Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Good

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: morning. This is Natural Resources and Energy, and it is Friday, March 13. Starting a little bit early today because it's game day, last day of crossover. And so we are starting with 03:25, it's 03:25, and switching up the order a little bit. We have Mr. Baker with us from Bathurst and also shooting in Canada and use your Bennington. Welcome.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Thank you very much. Yeah, Tony Baker.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh. Would you like to? Do you have a copy of the bill? We all have.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: We all

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: have time.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, I don't have an extra. I'll get from here. My laptop is done. Oh, Well, no. Well, go ahead.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Thank you to the legislative council for producing a new draft last night, this morning. Did just have an opportunity to open it up. One thing that was briefly discussed yesterday was the regional plan amendment section, section 11, starting bottom of page 12, well just the section headings on bottom of page 12 starts on page 13. I think, Catherine Demetriuk actually took a review through other sections that had amendment or adoption of regional plans in it just to make sure as we were changing the amendment language that things were lined up a little better. You'll see the multiple sections where amendment is sort through. Thank you to Ellen for grabbing those.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And just to clarify, that's because the amendments are dealt with elsewhere? That's right. Right, in that non

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: So that section is specifically re embed adoption and there's a separate process for amendment, which is what he reviewed yesterday. So these are kind of, I guess cleanup changes, just to make sure things are clear and as less confusing as possible. Unfortunately that takes multiple pages, so you're feeling that much significantly longer, but we definitely support the changes as the LERD review kind of just back up for a second, I mean you may remember we kind of introduced some language like three weeks ago I think I was trying to think this morning as I was driving in it was probably right after last Friday the thirteenth, got started on this and the LERD reviewed it on the February 26 and so this language I think is what the LERD reviewed from our proposal which we support what the LERD reviewed and we're glad to see their support for this and recognition of this issue. So anyway, all that amendments and you're just section 11 was straight. Section 12 is the elements of the regional plan. This is where the definitional descriptions of the land use areas and that feel like it's really close and one common question I guess the smart growth principles got added at the front end of those which is good so they kind of like roll down through. My only question is whether I know they were put in section 5,801 just wondering if maybe they should be in section 4,303 that's a question for legislative council. Mean if the top end is fine just a question of do they go in the designation section of the statute, which is where they were previously. We were hoping then maybe to get them in the regional planning section so that we could use them for our regional plan mapping and of clear we can actually write out something like 4three zero three capital 1,002. It's a thought and not a big deal either way.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So just to ask a question about that.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Row 19, line nineteen seventeen.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm just trying to where the smart grid principles ended up in the middle because I know they're Sorry,

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: I didn't write down that page number,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: section 15. I know they're in here. It's at the end.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Yeah, yeah, it's almost at the end, yeah. It is on page 23 starting on line 11. Oh yes. And so it's added to like the definition section under the designation chapter, which is where it was in a similar place previous line, but again, so let me see. Running subordination mode.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, I see. But so, okay. So because this is the state community investment program section. So this is like their money. It's a designation program. Right, right. Okay.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Again, as long as it's reference, it's fine. It'd But be very miles ago.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: sorry, backing up to okay and then page 18, So this is the downtown or village centers first. Thank you for the lives of others. This will hardly be the two new sentences that were added there. Thank you. I thought it was really helpful. And just to be clear, we saw some not clear statutory language going back a year or more because we've been working on these maps. And so we started working on this language that last summer, having an EHDD review, having the Blurb review, BNRC, Preservation Trust, trying to get to some common language and sorting out some of the almost conflicting things, mostly around the issue that step one centers are not required to have historic distance. And so this issue of the sorry I'm really focused on line six. This issue of the or for us is very important that it be more inclusive and not exclude these centers that may not have a real estate district and just off the top of my head like the new North End in Burlington, you know, it's not a historic center, it's a shopping center, but that's the center of that community. And there are cities working on redeveloping and stuff, which is great, but it's not a historic center And we've mapped it as a center. Brookfield is working to move their center around their school and get out of the floodplain. Again, not a historic center. So for us, this, I know it's just one word, but it's a very important word from our view that we kind of opened it up just a little bit to deal with these situations that don't have historic districts. Questions on that? Okay, sorry. The biggest thing I can say, that one word is really important.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: There's no, there's no big gap. The

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: next issue, page nine, I think it really starts on page 19 and maybe it's in there a couple of times, this walking distance issue, and as you know, it says this version on line four and five, it says compact and has multimodal connection. That could be okay. Think talking a little bit about the creative Katie of the NRC for her language maybe more accessible by multiple modes of transportation, but either one I think is saying the same type of thing. I think wherever you land on that, it's fine. And this has been an issue honestly that we were as we've been negotiating with Allureb, and we should give a lot of credit to Allureb because they are navigating this and really working with the regional planning commissions to try to make this work and are wanting this into something that they tackled fairly early on and they've gotten to a fairly expansive definition of that so it hasn't been too constraining, always been good, but question.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, I just Wait, this is highlighted, but is that new? It's not underlined.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So line fourteen and fifteen. Was on lines four and five.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, were on line

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: four and five.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Okay. Yeah, so that one is kind of the language under land growth area, and then there's some similar language. Well yeah I don't know that we need both of these but because they're the multimodal connection is the same kind of idea as pedestrian access so yeah, I don't know, it feels like we're doing the belt and suspenders pedestrian access, but.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Got it. I just wondered why this was highlighted down here, it's not being closed. Is it just because we had it struck and

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: then we unstruck it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And again, it is kind of, it is overlapping language with box. But you're comfortable with how this is Yeah, is fine with that. Yeah, if wanted to strike one, that would be great too, but that's fine. We get the idea.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I also just want to recognize that in our conversation, I think we landed on talking about compact, but then I will just say, Ellen and I went back broke about this a little bit last night, mainly because I was like, well, in the rest of the sentence, just come back to work. So happy to keep editing that

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: if that's not what the committee wants.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: And I do say just in general, I think as the RPCs have been working with other towns, think now we have monthly meetings. A year ago we had weekly meetings with all the planners working across the state to kind of talk through issues like this. I think these words all make sense to us. We're all trying to get you know compact settlement patterns, smart growth agreements that are all you know and you can see it come out at the other end. It's only 2.2% of the state and but it's really tied into what the towns have been planning. We're not imposing like hey you should have a new big growth area here, we're trying to support what the towns have been doing. And so I think all this works. And then yeah that was something 19 and then I think that was really all oh sorry the ran out of time to make those so I volunteered a little bit quickly. The changes starting on page, well, it's section 15 which that title or that section number starts at the bottom of page 21 but the substance starts on page 22. This is the definitional section for the designation program or the community of both investment boards chapter 139. And these changes here kind of go hand in hand with the definitional pages. This is where the issues were really conflicting and confusing, there was definitions in that chapter and in chapter 117 and the Regional Plan chapter that were not the same and causing a lot of confusion and a lot of interpretation I think for the LERB initially and a lot of interpretation for the RPC's of how do we get there, lot of conversations with DHCP, thanking the Commissioner. And so we need to really strongly support these changes also to tie the definitions of the geographies to the regional planning definitions where we're doing the mapping. Honestly, it kind of it was a Xiaomi thing at some point during the process of like oh wait our mapping definitions aren't all in one place and they're

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: like oh yeah so it was we got through

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: it we're working through it but it would be really helpful to have these definitions all cleaned up and referencing back to the regional plan definitions and those go on through page one and three until you get to this mark Road definitions also on the bottom of the eight fifty three. So really those changes are really important for us in doing that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, sorry. So that confuses me that. Oh, sorry. No, no, it's fine. You were asking to move the smart growth because you wanted them in where the planning stuff is, but then you were just saying that this is where the planning definitions are, so I'm thinking. Well,

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: yes, we were too at the beginning, we're asking these definitions that are tied to the designations to tie to our land use panels.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, you're just asking for the cross reference. That's right. I see, okay.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Which is what's in here. And it turns out like village area refers to 43, 48A, 12C is the village area deposition that we just looked at. Got it, okay. So yeah, we're just looking to have connections, protective tissue to be there and not a competing definition.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry because I was slightly late. Did you talk about a section 13? No. It's just like an appeal. Oh. That was, I had a question about it. I'm happy to talk about it too, but I feel like for folks.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Well yeah, thank you. I'm having trouble. Just there is one, I think it was, it might have been fifteen years ago, legislature, getting along on your Tuesday. What time was it?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Twenty ten.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Was it twenty ten? About sixteen years ago, I was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: off. Yeah,

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: sorry, I only remember when challenges are changed if any of you were around. But there was a bunch of processing statute around this idea of a, I can't remember what it was called, but it was like a body that would review regional plans and stuff. It never happened, was never effectuated. And at the time, I think the administration was like, let's get rid of some of these commissions that never were formed by the statute and try to clean up things. There was one little section that didn't get cleaned up at that time that had this idea that you could do a formal review of regional RPC decisions,

