 Good morning. It's Thursday, June 11th. It's 10 o'clock, and this is a meeting of the Senate National Resources and Energy Committee We have been working this week and last A variety of act 250 provisions as they arise and I think it's we're up to five different bills We'll be knitting things together and to one amendment that will be brought forward to The housing bill as 237 so It's a little hard to track all the pieces Even if you're on the committee, but I just that's that's what we're doing. So we have today We're revisiting features related to act 250 planning and development as they are expressed in s237 and We're we've Wanted to hear from folks and go through those Questions again The other thing is let me check in with our counsel. Mr. Kowsky I don't Many days you've had some material that you wanted to share at the outset to tee things up We didn't discuss doing that for today, but you're so diligent. You might have something I'm not aware of is there anything you wanted to share with us before we Go to our our witnesses today No, okay, then we're good to go. So thanks again everyone for Joining us again, so 237 is Three-quarters of it relates to Municipal planning and zoning and Those are we work in both titles 10 and 24. So we're very interested in hearing from you all about the your assessment of how helpful or Maybe and occasionally unhelpful some of those provisions are We've as individual senators been receiving feedback. I think from our Some local folks so we're going to be visiting with a variety of people today And we're short on time so I'm going to stop with the preamble and jump right to Karen horn if I don't see her yet in the room Okay, so she may be in the process of connecting with us. Let's we'll change up the batting order a little bit and just move on then Okay, so we'll move on to Jen holler good morning miss holler So good morning. We'd love to we're gonna well we'll catch up with Karen horn when she gets here But meanwhile we'd love to hear from you on the bill. Thanks Okay, I'm just pulling up my notes you Surprised me with the change in the batting order here This is a light cooking some days. It's like we have six burners going and we're pulling So let's continue with Jen since she's teed up and ready to go and then we'll go back to Karen Okay, good morning. My name is Jen holler. I'm the policy director for the remote housing and conservation board and VH to be appeared before you earlier in the session during some of your act 250 discussions and I appreciate the opportunity to be here Today to speak in support of s237 and in general the deliberations that your committee has been Undertaking I As I haven't been able to listen to all the discussion, but it seems that you're really working to achieve some balance in the bill And maybe adding more balance to it. And I think that that makes an awful lot of sense. Of course the TV is sort of the state's Funding arm for Supporting the goals that are embedded in the regulatory structure of act 250 And of course we've long been about the business of balancing housing and conservation and questions around land use and where it makes sense to develop and where it's important to Protect and keep things Open so What I'd like to speak to specifically today are some provisions that are in s237 that we feel like do achieve some balance and they're very important to preserve and Specifically that relates to the exemption for from act 250 for certain designated areas and We and sort of the housing community generally feel like that makes sense That's where we want development to happen. It's where infrastructure is it's for services transportation and for many many other reasons that That makes sense. Um Unfortunately a blanket exemption for downtowns and neighborhood development areas would have the unintended consequence of losing an existing incentive in act 250 for developers to include affordable housing at least some number of units within their Buildings or their neighborhoods. And so they're there was Concern among on our part and others led by the Vermont affordable housing coalition around the loss of that incentive if the blanket exemption was adopted. So a concern was brought to The administration, we worked with Chris Cochran who you'll hear from later and others in consultation with the NRC and others who really know this area of law really well and eventually Were able to work through an agreement that We believe meets the objectives around the exemption for for these areas while still ensuring that there are meaningful mechanisms for communities to provide for and allow housing that's affordable to all People of all incomes We know now more than ever that that's incredibly important to provide for affordable housing in these areas and that Making sure people have housing option. There are housing options that people of all incomes and backgrounds and circumstances can afford is one of the most important ways to make sure our communities are inclusive and diverse. The designation programs that the state has are really powerful Are work really well as we look to communities across the country and how they similar types of programs have played out. Sometimes the caution we've heard is that they've worked so well that we didn't make That people of lower income. There's been investment and development brought to these areas. But it sometimes has the effect of pushing people out. It can it can lead to some gentrification and it can It can have the effect of pushing lower income households. Outside community centers and and and to the outskirts. So we don't want to undo something that we already have in the attempt to gain something more than we want. So