Most of the revisions are widely thought to make the process simpler while honoring the environmental law’s intent.
Some developers, however, oppose the new regulations for strip malls.
“We want to create a more streamlined process for development where we want it,” said Noelle McKay, Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Community Affairs. She said the bill will help prevent sprawl and preserve the agrarian settlement pattern in Vermont, which is characterized by compact settlements surrounded by working landscape.
Consultant Michael Zahner, who represents the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber supports many of the bill’s major elements. But the group will continue to try to shape H.823 in the Senate Natural Resources Committee, where the bill heads next.
At issue is a new definition of “strip development.” A proposed rule declares that new developments cannot “establish, extend, or contribute to a pattern of strip development along public highways.”
Under the House bill, a project including renovations or new building near an existing strip mall must “avoid or minimize” strip development features, such as wide parking lots facing the road, mostly single-story buildings, limited pedestrian access or lack of coordination with the surrounding aesthetic.
Zahner, a retired executive director for the state’s Natural Resources Board, which administers Act 250, and a former district commissioner, said he agrees that “encouraging infill is an excellent planning concept.” But the regulation as written puts Act 250 at odds with already established local planning.
Zahner says he can imagine the path for litigation already: Topography or height restrictions, for example, may limit what can be built in a particular place, but under local zoning rules it may be the only place to construct a particular building.
McKay doesn’t buy the argument that the regulations would hinder development. She says the bill, including the section on strip development, will encourage more construction.
“I think the concern is that these criteria can’t be too prescriptive, because different developments have different needs,” McKay said. On the other hand, she said, “I think if we don’t really start saying that we want this kind of efficient land use, then we won’t get it.”
So many state policies point toward “smart growth,” McKay said. But unless the regulations reflect those priorities, the goals won’t be reached.
H.823 also changes mitigation requirements for the impact of a development on agricultural land.
And instead of going through the full Act 250 permitting process, development in designated downtowns would only be subject to a “finding of fact” by the Natural Resources Review board. The Act 250 fee will still be charged, but McKay expects the process to be much quicker.
Editor’s note: This story was updated on March 16.