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: but there was

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: no bogging to hear it. So it's just this remnant of statute and it's really when we saw it was like, oh wow, this is really like competing with what had just been set up with the LERD, who is now assigned to review regional plans. And so yeah, I think that's the really important thing to get deleted from or revealed from statute. Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's good to know. I'm gonna go to Senator Anderson and Senes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I had seen some language that the FTC's had them with that. I don't if you seem to hear that making sure that it's still person in the Pat, Betty, and Honeycooks or Status.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: That is in.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: It is in here? It is in here now? Okay. Yeah, so one of the things as we were working with President Trump, I'm sorry. Promise that I read this too quickly to begin with the end. One of the things that in our conversation with partners was a concern about making sure we are supporting our historic communities and restoring centers. And so there was some discussion about moving some of the benefits and also clarifying that the historic benefits were going to just go to historic centers, particularly because we do have some of these non historic centers. So that's particularly what that wording was about was to make sure step two and three centers were getting those and step one if they have a historic history. And I think that is on that I've sold for another page 29, section 18. You for bringing it up. That's all I have. I'm happy to stick around and answer any questions if there are.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. I don't think I have any other questions. Any other questions or comments

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: from the committee? Oh, Senator Williams. Oh,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: amazing. Okay, all right. What's up? Okay, super. Thank you so much. All right, we're gonna go to Mr. Chapaskey. Welcome. Hey, draft, board 52, 3 55.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, let's give you over your computer later.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think it's over if I do a pen. I just restart again. So draft 1.2, the changes are highlighted in yellow, although I think maybe some of the confusion is that I had things highlighted in yesterday's draft that they didn't talk about, and so then I unhighlighted everything for what was happening last night. So as we walked through, like, the repeal actually was in yesterday's version. So but we didn't actually talk about it. Senator Williams. Okay. We wanna make sure

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: what we had in front of us was because I came in late, was not from stakeholder. It's actually

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. For Melanie. Yep. Yep. The other thing I did in this draft is I reorganized it slightly so that it is now more by topic. I may have section headings so you kinda know where we are a little bit better. It's great. So, page one is, first section is legislative intent. This hasn't changed in a while. Okay. Section two starts the Act two fifty provisions. The first here is the road jurisdictional trigger. So on page two, you have already pushed what roads, when roads become jurisdictional until the system factory itself, 02/31/2027, but also there was a new, there's an entirely new piece of language here on line nine. So, until 01/01/2030, roads constructed in areas mapped as eligible to receive tier 1B area status, but have not requested or received tier 1B area status, shall not prostitute developments. So the drafting on this is a little tricky. The request that I received was to make sure that these areas that could be tier B, but aren't yet, or aren't tier B, will not have road road There will not be road to road restriction in that areas, meaning new kind of roads struck in there until 2030 will not be enacted. Can I just ask one quick, thank you, Ellen? You want to see me just being a big two? No, this is mapped by who? Mounted by the Regional Planning Commission. Do we, is that implied? We don't need to say certain size. Don't think so. Okay. That is how the tier one B areas are mapped. Okay. So unless you think it needs clarification that the municipality board, but I was trying to be consistent with the other placement here where you would have added the tier one be eligible area. I'm not entirely sure. I have concerns with this. I think it is they, and I don't know if it will be that simple to determine this. I'm wondering if anyone gave the LER particularly, because you're gonna have to be able to first determine, did something get mapped, and is it eligible, And then determine if it has not been requested or received. And maybe that is sufficiently clear. Well, my understanding, which is changing every day, is that y'all map things and then they have to go to ER to be approved. So that's why I was asking who mapped five So if, I'm gonna pick on you because you're sitting there. If Charlie maps something as tier 1B and his map of Chittany County, right, Chittany County, am I getting your name right? The children will

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: be eligible.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's called tier 1B eligible in Jericho. And Jericho hasn't yet requested or done anything about it yet, but the LERB has approved Charlie's map, then that's when this, I think, we would want it to kick in, that Charlie's mapped it, but Jericho, maybe you haven't done anything about it yet. But then, they could in the interim or not decide to, but after 01/01/2030, this would go away, whether they'd become tier 1B or not. Yes. I was not here if you have discussed this previously, so I would need to know further the committee's intent. Yeah, I mean, this came up yesterday. I had mentioned something along these lines earlier this week, and that Megan suggested this concept yesterday as a sort of weighted get at what I was trying to do. Thank you, by the way. So that was as far as we've gotten, discussing it. So I do wanna make sure it reflects your intent. We were playing telephone here a little bit. If this matches your intent I think it does, except for that, that's why I was asking about the match by And so I think, I guess we could put the match by.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I think it we get maps throughout this whole thing. I think it always

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: By the the regional

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any commissions? Okay. I mean, if that's the case, then I'm fine with it.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: But we do wanna make

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: sure it's been approved by the word.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: We need to say that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So that was one of my questions

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: It's it's not really not compulsory by the word. So we should be able to have that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I guess I would also oh, okay. So,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: but,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: sorry, actually I don't understand what you're saying.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Well, an approved matter. It has to be an approved matter before the tenants. And I think maybe that's actually already there.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Well,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: because there's two levels of approval, right? Because one is the level of the, but I- So, Rutland, are you saying that you think it's unnecessary at this point?

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Well- And did you

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, change your I guess my question is, if it has been matched and approved, doesn't that mean the tier one AR status has been granted?

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: No, because the town has to request it. Right, so you're, so The town may not have requested it.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So here, you know, so the intent is the map can improve well over, they haven't opted in. And so during that particular, until 01/01/2030, the idea is that the removal of us might adhere in that situation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so even if the municipality has not requested, you're still leaving it on the map, is that approved? Yep.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I'm not sure we're gonna Do we do wanna add some clarifying

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: language? Not sure. What do you think, Senator Bongartz?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: That as eligible to receive tier one B status, does that phrase imply strongly enough that that possibly includes some food, but they were absolutely approved. So why don't we say, just to be clear, instructed in areas mapped eligible.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: So also get a LRRB approved map.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes, that's what we're trying to say. Yeah. In area. Yeah.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: It easier just for the

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: land use areas? I'm sorry. Yes, okay.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Alice Farrell, Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development. I wonder just on

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the term tier one B eligible state. I wonder if

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: just referring to the four land use areas is easier. You just say it.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, except for the, I think in addition to the land use areas, because there's these other check boxes that have And to be I think, right, so we're looking for like that, one further, do you know what I mean? I do, yeah. They could request it, but they just have it.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: They just have to. Right, because we were, it's So not just the land use your side also. So, but her,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: and I'm like, definitely appreciate it.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So, Ruth's instructed in.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That makes sense. So it would just be pending. They brought the town for making that up. This

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: is maybe a very minor thing, but just going back to line six, that same page, wondering if that should be January 1. Oh, right. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to catch. I think we're just going to try to be consistent. Okay. Feeling good about this language so far.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Should we keep going? And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: actually wondering if we should do the same on line nineteenth, January 1. Sound good? Okay, great. Let's keep going. And so that exemption at the bottom, page two and page three, is the interim exemption for priority housing projects. So the language on page three hasn't changed. It includes the corridor language. Section three has not changed the definition of priority housing subject, adding that it is a portal project located within one of the designated areas or within an area mapped as eligible for tier 1B area status and that is not currently approved for tier 1B area entry status. Do you want this to match what was on

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the prior page? Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're at the bottom of page three. I think as long as we're referring to MAPT is eligible for tier 1B status, it should match the other and approved by the LERD. Thank you. I mean, we've heard the rest of that sentence doesn't match and is not currently approved for tier one B. So, you are doing different things here than what you're doing on the prior page, because this is intended to be permanent and the other one is fine. I see.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So maybe they don't need to match. Okay.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: This is, yes go ahead. Just

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: to clarify your question, but this is priority housing projects can happen in the area held for tier 1b as long as it isn't approved for tier 1b. That's basically what this so once it's approved for tier 1b it no longer gets a priority housing project benefit or exemption? That's the same. John.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Forgetting that, okay. Sorry.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, okay. Page

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: four, section four, this is in the exemptions. I've had just a small, like, 300 issue on line seven, so that it's a product located entirely with the Tier 1 Bay Area as established in grade four as other. Leaking. The date at the bottom, page four, this is for accessory dwelling units. That exemption is still January 2030. And page five, again, still no changes here. Page five, CC is still 01/01/2030. This is no permanent permanent amendment for converting a commercial structure in 29 units to leave order of housing. Then starts with interim housing exemptions. This hasn't changed 01/01/2030. The subdivision for or the construction of housing projects and mixed use development is 75 units or fewer. Further down, again, 01/01/2030, this is for subdivision or construction of housing or mixed use development with 50 units or fewer. This is in the village, great centers, and the urbanized areas. Then further down, still the interim exemptions. This is the downtown exemption. So until 01/01/2030, sub division four of the construction of housing and mixed use development. Page seven, section five. So this is the tier three rule making process. There is new language for this mod. It's on the next page. But I So, when we were discussing yesterday, this language in the session law provision is the language to reorg rulemaking process that they are going through currently for rulemaking. You are extending the deadline for them to finish rulemaking on the next page until 06/30/2028. And then it was slightly unclear if were reviewing this provision at the bottom of page seven as part of their directive. So it asked that what they shall be reviewing, which is determined which and under what circumstances criteria under Act two fifty should be part of the Tier three area of reviews. Yes. And then as I said on page eight, decision making for the rules to be due to Secretary of State LPARR 06/30/2028. And then related to this is what's changed in section six. So in section six, road jurisdiction tier three recommendations on or before January '7, the Landis' Free Board shall provide the general assembly with recommendations for statutory changes consisting of the intent of the road rule that would give the board authority to adopt rules establishing a process to limit the criteria that would apply to road development under the road rule, and development within tier three areas. The recommendations would define which criteria will be reviewed and under what circumstances. The version of this has a reference to making sure it's consistent with the intent of the road rule provision, and I'm not sure if there's a similar citation for intent on the tier three. There was so little on tier three that I would Except in the rule making section law, there is some intent on what you asked for, so I could reference that. Would you introduce yourself to record?

