This commentary is by Diane Snelling of Hinesburg, who served in the Vermont Senate from 2002 to 2016 and chaired the Natural Resources Board, which is responsible for the administration and oversight of Act 250, before she retired in July.
I retired in July after serving as chair of the Natural Resources Board for five years, and wanted to share some thoughts prior to the next legislative session.
From the beginning, I was aware that many people felt Act 250 “takes too long” and “costs too much,” and I hoped to find the facts. I knew the law from my work in the Vermont Senate, but I did not fully understand the structure of the day-to-day work.
The NRB/Act 250 annual report now includes data from five years that demonstrates over 70% of all applications are issued in 60 days or less.
How long should it take to review environmental impacts?
The NRB/Act 250 has made major improvements as a result of aggressive data collection, new practices and initiatives, but it still has a long way to go. In legislative sessions 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, there was extensive testimony, debate, and discussion, about how to modify Act 250. However, the Legislature and the governor failed to agree, to the point of veto.
Why has it been so difficult to address Act 250 jurisdiction and oversight?
Maybe it’s bigger than just Act 250. Fifty years ago, people relied on the premise of good government, and the possibility of a regulatory system that was easy to understand. The purpose was to measure the impacts to the environment and encourage development in a way that didn’t degrade natural resources.
Vermonters still want a healthy environment, but they also expect and deserve a reasonable regulatory process that achieves the agreed outcomes.
The NRB/Act 250 is a small cog in the vast machinery of state government. Consider this: An application must have everything in place, including any other permits, before the Act 250 permit can be issued. That means most large Act 250 projects are also connected to the requirements of multiple state agencies and departments. The agencies are responsible for those decisions and time frames.
It seems the state of Vermont doesn’t track development and construction dollars, or maintain a database. This lack of information strongly reduces the possibility for progress. Untrue anecdotes become perception, and without data, strategy is just guesswork.
Regardless of what changes are made to Act 250, the state needs to collect the data that makes planning less emotional and subjective and more productive. Apparently, a small percentage of all development
projects have Act 250 jurisdiction. If that’s true, significant development is happening, but the amount of review is unclear.
Since 2005, the Natural Resources Board has been reduced to a bare minimum. The current structure of a chair of the board as the one full-time member, with four volunteers, doesn’t provide an appropriate policy center. The Natural Resources Board is independent, but it lacks a valued voice in the discussion of changes to Act250.
A full-time three-member Natural Resources Board should be established with people who are deeply engaged with the law, and have a background in planning and land use. These policymakers must also understand the organization’s capacity and the system of processing applications.
For too long, the proposals for change have lacked knowledge of the day-to-day system. The new members of the Natural Resources Board should have specific terms and serve with only just cause for dismissal.
The new board should immediately be tasked with proposing a plan that meets the specific outcomes we expect from Act 250 now. They could even review how Act 250 might work collaboratively with municipal planning and reduce conflicts.