essentially We feel like we've reached a good sort of solution with the administration and others around the exemption and that The offset to that is if you lose that incentive for developers, what you could do is make sure that through the designation process. Communities must include meaningful mechanisms for ensuring that they allow for and provide for a range of housing types and Levels of affordability in our communities. So the language before you an S 237 includes that As your committee likely knows better than just about anyone. This is a complicated area of law. And if you start to pull a thread in one place that can quickly unravel something important elsewhere. So it took a while to get all this worked out and it was Did not the agreement did not come in time for it to be included in each 926 because there are related provisions around zoning and the active at the exemption was in S 237. The compromise language was offered there and adopted by Senate economic development. So I just want to make sure that we all are referring to the same document and I'll ask Mr. Kowski to double check in the version that I'm referring to for the committee is sort of been using as its base document for S 237 was draft 9.1 voted out on March 11th and I think that's So I want to make sure that when you're saying the current version is Satisfies addresses those concerns you have that that I'm looking at a version that includes the language that you're sort of signing off on. And I don't know if there was ever a draft. Mr. Kowski after draft 9.1 So We can You know A draft 9.1 is what Senate economic development recommended The provisions related to affordable housing that Jen was just talking about are in it. Since then not to complicate things further Senate finance has added a small Too small technical amendments that don't have to do with this specific specific topic. Okay. Great. Maybe you could send them to us just so we're aware of them. Not that we're going to edit finances work, but just so we know what's getting assembled into the bill that will eventually hit the floor. Thank you. Right. Senator Campion. Thanks. So just I think a similar question along those lines. So Ms. Hallard what we have in front of us right now. You're not looking for any changes. Right. These are everything was done either in economic development or is being done As a floor amendment by economic development. We support the language that's a 9.1 in front of you and the amendments crafted by Senate finance. Don't Make any changes to those specifics. Okay, I know your time is short and So our committee. I mean, are there things that you're looking For from our committee. I'm sorry for or is that just the overview. Is that what you're providing us with just endorsing and done I'm endorsing it. I'm saying that it's a delicate balance. I hope it can be preserved. I know that you're going to hear later testimony where there may be some suggestions for changes in those areas. Pay to you that once again sort of once you pull a thread somewhere it's going to undo something else and I won't get into all the details right now because I know your time is short, but just urge you to preserve that that balance that we think is there. These perspective, I would go on to say we really are encouraged to hear your discussions of trying to make progress on the trails question. We see that those uncertainties interfering with some of the outdoor recreation projects that we'd like to be able to fund And that also around adding additional protections for important areas outside of downtowns and our developed areas makes an awful lot of sense from our perspective. Okay. Thank you very much. So our goal always is this sort of fair balanced approach and we know what is balanced to one person might seem like imbalanced to others. So we'll keep working and I'll ask everyone who's here to keep an eye on What conclusions we end up drawing and what kind of amendment we move forward to make sure that although there may be changes you still believe that we haven't made any Critical quote unquote errors that seem to unbalance something of importance to you. And with that, thank you very much for coming in. We're going to move along in a pretty good clip today. I'd like to turn next to Miss Horne Karen Horne. Good morning. Thanks for joining us. Good morning. Thank you for having me. I just sent Judith a few minutes ago a revised set of testimony that touches on a bunch of different elements in S 3237 draft 9.1 And I just pulled up draft 9.1 again. So the we have a number of concerns around S 237 the way that it came from the Senate Economic Development Committee. We're very interested in the the issues that have been raised in that bill and very supportive of them. Generally, some of our concerns are really around how the language manifests in in this draft. We would ask you to reconsider language in section one that requires a municipal map to include water supply and sewer disposal lines facilities and service areas. Or amend it to say that that information is required if available around the state we have a number of towns that don't have those kinds of maps and they would be incredibly expensive to put together some of the service lines in particular for wastewater as you know are Are more than 100 years old so mapping them all is is going to be difficult. We would ask you to delete the new language in section two, which is 24 vs a section 4412. And it has to do with mandates for mid for Inclusion Arizona for housing. We think that really what needs to happen is there needs to be encouragement on those kinds of issues. Municipal zoning is not the only problem that is an impediment to to municipal