[J. B. Baidal (Audubon Vermont)]: Go ahead. Sure, thank you. J. B. Baidal with Audubon, Vermont. Just one offering to consider. The Act 181 right now provides existing authority to alert

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: to rule making on the road rule

[J. B. Baidal (Audubon Vermont)]: should they decide to exercise that. They're working on guidance, but with the extra time they may decide to do a rule making to allow stakeholder input. I wonder if it made sense to also authorize now the LERB to they would like to limit criteria in the road rule to authorize that in the rulemaking but still require to report back in '27 on a status report.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do you want to repeat? I do think where they landed was that they would like to report back before they give statutory authority for them to make changes specific to the rule or tier three criteria waivers. So we want to see what they're suggesting before they go ahead with their rule making about fewer than all of the criteria.

[J. B. Baidal (Audubon Vermont)]: Would that require legislation to then implement that?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's the thought. Yep. Which is why we wanted that back, or like early enough so that we could be taking that up next session.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And they have also taken, they don't have Yeah,

[J. B. Baidal (Audubon Vermont)]: that's almost why I was suggesting for that for Lauren.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, right. So this is this is like we we would like to see what the suggestions are before before they get work.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Personally, to run to me, I I'd be happy have it before if we could. I We ended up Mhmm. To their they couldn't I actually think it it actually always was dependent. I just assumed I would do it for much pain. Mhmm.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: think the issue though is that right now there are what, you know, better than me, 11 criteria? There or are, 30. Whatever, a lot of criteria, and we don't know which ones they would want to, We can't just say, well, you get to pick and choose which they are. Either they do them or they don't do them. So we kind of need to know from them how they're going to do it before we decide which ones. I think it becomes this sort of like

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: legal loop.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I don't wanna go into it, but it were up to me. I trust them to do it because they're gonna just want to spend or their.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But I don't think it's about pressing. It's about like, we need to know which ones to say they have the authority to not do.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: This has become a certain argument because if they have the authority, then we have to go, the question is who would have the authority.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: To decide which law they're going to follow Which or

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: criteria to apply with the law. That's the question. For me, that's the question is do they have the authority and or can it be given to them in a way that works?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: In a way, I feel like the option that we have here is somehow legally more conservative, you know, it's a little more careful and I think that's okay. So it's just,

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: like I said, I'm Yes. But would anybody resolve this issue? Because I I really like it. If it was up to me, I could go away and get over. Yeah. That one? No.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's probably not. It's not.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: You're more of a. Don't totally understand what you're getting. So Well, we're talking about how how to allow how to allow the board and the local set set up a process to the legislature to when the ruling who adheres to not be necessarily all the criteria that apply to make it easier if somebody knocks out gets impacted by a ruling. So I agree with you. That again.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. Well, and thankfully that's what's in here.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So that's what's in here. Good.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. I think we are out of any other comments about this section, section six? Okay, let's keep going. All right, so the next section, section seven, oh, is the effective dates for the things we were just talking about. So on the top page nine The top being shown, the effective dates for criterion 8c is 01/01/2026, and the road jurisdiction is 01/01/2028. Did I say 2036? Both of are 01/01/2028. You haven't pushed back the filing with Bell Card to 06/30/2028? Four. Four tier three. Are you saying that one of these needs to be June?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: To make it match. I think we talked about this last night. Yes. Because it's June on top page eight, but this was specifically for the tier three rules. Tier three rules. So whichever are, I don't have my, every time I try to write down like which ones are which, and so not only- It's section, it would be section 21, which is that online two there on page nine. So that's tier three. Oh, 21. So does that need its own plan because it's different than the rest of them? I guess it's a, I'm asking. Tier three would be in effect where the rules are required to be done. Right? This is the tenundra we talked about yesterday. Yes. As long as it's going to be consistent with that, because we did talk about pushing things out six months for the sake of rule making, then it seems to me that we should break that one out to have it be June. It's yes. Yes. This go ahead.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So you said that we agreed to Boston. He was we.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So and as part of our discussion yesterday, particularly with Ben Sullivan Okay. Who suggested that as a result of Well, so I'm sorry, last night, because I was in communication with Ellen about this draft. And so that's what she's referring to because I had referenced like, oh, don't forget to push this out. So that's something for me to talk about. That's all. But to be consistent, but really it was just, you know, our conversation early.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So it wasn't part of the committee members going up?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, no, it was. Was just- Telling you about this discussion you had after I lost you. Yeah. And this we did talk about yesterday. Oh, remember that. Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I just been curios about who's deciding what lots and everything.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, no, trying to make sure we had a draft ready for today. So, yeah, I'm happy to break that out. Does that make sense, Ellen?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. What, July?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: June 30, just So it's consistent with topic AG. Oh. Yes. Top of the BG was '28. Yes. That's right. So 06/30/2028. Oh. Okay, sorry. So we didn't say '29, so you're- I said '29 because I was thinking this was, sorry. Oh no, twenty eighth, yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Think that said December 28, but it's January. Yeah. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Should we keep going? Sure. So next section eight, this is the request from ANR to demonstrate reference to, for tier one areas, the vitals have to cover rare species. Next, section time. This hasn't changed. This was adding clarification in 04/1960 regarding that permit conditions that are being transferred are being transferred so that they can be enforced as part of the municipal permit. That's on page 10. And on page 11, it's all been changed by striking the requirement that the town enforce existing Act two fifty permits if the permit issued time not been transcribed. And then at the bottom, page 11, section 10 is new, or it is a full rewrite of what was previously the appeal to the municipal appeals report. I'm sort of struggling with what to call this report, but maybe discretionary review of housing. So on report 01/15/2027, the Department of Housing and Community Development, after consultation with the Vermont Cities and Towns, onto PH-twelve, Let's Build Homes, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and the Vermont Planner's Association shall report to the General Assembly on recommendations for Caledonia to reduce the negative impacts of discretionary review of residential development. The department shall consider the following: whether the state should establish a Vermont Final Code to assist municipalities seeking to replace discretionary review with clear and objective standards the potential value of the federal right to build zone legislation, and steps the state can take to maximize that value, and incentives and planning assistance to the state can offer municipalities seeking to limit discretionary reviews. The report shall also include a status update on the eight zero two HELPS pilot program and recommendations are approved by Efficiency of Appeals of Municipal Zoning Permits for Housing. And then the report is to Environment, Housing, and General, Setting Out of Development. We break that out to its own bullet.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, sure.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, it is different than what the original

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: book was above

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: too. So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, no, it is. It's a different thing. Yeah. I'm just gonna put out that report. Thank you.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Section 11. This starts the, so this starts the section on regional planning. Because I can't stop for just a second. I wasn't sure if I wrote something down, but then I didn't see you write it down. So I wasn't sure if we decided, are we going to break this one out or not as a max? Sure. Let's do it. Make it too consistent. I don't care. I was wanting to. Okay. If you can pronounce it, okay. All right. Okay, Okay. Just wanna make sure we were honest. Thank you. Since you're still here, can I ask, is eight Homes a pilot, or is it a pilot?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Eight zero two Homes

