A proposal to make broad changes to Vermont’s keystone land use law is making strange bedfellows of the Scott administration and one of the state’s more prominent environmental groups.
Peter Walke, deputy secretary for the state Agency of Natural Resources, and Brian Shupe, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, testified on Tuesday to the House Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Committee — and agreed on a controversial plan to reform Act 250.
Walke and Shupe propose to do away with regional commissions that review major projects and exempt some downtown areas from the permitting process.
Building on the House committee’s work last session, the Scott administration held meetings around the state last summer and fall to “reach consenus” on how to modernize Act 250.
When asked Wednesday about the partnership, Shupe said that VNRC has been “critical of many policies of the Scott administration with regard to the environment.”
“But I think our perspective is that something as important as Act 250 … really requires folks to take a step back and take a non-partisan or bipartisan approach to what would work best for the state,” he said. “And I’ve got to commend the administration for coming to the table with an open mind and a willingness to compromise.”
Act 250 was passed in 1970 in response to the sudden population growth of the preceding decade, spurred 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 created a six-member commission to assess the effectiveness of Act 250 and propose 21st century updates, which they unveiled at the start of last session. The House Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Committee spent most of last session working on a behemoth Act 250 reform bill.
Currently, regional bodies known as “district commissions” review Act 250 permit applications. Each commission has a professional coordinator who reviews minor project applications. Only major projects go before the district commission for full review.
Under the Scott and VNRC proposal, district coordinators would still review minor Act 250 permits. But larger projects would be reviewed by a new statewide three-member professional board instead of the district commissions, said Walke.
“One of the things that we’ve heard … is that there’s a lack of consistent outcomes from the process” region by region, he said.
The board would also have regional citizen members who would participate in initial “fact finding” for major projects, but would not have a say in whether projects should receive Act 250 permits. Walke stressed that hearings would still happen locally to ensure public participation.
Shupe said the “hybrid” approach would maintain a “regional perspective” in project review.
The governor and VNRC are also proposing to exempt designated downtowns and neighborhood development areas from Act 250 permitting, an idea raised last session. Meanwhile, they propose bringing back the “road length trigger,” meaning that any project improving or constructing a road or driveway more than 2,000 feet long would trigger Act 250 review. Also, projects on ridgelines above 1,500 feet would need an Act 250 permit.
The aim is to spur growth in Vermont’s town and village centers while limiting forest fragmentation and protecting higher elevation natural areas.
“Fundamentally, one of the most important things we can do to fight climate change is to have compact community settlements,” said Walke.
There are 10 criteria that the district commissions around the state use to review projects that fall under the Act 250 purview. Similar to proposals last session, VNRC and Scott want to update the criteria to account for climate change by making sure development can withstand impacts like more flooding. There are also measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as building code updates and impacts of a development on walking, biking and public transit.
Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, who chairs the House natural resources committee, said she was “appreciative” of the proposal, which appeared on first blush to hit most, though not all, of the goals of her committee’s Act 250 reform bill. Next Tuesday, her committee will receive “more specific language” from Scott and VNRC so it can better assess how it aligns with their bill, she added.
“This conversation that was reported back to us yesterday leaves me hopeful that there’s room for agreement with the administration on this,” she said.
