ahead.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County RPC)]: I apologize. Charlie Baker, Executive Director of Chinon County RPC. The record, I just want to also note that we've been really working hard with partners. VNRC has reviewed this, Preservation Trust has reviewed this, the LERB reviewed it and had some edits. So hopefully we've tried to do the background work to make your jobs easier.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great, okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, let's keep going. Okay, so

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: then when you look at on page six, lines 20 through 23. That's again, the statutory reference, which we can adjust saying that the state designated neighborhood is those village area or plain growth areas. And so we can add statutory reference in there. And then the same for the beverage area in there. We had a statutory reference for some reason. You can tell this was a process of language changes over time. All right. And then moving on to designation of downtown centers and village centers, line 29. When Act 181 was initially conceived, centers were one thing, not separation of downtown centers and village centers. And so this just clarifies that it's downtown centers and village centers, not just centers. Moving on to page seven. This is a companion to our request to move the Community Investment Board comments up in the process that we talked about earlier.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, where is that?

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: On the top of page seven, lines four through six. We're just saying that it'll provide comments

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: to the regional planning by the designations.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: All right. Give me a second. Lines eight through 15, again, page seven, is that we're proposing deleting this paragraph in its entirety. This is, again, has some future land use definitions that are stated elsewhere already in statute that we don't need to repeat and is slightly different.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: You're on line eight.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: Line eight through 15.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is not a definition. This is an exclusion.

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: So this is deleting an exclusion. It's deleting an exclusion, but the exclusion is excluding the things we've already connected, which cuts off the definitions earlier into.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I guess this is one of those things where I'm wanting to make sure that that's actually what this is doing. Not that I don't believe you. It's not that I don't trust you. It's just that I'm very confused about what we're proposing. And the interesting thing is it's the same

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: thing we're proposing deleting on page five

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: because it's repeated twice in session. Yes. Recognize that we didn't get quite through all of this. So that is, I'll just

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: say restoring the smart growth principles. I didn't know

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the new, deleted. Okay, very good. Think we did. Okay, great, thank you. Okay, I would love to take a, at least a two minute break just to reset our brains as we transition to the next pill. Oh, which is two twenty four. Okay. Okay, all right. Thank you. This is Doctor. Resources Energy coming back from a very short break. We have a new draft of S-two 24, the latest miscellaneous bill, which I refer to as the Lake Monster Bill. But we have a very small change. Well, a couple of relatively small changes. Just a little bit of context for this. So the last time we talked about this with the fishing tournaments, we ended up chatting about some language that would have conditioned fishing tournament permits on the source protection plan provisions. And over the break, lots of discussions, well, had lots, some discussions with folks from DEC about that. There was a little bit, I guess I would classify it as a little bit problematic because the source protection plans don't have, I guess maybe it'd be fair to say, like the force of law behind them, they're management And so just to move this bill forward, I went ahead and made an executive decision to, instead of having it reference the source protection plans, to require that for drinking water sources, where there's a fishing tournament, that they consult with DEC, or they consult with the drinking water division, and that DEC then has the authority to add conditions to the fishing tournament permits, which in my mind was sort of getting at the same idea, but hopefully in a slightly less problematic way. So that's where we're at. And there was a couple other changes that we had talked about that are reflected here. So with that context, let's dive in.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, I was just wondering if you could turn to page 24 of the draft number 8.2, we've got March and the seven forty seven ks and the time stamp. The first g is in the notice or affirmation of notice to municipalities when an applicant for a permit be held on the fewer than five in Lynn Lakes that you want them to affirm on the application form of the legislative bodies and municipalities in which the tournament has proposed, have been notified. Similarly, page 25, line nine, when the tournament proposes to be held on five or more inland lakes, then part of the preliminary of the tournament on the department's website. And then on page 25, line 14 is the language that the chair was referencing. If an application for a fishing tournament permit proposes a fishing tournament on an inland lake that serves as a source for a public water system, the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall consult with the drinking water and groundwater division of DEC prior to issuance of a permit procurement. The division may require any fishing permit issued for an inland lake services or source of the public water system to include conditions for fire needs or limits that shall be included with limits that you find their permits for that will prohibit fishing from the fishing permit by the Department of Fish and Health.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Thoughts?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Questions, comments? Okay. Are you okay? I have it on now. I'm Okay. Since we have Mr. Redmond here from the division of Big and Waters, anything you want to comment on about this language? If not, that's fine, but.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: Sure. I can say for the record, Brian Redmond, director of the Drinking Water and Valor Protection Division within DEC. So I think the language on the shall consult with fish and wildlife is acceptable to both departments. We've discussed that and we think that's a nice connection for us to understand the vulnerable and for us to consult on specifics of the tournament. So we're supportive of that required consultation and what that would look like on the ground would be coordinating with Fish and Wildlife to just better understand the specifics of the fishing tournament.