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: a program within which we're running a pilot. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is it. Referenced properly. A status of the pilot. Yes. Thank you.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Where I'm gonna say 40 three-forty eight is the adoption and event of classes for racial plans. And so, did hear earlier from Mr. Baker on how a couple of small things have been squeezed out of here so that there is a set of adoption processes and then amendment processes. Right. Or an adoption process and an amendment process. So on page 13, it's now just trying to be clear, the whole of the first meeting on regional plan adoption, and then later is what the process is for amendment. So in these other sections, reference to a Reproclaim amendment have been struck. So do you want me to walk through this or if that makes sense? I'm feeling good about it. Think it was also helpful to hear earlier about that. I'm feeling good about that. So that continues page 13 into page 14 and into page 15. Small things, so there is in subsection J already this minor amended process for the regional plans. I just added on line 13 to land use review board because this paragraph refers to both the land use review board and the community investment board. I'm just trying to be clear on that. And then subsection N, which you have talked about previously, is the process for regulatory amendments, non minor amendment, non minor feature linked AFP amendments, and tier one B area status requests. Do you want me to read through this one? You're at the top, page 16 now? Yeah. I actually wasn't sure if Charlie did want. We did not really walk. Yeah, was gonna say we should walk. Okay, yes. So Yeah. The bottom of page 15 into page 16. So regional plans may be reviewed from time to time and may be amended in light of new developments and changed conditions affecting the region. Non minor future land use map amendments shall be processed as part of a regional plan, on to page 16, regional plan amendment. Tier 1B area status requests may be made separate from the regional plan approval or amendment process. To amend a regional plan, which may include a non minor future land use map amendment, On the prior page, it defines that minor amendments are 10 acres, affects 10 acres or fewer. So with these non minors, a regional planning commission shall host one public hearing at least fifteen days of advance of the hearing. The regional planning commission shall provide notice of the public hearing to parties listed in Subdivision D and the land use review board. The public hearing notice shall include a description of the changes to the plan, including non minor amendments to major land use maps and any changes to tier one fee status. After adoption of the regional plan amendment, the Regional Planning Commission shall submit a request to Landis Review Board for an affirmative determination of Regional Plan compliance with the Regional Plan Amendment. Can I ask you a question? Yes, Susan. You may have already said this. There is a definition of minor, but is there a definition of non minor or is just by definition anything that's not minor, it's not minor? I see the nodding heavily. That is the proposal there. Okay. The things that there is an existing process for minor. This is creating process for non minor. Okay. But is there a world where, not saying anyone would try this, but is there a world where they would just completely do the entire plan over and call it a non minor amendment? Maybe. The minor amendment process is very limited and has almost been public, but

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: non minor amendment process is this. Right, I understand that. And I'm fine with the minor thing. I'm fine with creating a non minor thing, but my understanding is that this is much, much less rigorous than the regular review process. So I'm wondering if there are any, do we want to put any guidelines on what a non minor is versus just going to be everything? The only thing I would add is that I didn't get to the bottom of here, which says that in addition to, regardless, the plan will still expire on the same date, at which point they will have to go through the whole adoption process again. Yeah, I mean, I'm not suggesting anyone's going to try to change the process, but without having any kind of guidelines on what not minor instead. So, I think they're back on page 15, line 10, some amendments may include any change of usually consisting of fewer than 10 acres. That's a minor. Right. Though a non minor is anything that's over 10 acres. Right, I guess what I was hearing in question was like, could somebody try to do a major, a non minor amendment through the minor process? No. My question is, if non minor is everything that's not minor, it's actually non minor and major, and could they essentially redo the entire plan and call it a non minor med med and have a much much shorter process to give it.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: But it's just triggered. And this is something we've talked about with the LRRR and unfortunately I think we struggled to find like where is

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: that Because there's a

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: risk for the RPC to propose too much change and the LERB would say no, go through the whole process, the other agencies need to review this, this is too big, but we don't know exactly where that is, so that's why we were kind of leaving it a little bit open to what happens in the process, providing flexibility, but we know that if we try to do too much, LERB's just going to send us back to do the big process, the full process, because you're asking for two months right now or they're going to say yeah this is a change but we got it, it's concise, let's go. So unfortunately we couldn't come up with guardrails for that. Okay, so I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: mean that's fair, it still has to cut,

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: we're approved for part of thing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Could just say no this is actually nature. Yep. I guess now I'm wondering about the phrase non minor and that that might itself be confusing and like, we just need a different word, because if it's not minor, it's major. Yeah, so does that Or maybe it's, we say medium amendment. So it's not minor, it's not major, it's not even, and major applies you're going to redo the whole planning, you have to go through the whole process. I mean, this is one that I wouldn't mind leaving it as it is and then flying it for the house and be like, find a different word. That's clearer based on this process. Yeah, I mean, I guess I would be okay with that. I mean, fact that the work has to group it makes me feel a little better that it's not just an automatic thing. Right. That they would be sort of gatekeepers for that this the right process. Yeah. Presumably they would, you know, call Charlie now. Okay. Thank you. Should we keep going? I think we're still on page 16. So we have online 16, standalone request for tier was the area status shall be submitted to the of re board after the public hearing required under subsection A. Land land Use Review Board shall hold a public hearing within thirty days after receiving the request for affirmative affirmation on page 17 of a regional plan, amendment compliance or appeal of tier 1B area status. Land use report shall issue its determination thirty days after the hearing. Adoption of the regional plan amendment by either future land use map amendment or tier one community area status request or amendment shall not change the expiration date of the facial exam.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Which is another safeguard. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then, at least, they don't want to put themselves through doing it, and then doing it non matter, like, the next day. Yeah. Right, right. Yep. Okay. All right, so the next change, section 12 is amending 4348A, the elements of the regional plan. And so subsection 12 establishes the future land use element and all the categories within it. Down on line 19, it has to be consistent with the SMART Growth Principles. They are in this draft in 5801. I do think it could make sense to move them to forty three thousand three. Sure. So we can move them to the other planning chapter committee to that for the annual planning and zoning chapter instead of the community investment for a chapter. I know that it matters terribly, particularly because the Community Investment Board chapter references this, we've added all those references in the definitions places, having another reference to this chapter with the Smart Growth Principles, think it makes sense that that's the things that are living here and the Community Investment Board chapter references. It doesn't really matter. I think again, it's a thing, it's in here. You could ask the house to have that conversation and maybe even discuss that because we don't have to do it. I don't want to give you too much to do We're at

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: it now.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, have a thought. Do you have

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: any Does Commissioner De Leon? Yeah. Alice Carroll, chair of the Community Investment Board. Know the idea of all of that

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: seeing move up to the plan rather than investing. So not in the community investment board section, for me, this does have more to do with planning and matching. It actually feels better to me to not be in the CNV section, but to be up in.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So the thought I was just having is I think the reason I did it is because the definition is not used anywhere in chapter 117.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Well, except we just added it into the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, yes.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Land use area definition.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, okay. Yes, okay, then yes. Okay. Okay. I move

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: it. Okay. So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: page 18. So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: you

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: were having this discussion, I think, when I came in. So BJP'd, the categories to start, so downtown or village centers. So, down on line six. The downtown or village centers are the traditional or historic central business and civic centers within the planned turf areas, village centers, based on the globe. Are you keeping this? Yes. Yes. Okay. People love it. Great. Yeah. And then, municipalities may have more than one center, including planned new or emerging centers that anchor planned growth areas or village areas. It is the intent that every town in Vermont may have at least one village center in which additional housing units are supported. So those haven't changed from prior grant. Then there's the category of planned growth areas. This hasn't changed since yesterday either. It's striking the references to new town centers, town towns, and village centers.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I hate to pursue this, I I sort of I on a page 18, this I'm I'm thinking about towns that just have absolutely no sound. Mhmm. Mhmm. Sandgate has no sound. There are other places like that. Mean, what is this actually they're not going to. Mhmm. It's not gonna happen. Mhmm. So what are we really saying? It used to say the word I think it actually said that almost every town, if they were one point

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: There is or the most towns or something like that

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I I think you should maybe you should just say it's the most towns They all may have by the way. So it's just amazing. They may have. That's true.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Useless life. It's useless.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So that would be too. Why don't we just get rid of it? They could build the walls in that way then it would be the sign, so that would change.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, mean, I think that's sort of the concept people were trying to get at. It's like, you know, we want every town to build some housing, But I hear you, so maybe doing the is the tenth ever, almost every. Yeah, would rather keep the language and add either the most or the almost every. Vermont. Okay, I think that's a fair catch. Are you leaving the May?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I would actually be comfortable with this lieutenant that most councils of Vermont have a decision, because that's actually saying that. They may have

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: a medal. Yeah, yeah. It makes

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: it a little stronger, than the bottom line. Yeah, I've got better too.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. Thank you for speeding up about that. All right, so it's planned growth areas. What is struck here is the references to new town centers downtown in villages. Those areas aren't going away. And it's also triggered the reference to the Smart Growth Principles because it's being added at the beginning. I don't know we've talked about this. I checked it yet. No, no, no, no. Didn't get there yet. How long was he 18? And this is we need to discuss this. So, okay. Go for it. The air so there's new language in Romanette three. So a planned growth area has the following criteria. The area is generally compact. It has multimodal connections with the municipalities or the adjacent municipalities downtown or village somewhere. And it's straightening to Utah Center And Road Center because those categories are going away. That's what I was gonna ask about, those categories going away. And I know we've talked about this a lot, but are they just going away in the commissioner's program? Are they going away in planning in Charlie's program or all those? But those are just concepts that are going away because They're

