Big box stores, parking lots and scattered rural development could become the target of the state’s land use and development law, under a proposal wending its way through the Legislature.
The Shumlin administration is backing a proposal that would amend the state’s Act 250 land use law to limit strip development as part of a plan to revitalize the state’s downtowns.
Developers, meanwhile, are putting pressure on lawmakers to eliminate the new provisions.
The Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee took up, H.823, last week. The legislation tweaks the Act 250 permitting process. The Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development has been working with lawmakers to modify Act 250 triggers in order to encourage downtown development.
Noelle Mackay, commissioner of the department told lawmakers that Act 250 has been “an incredible tool for this state, but it hasn’t really encouraged downtowns where we want them, and development where we want it.”
To encourage development in certain communities, the bill lifts Act 250 triggers to allow more housing development, expedite the permit process and expand a provision allowing developers to purchase off-site conservation easements for affected agricultural land.
The bill also aims to scale back strip development by amending Act 250 criteria to restrict sprawl and promote construction around existing development.
Some developers want the Senate to reconsider those provisions.
“There is a potential for certain industrial and commercial projects to be denied under the new Criterion 9(L), even though those projects may fully comply with duly adopted local and regional plans,” said Michael Zahner, who represents the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, a business trade association.
He said the restrictions should be in local bylaws — not incorporated in the state’s Act 250 permit process.
Other groups say the proposal weakens some protections.
Sandra Levine, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, said the environmental advocacy group fundamentally opposes expanding exemptions to the law, which is designed to protect natural resources.
“We’re concerned that the bill creates new and broader exemptions from Act 250 and it also reduces protections of agricultural resources,” she said.
Under Act 250, only developments in designated growth centers are eligible for one-to-one off-site mitigation payments (for other areas, the ratio is greater). The bill would expand the mitigation payments at the 1-1 ratio to designated downtowns, new town centers designated on or before Jan. 1, 2014, and neighborhood development areas within designated downtown.
“[The bill] moves away from the longstanding practice of using off-site mitigation as a last resort,” she said.
Brian Shupe, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, an environmental organization that has historically supported a stronger downtown policy, doesn’t want to make major adjustments to H.823 at this point. The bill strikes a good balance, he said, between development and environmental protection.
“Our support for the bill is based on the whole package,” Shupe said. If some components of the bill are stripped, he said, that would throw off the balance. “And I think at that point we would urge the committee to oppose the bill.”
Crafting the bill has been a “balancing act,” and Shupe does not want to “open it up” for changes, though he acknowledged it could go further to limit strip development and address climate change.
H.823 includes a provision to allow expedited review of projects in designated downtowns. In place of a district commission hearing process, the Natural Resources Board (NRB), which oversees each district commission, would review the project under limited criteria.
“We see both sides to that: one of the benefits of it being the NRB is that you do have statewide consistency, but Act 250, one of its strengths, is regionalism,” Shupe said.
The state’s environmental district commissions review Act 250 permit applications. When deciding whether to approve these applications, the commissions review several criteria.
The House last month passed the bill by a vote of 92-44.