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, DEC)]: And if there was a need to put in protective measures around the water supply that consultation would occur, it would work out. I would suggest that because it's Fish and Wildlife Permit, you may want to hear from them, but I think generally supportive of that, can get a consultation and put them together on a plan to mitigate any potential issues with the pollen drinking. Thank you. Yes.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Doesn't work for me. Okay. I'll tell you why. Because I've I've applied through Fish and Wildlife for permanent well, permits before. Yeah. It may take you two weeks to get it. Mhmm. Now if you go have conditions that are going to further, you know, lose the amount of time, you only got so much time for ice. And if somebody doesn't respond in a immediate fashion, that could just make it so we can have to.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can I ask Mr? Rutland, do you have a sense of how long the turnaround time might be?

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: It's a busy division doing a lot of different work, so it's a matter of prioritization. It's a good point. It depends as to who's there at that time and who's making the prioritization for the review. I think in general, we view this as a lower risk activity. And I don't expect much in the way of specific conditions. Think there are a few around the intake itself that could come up, but in general, on my understanding of these tournaments, low risk. So I think the review and the consultation could be quick, but that just all depends on what's coming in and and there's there. It is a very fair point.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm. Yes, sir.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So I mean, isn't there any way that we could have those conditions for each body water that is drinking supply done in advance. If you gotta wait until they apply for the permit, then if you know the areas they won't be able to, you know, if you wanna keep them away from certain areas, that could always be in prearranged condition. So I'm saying if it's an inlet area for for a drinking supply, we could have it have some signage that says no fishing, you you know, within 200 feet or whatever. That's that's all I'm saying is we we created a problem that could that could be taken care of in advance with some planning that, you know, maybe just a problem at first. You know? But maybe after if it's Orange County Fish and Game Club puts this on and it protects this body of water the first time, know, they'll work with you. I'm sure they will.

[Unidentified committee member/staff]: I I think possibly. It seems like a reasonable thing that we could figure out. The work has not been done. But it does seem reasonable that we could identify what types of protective measures should be considered probably. That seems achievable.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Two questions or two comments. I mean, wouldn't that information actually ironically be in

[Unknown Presenter (Regional Planning Commissions/VAPDA)]: a source protection plan? Right. Yeah.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, I mean, I don't know that, I understand that's not a regulatory document, but it might already be in that. And as a sort of interim compromise, if we put a date, like they must respond within certain number of, like, hesitate to say a time without consulting with Brian, but like seventy two hours or something like that they have to do it in or something.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, would be their responsibility to apply get plenty of time, but they're also watching the weather.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, I understand, but I'm talking about them responding within seventy two hours. And if they don't respond, then it means automatically approved or something like that. Where DEASY doesn't get to put in. Yeah. Their conditions aren't there. Yes, go ahead.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I'm just on the last sentence, I just think I'm just kind

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: of doing a little, maybe I'm just a little slow coming off of the crossover week, but

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Very optimistic. Are

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: we is this Michael, is

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: this sentence saying here that drinking water and groundwater division could deny a fishing permit? Well, and this might be a better question for Brian, but there there are some source protection area conditions that said human activity isn't allowed within the source protection area. So if there's a basis for that, wouldn't you want that to be a limit or a prohibition?

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I would. Yeah. I would. And that's where I just maybe it's just how I'm reading this, but are are we trying to say that drinking water and groundwater division made place limits on the fishing terms? And but we're not trying to say that if

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I mean, we're not are I don't are we try I'm not are we

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: trying to say that they can place limits, but as long as the limits are followed Yeah. That they can have the term they're not just giving them a carte blanche to say you can't have the term then.

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: No. I mean,

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it could be No. Conditions that stay stay from intake source or don't fish in this area because of erosion that triggers that big intake. Don't use oil or gas outwards. I mean, those are the types of conditions that

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: potentially Well, we got a whole year We told the next fishermen. So Well, the next ice fish. Ice fishermen. Pardon.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it could be conditions that like what Michael just said, but it could be also unknown. Right, there's no use But are you concerned that that's having DEC allow that or what?

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I think what's really confusing me is that everything after we've done, everything after permit on page 26.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There's two in page three six. So That would be the where it's highlighted. Yeah. So the the limit shall be included within the the sheet or the permanent or that would prohibit I see what you're saying. You you basically wanna say to move you can say, including conditions, requirements, limits, or prohibitions, that shall be included in your business issued form of permanent period.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay, I think that's, see that's what's kind of hanging out. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's that last part I know.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. So were you okay with the language that

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, I think something like that would work.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. In most conditions, the answer is that would be the same for the night. Unless the Well Maybe unless something changes, you know, in the water. So I'm saying if if it's not a problem, yeah. Right.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And it could be different in ice for ice cream versus Mhmm. Non ice.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Well, I mean, I was told a lot of municipalities don't want you to know when you take inspirator. Right. So they don't put signs of that. So Right. That's fine. Let me just Yeah. Sign will take care of the problem and make it illegal to to do that, whatever that sign says you can, then

[Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: so we are slightly over time. I think we're not gonna vote on this today. It's fine. It's okay. So let's rip small change, then we'll get you on the schedule and monthly monitor about- Well, been on schedule for months. It is. Amazing. You're so ahead of it. That's all good. That was a cash for it. Okay. Does everyone else sound awesome, you know?