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: just labels. They're just labels. They're by the numerics.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, it's just swapping labels. I was saying you gave an example of the new North End would be a new town center if one thinks about it that way, but it's now labeled differently. That's right.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so I came in right at the beginning of your discussion earlier about multimodal, and so I did want to check if you landed or if we're having a conversation now. I think we should have a conversation here. Okay. And then skipping Roman at six for a second, there is also that language further down about, also establishes pedestrian access directly to the downtown Village Serenity Council. Although perhaps we should say I was gonna say, did we just say that going away? Yes. You tell me What line are you on there? On line 15. Oh, see. Because I unscrewed it from the prior to the attitudes, but the strikes I'm not doing it. Yep.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Oh, I see. Yep. It's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we should talk about Life 0.5. Yeah. Yes. And what we're trying to get at here is, I mean, the second half of the sentence is really about that it's adjacent to a downtown village center. This is a plant growth area. But there's more there. So either it's adjacent or you can get there easily. I feel like it's the gist. Mr. Baker, go ahead.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Are you referring to the or on lines five and six? Oh yeah, what is the meaning?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Multiple connections to that municipality or adjacent municipalities down south.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh I see, okay thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's not a word. So it's regardless it's adjacent

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: to something. To some sort of

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: To some kind. So compact. Thank you for that clarification. Senator Bongartz, do you feel comfortable with this? So compact and has multimodal connections in? Okay. You're comfortable with that, it's fine with me. And should we make it the same language down below so it's consistent?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Think we need to test your words. Established as the best because we have to walk, but it hasn't shifted out of the team and it's us.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, that's interesting. So I just want to point that out for a second just to make sure that I am understanding because if it's a planned growth, it's not an area that has a lot of perhaps development yet. And when we say establishes pedestrian access, the question I have is like, is the pedestrian access already there? Or is it as a part of the development, that new development would incorporate pedestrian access? So down on Line 12, the area is served by planned or existing transportation that conforms with complete streets and establishes pedestrian access directly to the Downtown Red Phillips Center. Okay, so it doesn't have to have it now. It's just gotta be a part of the plan. Okay. And when we say pedestrian access, does that include the multimodal? Like does pedestrian access mean a bus stop?

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Yes, Mr. Baker. Just want to let the community know, like we're dealing with a lot of small towns in Vermont where they don't, they may not have paved sidewalks, but the traffic volumes are low enough that people feel safe walking on the shoulders, and so I think the LRR has been kind of interpreting this a little broadly, and I'm glad that it doesn't say Cyclops because that would be very limited to a lot of rural communities. So this works, think whether that phrase stays in here or not, I don't think it has much bearing on the mapping.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. I just want to make sure I was clear on what pedestrian access entails. I think pedestrian is a better word than walking Because I think pedestrian can mean more, it can mean multimodal,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: you know, ways of getting matched. Whereas walking was literally much more ableist or whatever. Pedestrian was walking.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, I think a pedestrian is anybody who's not in a vehicle. So it could be, you know, I mean, that's a good point. I don't know. Just like, no, I don't know. But, but I think a wheelchair or

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: a scooter would easy.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But better off, that's your point.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I just was about

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a pedestrian now. Walking. Maybe as Well, area of Webster defines pedestrian as going or performed on foot, of or relating to or designated for walking. Okay, there you go.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So they'll never chase it. It doesn't mean you can't, it's a disaster. It has to be out of time again. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it's it's covering both faces. Okay. Okay. Thank you. But we are striking Newtown Center. Correct. Yes. Doesn't exist. Not a big No more though, yeah. Still on page 19 line eight. The area provides opportunity for development, infill development, and redevelopment that is needed to meet the regional and municipal housing targets that meet the present and future needs, the diversity of social and income group. Yes. Bottom page 19, village areas. So this hasn't changed. That includes traditional settlement area or proposed new settlement area typically composed of a cohesive mix of residential, civic, religious, commercial, or mixed use buildings. It's a great shot at Main Street. Yep, I think that's good. And are within walking distance. Okay. For the residents who live within and surrounding the downtown center and building center, on page 20. And have compact and multimodal connection too. Maybe just use that phrase from up there. Yeah, what do you think? That's fine with me. I'd like to use the same phrase instead of walking with some Can you make that work? Yes, I would like to follow-up. So military's are different though than planned for a period areas?

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Typically lower density, yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So they may not be compact?

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Yeah, that's a word that doesn't have a clear definition, It doesn't have a clear distance, so

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

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: been pretty good been as we've been working with our towns, know it's compact for that area, that location, you know it's not covering the whole town in other words, it's a village area, know, and it seems like it's working so far because towns have been doing a lot of plans in their own towns like they have those areas fairly well defined. Yeah, know, if you think about the town is thinking about that area, the region's thinking about their area, learn, etc, I think that's fine.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I'm sorry, you're saying it's fine, is it leave it as walking distance?

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: No, to make the change.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, okay. So leave it compact, it has a multimodal connection.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: And Walk was just to be clear, the LARB has been pretty, I can use the word liberal with the term walking distance, know. There are some places where you can say, oh, it's only a quarter mile. They've been more generous and been like, no, it's within the realm of reason to get something good left there. So they're not being too tight with that. If they did, it would have definitely some negative impacts on a lot of small towns. I just want

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to, like, so Senator Bongartz, you're saying that are within walking distance and multimodal. I wonder if that's more restrictive. I was going to say more.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, you know, it's still I guess the issue is that they're discreet.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was thinking as long as it's compact

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes. That's still

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Then compact in my mind is sort of synonymous with walking distance. Mhmm.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Just just less language.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You Just using the language from up on line four and five, the compact and has multi angle connection too. But is it in Andrews?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: That's me. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Compact. You know what? Didn't know.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Walking distance. I think on Ruth's getting out. Oh, you're taking out your Yeah. Oh, okay. That. Intersection streets that are compact and have multi multiples. Okay. Yes. Yep. Alright. On page 20, it's framing references here to existing village center designations. And then going on to say village area shall meet the following criteria. The municipality has either public water or wastewater. If no public water or wastewater is available, soils and methane acid soils adequate for wastewater disposal. The area has some opportunity for infill development or new development areas where the village can grow, support the development of housing between the regional and municipal housing targets, and be flood resilient. Bennington. All right. At the bottom of page 20 to the top of page 21, rural and conservation areas still has struck the alignment regarding mapping and tier three areas. 20 or page 21, this is the language that relates to the community investment language. So, with the exception of pre existing non conforming designations approved prior to the establishment of the state community investment program, the areas eligible for designation benefits under that program upon the Land Use Review Board's approval of the Regional Planning Commission land use map for designation as a downtown center or village center shall not include development that is disconnected from a downtown or village center that lacks an existing or planned pedestrian connection to the center via a complete street. As we briefly talked about yesterday, nearly identical language like this appears in the Community Investment Program, but that's being struck because it was considered redundant. It's here because while it relates to the Community Investment Program, it's about how the areas are mapped and then submitted for entry into that program. And so I just add, there's a couple words out of here to be

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: very clear about what is happening. Yeah, because we had

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: at one point, we were going to strike this whole paragraph, but it's because it was maybe redundant, but it's not redundant. Right, so I struck the other Yeah. I think you could make either choice. Okay. It is relevant to both situations when the mappings happen and then the designation happens, so that's why I originally included both chapters, but having it here, I think, is a signal to the RTCs. All right. I apologize. I think I need a little explanation as to what

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: was happening in this part.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, sure. So they're going through their mapping process and when the designations were created, they were created originally at various times. And there has been some, I think at times, some controversy over if some of the old designations were topper and or contained sprawl because they were disconnected from a downtown or a business center. And so, this is acknowledging that. Moving forward, as those areas are mapped in the future, they cannot be disconnected, they cannot be of a sprawl form. Have to do So there are some existing, pre existing, non conforming that are going to be sort of grandfathered in, but moving forward they should

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: be matched that way in the future. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. That is helpful. I think there's just a couple of niche situations that I have mentioned. I don't I don't think

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: it was widespread. Think there was something like one or two. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: All right, guys. Great. Thank you. Section 13 you heard about earlier, this is repealing Section 24 BSA 4,476, an old statute that doesn't actually work. And probably should have been repealed in that one. Yes. Great, thank you. And then section 14 is the essential law provision about plan extensions. Any regional or municipal plan due to expire shall have its plan extended until December 31 from United States. Can I just ask this so many questions? Charlie, if this goes through, you guys planning, do you have plans to tell everybody to, will you talk to us, tell all of them? I have accounts that have plans that are expiring. Like, there gonna be some effort to be like, these changes were made. Don't, you be the ice cream chill.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Yeah, or maybe you can breathe a little easier. Yeah, I have five towns that are rushing to make sure their plan doesn't expire in the next sixty days.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Exactly. So we