housing. And we would ask you to add language that calls on the agency of commerce and community development. To report on the progress of the zoning for great neighborhoods project that they've conducted with assistance from the CNU project for code reform. And I believe Chris Cochran can talk to you a little bit about what is entailed there but it was really a demonstration project to help towns, figure out what works best in their communities. We are concerned about section 10 in the bill. Have you sent the requested for any of the well just in general and I'll say this to everyone. So for any kind of language change that you would like us to consider. It would be great if you may have already done this I apologize if I just have not seen it yet. To submit any requested language changes and writing ASAP so that we can one get them up on our website and to that will know precisely what it is that is of concern and how it might be adjusted. So sorry for that interruption and center campaign. Thanks. The other thing I just want to mention that would be helpful is when speaking about changes if people could let us know whether or not they propose these changes in economic development and they were rejected. I think that would be very helpful. I think that would be very helpful if they were rejected or if these are requests that folks thought of after the bill went through, you know, time is tight. It'll help us with regards to whether or not we need to loop back to Senator Sorok. I mean, we will be looping back to Senator Sorok and but just to give us some context for whether or not some of these have been vetted and already rejected that would just be very helpful. And that is one of the on your website, and it does include some specific language amendments because Senator Bray had asked me for those, when, when he first invited me to testify. I would say that we did raise all of these issues in the Senate Economic Development Committee. We didn't provide specific language, for instance on section 10, but we did raise all of these issues and ask for the committee to take a more incentive based approach to process mandating additional provisions in Chapter 117, the planning laws and in Act 250. We do support strongly support the exemption from Act 250 for designated downtowns. We think that's appropriate. A lot of that, a lot of projects in designated downtowns are already exempt from Act 250, because of their size. And I would recommend that you might want to take a look at the provisions that you have to comply with in order to get a designated downtown designation. It's very comprehensive. A lot of work and money has gone into putting together applications and plans for designated downtowns. So with that, does that help Senator Campion? Yes. Oh, sorry. Very much so. Thank you. Okay. I think when I interrupted you three minutes ago where you were moving on to section 10. So I don't know if I don't want to miss something. Right. Okay. In section 10, we're very concerned about some of the provisions that the, that were put into that in particular, like having to set up a housing commission as one of the options. Really, a lot of municipalities are dealing with a lot of volunteers and a host of committees and issues. And we do think that that would be very difficult requirement to fulfill. So we do recommend that the language be amended to say a housing element in its plan in accordance with subdivision 4382. This is in the bill already. And that achieves the purposes of subdivision 4302 sub 11 of this title and includes clear implementation steps for achieving mixed income housing, including affordable housing timeline for implementation and potential funding sources. We do think that what is important here is that you include implementation steps. So, so there, that's our recommendation with respect to that section. So we have similar a similar recommendation for section 12, which relates to new neighborhood development areas. In section 15, which I'm not sure is a section that anyone else will touch on, but it put in place a mechanism for municipalities permitting wastewater treatment facility connections and water supply connections. And the municipalities do that today. The state also the agency of natural resources also issues those permits so if you're a developer you have to get a permit from both in our front and from the town. Those permits essentially say the same thing. So the section 15 was proposed to, to delete that the agency of natural resources permit. And we have language that's in my testimony that was agreed to between the agencies of natural resources commerce and community development and the league of cities and towns. Way back when before coven 19 BC 19. And for some reason, which I'm not really sure why that language was not incorporated in s237 and we would ask that you do that. And that's really That's that the sum of our suggestions for amendment to the bill. Thank you very much for taking the time. Great. Thanks for participating and getting those suggestions and writing to that will be helpful for us. And just by way of sharing information are our last witness of the days. Michael Grady who's done some work with an hour on the wastewater provisions since this bill left 237. So we should be looking at new language and so please keep your eye open for that and see if it addresses your concerns that you were just sharing with us. I'll do the same. We'll all, we'll all keep our eyes on all these pieces. Right. Any committee questions for Miss Horn. Okay, well, thank you for joining us. So now I'd like to turn to Miss buyer Kathy buyer. Good morning. Morning. How are you. I'm good. