[C]limate change is front and center in the changes proposed by the six legislators tasked with figuring out how to update Vermont’s main land use law for its 50th anniversary.
The Commission on Act 250 has proposed an overhaul that includes promoting development in downtown areas, protecting forest blocks and further restricting ridgeline development.
Act 250 was passed in 1970 in reaction to the sudden population growth of the preceding decade, spurred on by the opening of Interstates 89 and 91 in Vermont. The aim of the comprehensive land use law is to promote economic development in a way that protects the state’s rural character and natural resources.
In 2017, the Legislature passed a law creating a six-member commission to assess the effectiveness of Act 250 and propose 21st century updates. Commissioners held meetings around the state last year to hear Vermonters’ priorities. The legislators met Friday to hammer out final changes to a report and proposed legislation.
The commissioners say in the report that the state has “prospered” in the decades since Act 250 passed. Vermont’s per capita income has nearly tripled since 1970, moving the state from 33rd to 19th nationally. The state’s population and workforce have grown by almost 50 percent, according to the report. Meanwhile, land development has soared from 2.5 to six times the rate of population growth in that timeframe while the number of polluted waterways has gone from 162 in 2002 to 224 in 2018.
“One of the conclusions that I’ve reached is that in some ways we have not been overly successful at protecting vital natural resources,” said Sen. Chris Pearson, P/D-Chittenden, vice chair of the commission, in an interview Thursday.
Commissioners also note in their report that the state’s climate has changed since 1970, with warmer winters and worsening floods. Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Bethel, said climate change was one of the “major issues” the commission wants to see Act 250 addressed.
“When you look back 50 years ago, that was not considered an environmental concern,” McCormack, who serves on the commission, said in an interview Thursday.
There are 10 criteria that the environmental review boards around the state use to review projects that fall under the Act 250 purview. The legislative commission is recommending that the air pollution criteria be updated to avoid or minimize greenhouse gas emissions and, if reduction is not possible, to mitigate emissions by the use of carbon offsets. Also, in light of the destruction from Hurricane Irene, the commission recommends broadening the “floodways” criteria to apply to flood hazard areas and river corridors.
The commission is also proposing to have the trigger for Act 250 more focused on the location rather than the size of a proposed development, according to Pearson.
“Our goal as a state has been very clear to develop downtowns and historic village centers,” he said. “So, let’s really do that.”
Under the proposed legislation, municipalities can apply to create designated growth areas where new projects would not have to go through Act 250, which Pearson described as a gift to the development community. But development of any kind in sensitive ecological areas like river corridors or land above 2,000 feet would trigger Act 250 review.
The commission has also proposed ways to “streamline” the process for developers, said Pearson.
“Right now, you can put in an application for an (Agency of Natural Resources) permit long before you even apply to Act 250, and maybe it takes you a month, maybe it takes you a year,” he said. “That kind of uncertainty is totally unfair.”
Other proposed changes include:
Amending the ecosystem protection criteria to require development to better keep blocks of forest intact.
• Repealing the exemption for development related to forestry, logging and farming for elevations under 2,500 feet in sensitive ecological areas
• Revising the appeals process so that both Act 250 and Agency of Natural Resources permit appeals go through an environmental review board instead of through court.
• Phasing in repeal of the Act 250 exemption for slate quarries.
The commission has been working “closely” with the Scott administration in developing the recommendations, Pearson said.
“It’s been give and take on both sides and I expect that will continue in the years ahead as we continue to try to make progress on this,” he added.
Not everyone is thrilled about the proposed changes. Don Turner, former House minority leader, a real estate broker and outspoken critic of Act 250, said that while he was “glad” to see exemptions being considered for downtown development, he was concerned about that other changes would make the permitting process more expensive and time-consuming for developers.
“By doing what they’re proposing in this, (they’re) going to make it even more restrictive,” said Turner. “A lot of the for-profit developers and the small developers in these rural areas, who maybe do 15 to 20 houses in several years, they’re not going to be able to stay in the market.”
Along with Pearson and McCormack, Reps. Amy Sheldon, David Deen and Paul Lefebvre and Sen. Brian Campion served on the commission.