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: can get our plan approved. And so, yeah, I think there's a few regions that have those situations. So this will take a little bit of the heat off where we can maybe do a little bit more deliberate.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: But you and your

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: people will help Definitely. Will definitely be communicating this. Sorry, didn't mean to make a joke around.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, no, no, that's okay. All right, the next set of changes are about the community investment program that you've heard about a little bit already this morning. So section 15 is amending 5,801, the definition section. And so this is chapter 139 of title 24. It is the update to what was chapter 76A. I don't think we've talked a lot about it in here, so feel free to ask questions as we go. Page 22, the definition section, you already heard this morning a little bit about this. So, growth area, which is a category that the future land use map is also used in this chapter. So it means an area on the regional plan future land use maps meeting the requirements of 43, 48, and 12 feet, and that may be designated as a neighborhood. Sprawl repair means the redevelopment. It is the section I was just reading you about, categories. The categories for the land use maps, and it is in here, it's section 12.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: And we were just talking about it for periods. Yep.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We have an unscroll repair, redevelopment of buildings, traffic and circulation, parking, or other land coverage in a pattern that is consistent with the smart growth principles, and I will update to give a cross reference. We are moving into chapter 117. Designated downtown center or village center or designated center means a downtown or village center approved as part of the LERD reviews of regional planning and land use maps. So I am not sure why we would not just also reference Because. Because, okay. This is the designation that is associated with the benefits of this chapter. It is not the land use category. Okay. Okay. Yes. And you're good with that. You're good with that. Okay, thank you. Downtown and village areas will become designated downtown and village centers, but yes. That is why it's defined here. And same in the top of page 23. So designated neighborhood or neighborhood, these are the two categories that are being created as part of this program. Others are And the ones names are very similar, which is a little different. Okay, so that's also why top 23, we're not making a reference because this is the designated area. Yes. Okay. Okay. Yes. And so designated neighborhood or neighborhood means a village area or planned growth area. So one of the categories on the maps, or the two categories on maps, uprooms is part of the LRRR review of the Regional Planning Future Land Use maps that is contiguous to a center. Village area is one of the categories, means an area on the Regional Planning Land Use map meeting the requirements of forty three-forty eight day 12C, and that may be designated as a paper clip. And then, so on page 23, line nine, these are the SMART Growth Principles. You are going to move them to chapter 117, so they're going to move out of this. Great, do you like me to read that? I don't think so because it's reestablishing something that we already have. But I did bring up in the proposed rewrite

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: of this, there

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: was a new one, which let me just grab. I mean, this could be a thing that we say, hey, House, how about you? Consider this addition. I think it's in both Baptist recommendations and comments on Baptist recommendations. They have one that would go after I, I'm sorry, after H. They have a new I, would be, provides opportunities to develop in areas less at risk for flooding. Charlie, did you want to comment on that?

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: What you said. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Again, this is one that we could flag for the house. Actually, I want to look at the NRC over here. Do you have thoughts, Katie or Lauren? That has, frankly, bias. Think in general, Katie Gallagher would probably be something We

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: are supportive of the intent.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I feel like it might be helpful to have a bigger conversation about what the SMART Growth Principles are, if you could still have an impact on Well, and that is a reason to not include it at this moment because what the SMART Growth Principles are is it's kind of its own discussion. Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Senator Bongartz? I think it

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: would be whatever it does make sense. Yeah. But why don't we, so that we can pick up the phone.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So maybe it's just like, is that house conversation? I'm not opposed to it. It's just kind of a big deal to change those.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: When you say flag for the house, what's What's that apostates?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: When assuming that we may cross over, if we prep we pass it, it goes over to the house, but, you know, just asking the chair when they take it up in the house to like flag for them that they should consider.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Chairs and differences. Yeah,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: we're a

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: little committee to committee, I suppose, to say like this is something that we think is worth looking at, but could be a part of a larger conversation that we don't really have time for right now. If we're going to open up what's in the Smart Growth instance, it could be other things and don't need to,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: we don't have time for that bigger conversation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And it is likely that one or of you, probably the chair, will testify in the house of what you all did and worked on. Yes. So you'll be 11,000 more than that. Well, we're so grateful. So, but yeah, I'd likely be the butt over there telling them about our conversation, so. All right. Okay. Section 16, bottom of page 24 and to page 25. So this is about the designation of downtown centers and village centers. It's got some cleanup language in it. The Regional Planning Commission may apply with the LERD for approval and designation of all downtown and village centers by submitting regional planning feature land use maps adopted by the regional planning commission. It's striking identifying the areas as negligible. The board, sorry, the department and state board will provide comments to the LERB and the regional planning commission on areas eligible for standard designation as provided in 4348 of this title. And then subsection C on page 25 is the language we were talking about a minute ago about those preexisting non conforming designated areas, saying that moving forward, there shall not be areas that are disconnected from the center and lack pedestrian connections. I could go either way. Just want

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: to eat, but go with writing this.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: All right. So then as part of the designation program, there are steps. So let's take the downtown centers and village centers, there are steps, steps one, two, and three, and depending on the amount of criteria you meet, you get that step and there are associated benefits with it. So on page 26, just a couple small changes and then one change I want to flag. So step one is establish to create an accessible designation for all village centers throughout the state instead of villages. And then, so down on page 26, line 17, it's adding us the benefits for step one. So step one gets funding and technical assistance, funding priority for development of the plans, and it's adding of the benefit authority for municipal legislative body to establish speed limits of less than 25 miles per hour within the center. This is being moved because it's currently a benefit of step two, so you will see that on the next page. I want to flag for you that this is a hot topic and I don't think you have talked about it at all. The transportation committee is talking about this actively and how and which towns get to set speed limits below 25 miles an hour. I have flagged it for them. So the Senate Transportation Committee may have an interest with us. I would, in that case, I don't want to just get. Let's somebody else can talk about this. The house can talk about this. I don't want it as a hot tub.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay. This is

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It has to be an optical, that's Okay. So step two, small change here again, this establishes a mid level designation for a village or downtown centers throughout the state as opposed to just villages. And then on page 27, just a small little clarification here about it. We're in Title 24, so it's the exception of 4,350. And then, so on page 27, we're in the, at the bottom of page 27, the benefits for step two designation. Was, line 16, was striking the inquiry about speed limits, because it was moving into step one, but it was also adding this language about housing appeal limitation in chapter 117. This is currently on the next page, how they benefit of step three. So this section was sort of reorganizing which benefit was for which step. If you, I can give this its own subdivision here, since I'm gonna obstruct the speed limit on if that's your decision.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Are these? Is this healing program? Okay. Are these your suggestions?

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: The back.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You're okay with them? Yeah. Okay. I think I need a little bit more on this because this is stuff that we really have not talked about. Yeah, because we just, it's at

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the end and we never get to it. And we're okay waiting.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so. I mean-

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: I mean, be okay to send this aside for-

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Training therapy. Okay. In general, it seems good, but at the same time, we haven't talked about it enough for me. Agree at all. Yes. Like yesterday or whatever day that was, I overdrafted so that you had things to discuss even though you had to discuss it on the other today's the last day. So it is very easy for me to just pull this out if you don't want it. I think that would be wise at this point. I was having this conversation, Mr. Baker, the other day about how especially this stuff gets, it's often the last thing and so it doesn't, it's been multiple times that we haven't gotten to it. So, you know, it's not that I'm opposed, but maybe no time. Does seem like something the house could think into. Yes. I'm making notes for the house. Do Yeah. You want me to take the whole section out? I think my comments would probably be yes,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: since we haven't talked about it, I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: don't think, unless there's just some technical things. Well, when you say the whole section, do you mean, what I am hearing is the steps? Because I'm actually fine because it's Yeah, so this is section 16 at the bottom here, 24 into 25 into twenty six and twenty seven. Okay, so the first two paragraphs there, have talked about. It's just starting on line 20, on the bottom of page 25 that says step one. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. We're talking about just leaving out, I think, from bottom of 25, line 20 through the end of the eighth. From the end of

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the second. Well, end of the fifth. Yeah. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That that'll be fine. I mean, if it made sense to leave in you know what? This is something that has to talk about. Let's do that. If they want to edit any of

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the rest it, that's okay. They're not a lot

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of time. They're not stuff. They need stuff stuff.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: That's inefficient. Right. We have a

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: lot of conversation about weight. Bad dreams. Sorry. Too soon. Too soon. Yeah. Okay. Section 17. Section 17. So another one of the designations in this chapter is a designated neighborhood. This is striking reference to one of the benefits under this section, which is eligibility to adapt nonabilities attached to the closing of

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: going to say, did we talk about this? I don't remember. No. So this seems also like something I would want more information. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Section 17, bottom of twenty eighth. The Democratic Military Standard Tax Credit Program. Are you KFY on this part? I mean, again, I'm sorry. Yeah, no, I totally agree. I would put in a small flag that I've had this conversation happen multiple times about fixing the designated area program, and it does need to be fixed at some point. So, so I do hope you convey to the health And and maybe just like your level of why does it need to be fixed? There are parts of the designation program, as we've started to talk about, the definitions don't fully line up, and it needs work. I mean, another option we could do, and it is crossover, so I'm not saying today, but is that we can take testimony in the second half, and if the house doesn't do it, Kim can add it when it comes back to us. Okay. Cause And, we'll have more time as well. I just don't want to pass something I don't want to entertain or something. It's taking forever to actually understand the rest of us. Fair enough. That sounds great. So we're going take it out, but hopefully it can impact your daughter. Yeah. Then page 29, section 18 is somewhat related to this. This is adding verification to the Downbound Village Center Cactus program that says that the guidelines shall clearly indicate that only applications located in step two and step three state designated centers or step one centers where a portion of the designated centers listed are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be considered. In this part we do want. Okay. Part we do want? Yes. Can you remind me why? Because currently the Wait, actually, Senator Bongartz, do you

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: guys The program is for us for our tax credits, it's the last night cleared for us for a

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And when you updated designated program and you rearrange the categories, some non historic places may have been eligible now. I think this is a clear I remember you talking about this. Because we changed it in the future land use map to include non historic. So this is preserving historic professions.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: You guys observing that? Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So new topic, appropriations, page 29, section 19, appropriations. These are brand new. In fiscal year twenty twenty seven, dollars 200,000 is appropriated for the general fund, the agency of commerce and community development to develop additional model plans as part of the eight zero two Homes program. And fiscal year twenty twenty seven, dollars 100,000 to the Land Use Review Board to conduct public outreach and education on tier three areas. And I would just want to just check-in with Ms. Rutland, BNRC, if you want to say anything about this or Katie Gallagher? Sure. Katie Gallagher from the Financial Resources Council. BNRC submitted testimony this morning last night in support of the appropriations in particular, the appropriation for additional public outreach and education. This was one of the requests from the rural caucus. They're concerned about making sure that the general public knows what's going on. So we felt like this was an important addition to the North American Board, and actually definitely that outreach. Yes, Ben. Can we just, this is, I know, small, but can we change outreach to engagement? I want to make sure that it's not just telling people about things, but it's actually engaging with them and talking to them about and mirroring their concerns, rather than just saying, this is how it's going to work. Sure. So, to conduct public engagement and education. Yeah, think that's a more two way Yeah. Like it? Super. Okay, so, at the bottom of page 29, the effective date is effective on passage. If anything else in this bill needs a different effective date, Someone's day got that. Well, there's a lot of effective dates sort They're kind of buried in. They're buried in. There are, but you're introducing new changes. Oh. I haven't thought deeply about it, to be honest. Made this 85. I'm gonna flag

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: it for the house. And then

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: finally, did just want to say, on page 30, the name of this bill is changing. It is changing to an accolade to act of the interior jurisdiction. It is slightly broader than that now. So if you want to change that, you can. Otherwise, it is nine forty six. You have me on your agenda at ten to 10:30 on S138, and thereafter I'm going to Senate and I've a consultant. The apps relating to regional planning and apps you put to your designation jurisdiction? So it seems like there's a lot of regional planning stuff here.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Mhmm. Mhmm. Sure.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Are you changing anything? Yes. Well, it's so for But that under Do I have to change it? No. Not until No, because it can't, the billing name can't change the policy, the bypass. Oh, yeah. Or should we do another bill? Well, because we have you at ten for the other bill, which is great, and then ten days. Separate questions. So we have a little more than ten minutes right now. How long do you think it will take you to draft those changes? I think it's going to be at least fifteen minutes. Okay. But there, I think fifteen minutes is a good estimate. Okay. Is everyone feeling comfortable with this? This is a good question. Where are you in the future? Yep.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'd like to I'd love to make the roll rule. You know that for three folks, I'm assuming you do that. I just love the land and find me out the big That's that I'd

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: love to wind up. Implementation is twenty thirty.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: If you make the roll over there, counts. Twenty thirty, I could go to work without twenty thirty. Can't can't go up to this book.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: For twenty third. For the

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: road road implementation. Where are we at? That's on page two of Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're at 2020 March 6. 2028. So Are you at 01/01/2030, which is where the other

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Just to wind it up and

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: be able to spray. You still rationale. I am just saying that the rationale was to give the board the time to do it, done that. We've extended by a year and a half. I can't see him.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, we did extend it into your 1B areas to 2,030 that have been mapped, that have been approved and mapped, but not opted in. Well, and that is after, love to have known so, that sooner. Also to be fair, it is after the next legislative session. There's another opportunity to continue to push If not, because we're at least after next session. What do you mean, Senator, what do you mean? Is that the only point? Are you comfortable enough with the abreast of it?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: There are parts of it that we gotta go back and do the call center, but until I see those things flushed out,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I can still have issues with that. Well, it's gonna come back to us. It's not like they're gonna get to decide and then it goes since we get an under bracket.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, mean, my role is that objection? I mean, maybe it can't get dealt within this committee, but

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: there's a process here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: There's a process. This is true.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, we're I'm getting comments pretty hard. We have a situation about the road that will answer. Right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, if you If we did extend it to 2,030 in this bill, would that be sufficient for you to not have an amendment on the floor on it?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I can go with that. I

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: think we should think of them.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mean, people move on.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: We've done a lot. Yeah. I think either over way over back. This is this is not just this is about there's no rack now for a cinema because the rationale that everything we've done has been a good time for the board to finance work well. Mhmm. I haven't done that. And now it's just way to the same way. It has no connection to anybody. And I think that's what's really ultimately about Trump's past the global. The global is on. Mhmm. And I don't see any rationale for sending the. But I think I think what we did yesterday, it moved within six months, was that was a big give from age. But I think it would make sense, those rationale. There's no rationale for this.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So my intention at this moment is to stick with where we're at, take a break, talk a little bit more and then see where we're at. So I love to, I know we still have you at ten, so let's reconvene. It's probably going take fifteen minutes. Let's check-in again at ten. What do you think? I don't know that your discussion on CPACS is going to be thirty minutes. Great. It's going to be short. Amazing. So how much time do you, what time would you- I would like fifteen minutes. Okay. So we came back at ten, twelve. How about 10:10? 12:10,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: That's right. Good luck. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, so Senate, Natural Resources and Energy coming back from a break. We're looking at draft 5.2. So much gratitude to our legislative council, and things are a little bit different, so I'll let you walk us through the changes. I'll check out the acts of legislative council. The changes in draft 5.2 are highlighted in yellow. The first change is on page two. The road rule jurisdictional date, 01/01/2028. Oh, that was 2030.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yep.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yep.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, I'm happy about that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Do

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you Let's keep going through this draft and we might look at one. Yeah. I mean, we can also You can. That's all it is. We can

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: ask if you want.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Okay. Is until 01/01/2030, we're able construct an area mapped and approved by the board as eligible to receive tier 1B area status that have not requested. Is probably irrelevant. Yeah, exactly. We've extended the whole thing. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Didn't get the memo. So it was a, you know, all like that. Next, page three. Again, an advantage to priority housing project within an area match and approved by the board as eligible for tier 1B areas. That's still on that, yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Page

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: seven. This is the tier three rulemaking, section five. It still says here, Determining which and under what circumstances or criteria should be part of the tier three area review. Beware of your specific I'm on page seven. Page seven, okay. Line 16. Yep. The new language is on the next page. Okay. Section six has been replaced. In the prior version, there was a report back from the board. Section six is now a statutory amendment to the Land Use Review Board's rulemaking authority. It's adding

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: a new

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: subsection consistent with the intent of subdivision 6,000 and one(three)A(twelve), which is the road rule, and the tier three rulemaking requirements. The board shall have authority to adopt rules establishing a process, the limited criteria that would apply to road development pursuant to that subdivision, and development within two or three areas. The rules shall define which criteria will be reviewed and under what circumstances.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: You guys get to that? Scott?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep. Okay, that works. On page nine, the effective dates.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So I think, which

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: is the one that's the road rule? It is Subdivision 12, which is line 5.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So that one also needs to come to 2030. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it's section 19.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Do we want to throw does that one actually need to

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: change this?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Because.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is this just the effective date of the rule? No, that is for the effective Jurisdictional trigger. The jurisdictional trigger, and the first one that we also just changed to 2030 is part of that. Yeah, so I think they both do. They can make the rule beforehand. It just won't go to effect. Before that, though, you changed that the criteria 8c is taking effect still on 01/01/2028, but section twenty twenty one is taking that's tier three. That takes effect on 06/30/2020 And so new language often. Online three of page eight. Page nine? Page nine.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So wait. Because we have to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: go learn how those sticks are. Yep. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Page 17. This is changing crop preference for the Smart Growth Principles to 43.03. That is added further down and still. Page 18. Line 11. It is the intent that most found in Vermont have at least $1,000,000 One Page 19. Under plan Planned growth areas, establish pedestrian access directly to the downhub where Village Center, Newtown Center has been struck. Mhmm. And then it's very annoying that this is into 19 into page 20, but there's new language at the bottom in village areas. They are arranged along a main street and intersecting streets that are compact and have multimodal connections for residents who live within and surrounding the downtown and village centers. Page 21, Section 13 is due. This is adding the Smart Growth Principles, 24 BSA 43.3, the definition of the Planning and Sub chapter. They have not changed. It does not have the new proposal. Page 24. Good cross reference. This is Mark for the principal to send corrected there as well. Hang on. Let me just check something real quick before we move on. Page 25 and page 26, I didn't highlight, but I deleted most of section 17 and what was section 18. I'm going to flag and you can follow-up later. Then I can offer a settlement in 03/28 has 24 BSA 5,803 in their bill. However, you took out the part that would have conflicted with their version. So right now there is no conflict and we can shore that up in the house. I'm sure the department is also watching him. Okay. Section eight, nothing has changed with section 15, and then the small changes in the appropriations on page 26, the typos, develop and public engagement, and on page 27, the title has changed to relating to regional planning and act 52 jurisdiction. I just want to check-in. Senator Beck, how are you feeling with this?

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I'm good. Just with the better on page 18 and the two changes on page point very and striking rolling the mill side.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And send it out. The

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: only thing I wanna make sure, I didn't see it.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: 20. I got you. So, I think we're good with those changes and, I think you've got that. So having you set that draft to No, I've not done anything preemptive yet. Okay. Those are the only changes. The only changes. Okay. Thank you. It's draft 6.1. There were two 2030s deleting that one paragraph. I think you found two type. I believe. Yeah. Yep. Are all highlighted and what will be posted in a moment, but I Yeah. We don't need to print this one. I think we can look at it digitally. Oh, okay. If in once you have it posted, we'll just look at it digitally. Fine.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Don't go to your page yet. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So Jude let us know when I haven't even sent it yet. Okay. Just calm down. Okay. Southern Economic Development is requesting my presence. What is your plan? How long do they need to be in that? I do not know. I believe they're only, they are working on one of my, they have finished the others except the one of my sections. I'm wondering if you, because I think we're pretty close to having, like looking at another draft. Actually, I don't know who we need Ellen, for looking at the new draft, because I think we're probably fine. Then we could vote that out, and we won't have you for one hundred thirty eight for at least a while. Maybe we could take a one hundred thirty eight after the floor, potentially. No, what's your schedule like after? I have other things to go to. Do you know when the floor We don't know when we have no idea. So I'm available, I think, after 2PM today. Do you have to just do CPAs really good Yeah. Let's do CPAs real quick. Yep.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Because we'll, we won't need to,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: think it's in good shape. Yeah. So, Okay, whenever you're ready, go ahead. S138, commercial property assessment energy. Today's draft is draft 5.3. The changes are highlighted in yellow. The first change is on page one, which we actually didn't discuss, but

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I wanted to know if it would

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: help clarify things. In this subcontinent district needs a commercial property assessed the United District, which includes the entire municipality. Yeah, I think that's good. Yeah. On page two, subsection D was removed because it granted municipalities authority to charge fees for administering fees. That language is also included later. So I struck it from this section. Yep.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Page six into page seven, seed based program administrators. At the bottom of page six, a municipality, a public agency or a private entity may serve as a program administrator. However, a capital provider or lender shall not serve as a program administrator in a municipality where it is also lending. Yes. Okay. That's great. Thank you. Small changes here. Municipality that has adopted a CPA's district may enter into a contract with an entity. Those are the rare things. Line 11, an entity may, and this is about entering into program administration, and then the real new part is down at the bottom, page seven, through the Department of Financial Regulation. The Department of Financial Regulation shall consult with relevant stakeholders, including the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont Economic Development Authority, and agencies from other states with CHA's programs in order to identify appropriate entities to serve as program administrators. Yep, great. And that money? Yes, that's it. Okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: In person's most good?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: For the last bill?

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, six six point

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Yes. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: On 01/1938, ready to vote. Make a motion. I have meeting that we approve. 01/1938. 01/1938. Draft 5.3, that's 01/1938.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Don't we wait to this?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, until after, for

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: sure. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do you want to look at 61 at 325? Okay. 61. Alright. 61. The changes are highlighted in the calendar. 2030. H two. H nine.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I think we're ready to vote on that as well. It doesn't matter which order we do this, listen.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: You really have

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: to see Facebook.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Either one. Let's do Let's do this. 138 and alligator. Yes, think you're good. Okay. You are ready to go. Thank you. So grateful. Amazing work. The active disease 6.1. You said five point five point three for CPAs. Okay, so I move that we approve version 5.3 of SB 130. Okay, any further discussion? Right, go ahead, Clerk.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay, it's, let me just, it's the thirteenth.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, next.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: Senator Beck. Yes. Senator Bongartz. Yes. Senator Hardy.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Senator Williams. Here. Senator Watson. Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll You

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: interested? Okay. Super. Thank you. Okay, now do we have a motion regarding 3.5?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I move.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Approve graph 6.1 of S-three 25. Okay, any further questions? All right, go ahead, Clerk. Senator Beck, yes. Senator Bowers? Yes. Senator Hardy? Yes. Senator Williams? Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Okay, and unfortunately, oh, you. Oh, we need to figure who's recording this. I see this meeting. Unless you could, we could potentially chop it Big bill, you should do it, unless you want help, then you can chop it up. Well, you know what? I will do it if I feel like I need help, will reach out to her. Okay, thank you. And unfortunately, I think Thank you guys.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So Okay. We're gonna

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Get a break, Eric. We do.

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: So I'm gonna hit the head. Oh, okay. I'll be back.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So I sit next to him

[Charlie Baker (Regional Planning Commission representative)]: over there. You may. Looks like that seat's been abandoned. Hey. Give me have the big chair. You're big you're the bigger. Oh, yeah. You take the big chair. I'll take So nothing in the middle. Here. My little guys.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'm kidding. Is that There's so much we could do to make it better, but we never we just seen the more random things Yeah. Through. So once a. We don't have any decontamination. That's the Unless it's unless you're on long range. That's the. That's the. We're doing a. We're in marine hunting. Yeah. But what they would consider an adequate. Yeah. It's unfortunate. They're just not spread around enough. There are actually on a new post. I don't I don't know. So what's good no. It's gonna go into I don't have school. I don't I don't care. Yeah. I'm with the only one. Yeah. I got people with me. Oh, yeah. You gotta represent her. That's you know, the ones you're gonna be looking for a job. I don't I've been looking for a job my whole life. You know?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: You

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: know, I was looking at the one of the things that I feel about this year was. Yes. We had a genesis of some of these clothes about this is is about 02/2004 where there are a 195 countries. Vermont is 90 we're 9,500 square miles, 100,500 square miles. And there are 15 countries that are smaller than Vermont. So it says these countries, including America, because the law that was created, that all the countries involved with, controlling invasive species. I mean, it used to be down in the New England, some of this country and then these, we now deny and stuff all over here. And all the invasives are here. No. They're not. Well, they're they're coming. But what what happened was the 02/2017 after, twelve years of working on this, they came up with some solutions. There are these big ships where they go in. If they're gonna have to devallows 200 put this 200 miles offshore, they had to take their ballast and have to go down hundreds of clean and suck it up. Yes. It's supposed to clean water. And then you have a little law. You gotta do all the stuff and the money in the court. If you're gonna be pumping stuff off of a ship, you are salmon, bottle, open the register, and so So And all you gotta do is that warm. Right? It's the net, but they they do. It's just I mean, all the all bones, if you you're a bass fisherman, you know, the high jerky, and you use your live well. Yeah. Then you're you're taking water and contaminants from. Now you gotta go to a Derby boxing. Just at least have to have your heart at the right place. You gotta try and do the right one. I think some people just.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, this is Center of Natural Resources and Energy coming back from break and talking about S224, about wake foods increments and aquatic invasive species. So we did adapt, but we also received some further comments on the new draft from Secretary Moore with some further comments and concerns which are now posted in places that she still had concerns about conflict with the draft rule. So fair enough. So what we are going to do is we're actually just going to table two twenty four. We're going to bring a letter B. And so we're not going to take a vote on it today. Yeah. It's important that the rules go forward. So there we are. That's what we're

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: gonna do.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I want to thank everybody for your thoughts and participation in all of this. And I think that means that we are done for the day. Fifteen minutes. Oh my God. No, just to be clear, we're not going to come back up to the floor. We're not coming back in the afternoon. So Yes, sir.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So that means that they continue with their roommate and

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That is rather have a chance to go to the Okay. So with that, we are adjourned.