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. And so can you. Since we don't, this committee doesn't see you. Quite as regularly as some committees maybe if you can. Reintroduce yourself just briefly and say what particular perspective you're bringing to us today on whose behalf you're speaking. Sure. Happy to do that. Welcome to our committee. I'm located at housing Vermont. Housing Vermont is a nonprofit housing developer that works across the state. We developed over 5,000 units of affordable housing. And I was invited through our membership with the Vermont affordable housing coalition. So my comments are very much related to Jen Holler's comments around the That we have benefited greatly from the priority housing project exemption in Act 250. That has been a tool that has helped us be able to build in communities and in fact often built in partnership with private developers. Because of the attraction of the exemption from Act 250 when you meet that definition. We also support the concept of exempting all properties in designated downtowns and NDAs from Act 250 as Karen Horn indicated those designation processes involve a lot of planning. Those are exactly where we want to be building so we, I think the concept is a good one it just had the unintended consequence of getting rid of this concept of a priority housing project. So that's why we think it's important to have this affordable housing language inserted into the renewal or news new designation process. And I just want to take a minute and reflect with you about my experience as a housing developer, which I've been doing for years in Vermont. One thing I think people don't realize is, it is very difficult to find land with town water and sewer, and the adequate zoning that allows for the density of multifamily housing in our communities across the state. In the town of Brattleboro, I was looking for land that could handle 20 to 25 units and I looked for two years. It's, it's, it's very difficult to find. And in fact you are competing with developers who might want to do higher end housing. So the designated downtowns and NDAs are exactly where we want to build. And we also know and I think that's become even more apparent after a after going through this pandemic that a successful community is one that has a wide range of housing for all income levels. And we, we don't want to. We as a, as a, as an unintended consequence of exempting all properties in designated downtowns and NDAs from Act 250 we wouldn't want the unintended consequence of losing our leverage to also build affordable housing. So that's why we think it's important to keep this language in and I just want to make one comment about housing commissions. Karen Horn mentioned the housing commissions and I have a handful of communities that have housing commissions right now. And I can tell you it is extremely helpful when we go into a community and start the permitting process because those housing commissions show up at the Development Review Board and tell us why this housing is needed in that community and that never happens. It's, it's a really useful tool. It's only one of the listed tools in section 10 of the bill but I, I, I just wanted to make a pitch for communities to be encouraging communities to have housing commissions I think every community has a conservation commission commission, but we need to make a little more progress on housing commissions and communities. Great. Welcome, former colleague. Thank you. So the draft nine one then you're not asking for any changes you're just basically supporting what the language we have their current yes, yes. I have a question. There is a provision in the bill related to requiring the allowance of smaller lot sizes. And so I'm just in terms of, if I'm asking for a little education here, how often are you engaged in subdividing, creating new lots off of whatever might be sort of a quote unquote big yard or something like that to infill versus developing an entire lot that's much bigger than an acre of an acre. I don't know the role of sort of infill versus either redevelopment or finding when it's not developed at all. Okay, for multifamily development that's not as critical but what I would say is reflected back on my comment that it's so difficult to find land on town water and sewer. So, we have a lot of land that is sitting there on a large lot for a single family home and it to me it makes total sense to try to find more ways to get more housing on that land. Okay. That doesn't make sense. And I guess I have a quick question to not to go too far down this path, but to what degree do you feel like it should be a state mandate to set kind of a state mandate? That dog knows when to talk. No comments for seven hours, but once the committee goes. The question is sort of like a local control question to what degree would we set state minimum lot size, sorry. A new minimum for lot size at the state level versus just allowing a municipality to decide for itself. I honestly don't think I can comment on that. I haven't spent enough time on that portion of the bell. Okay, I trust your deliberations on that. Okay. Any committee questions for Ms. Byer? Okay. Thank you. So is there a McDonald's at former colleagues? So did you serve in the legislature? A long time ago. A long time ago. So thank you again for joining us. Then I'd like to move on to Alex Weingarten. Thank you and good morning. Good morning, Senator Bray. And it's Wine Hagen. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thanks for the correction. So I'll introduce myself and just dive in if that's okay. Yes, please. And I don't know if people know on whose behalf you're speaking today either. Thank you. So I'll clarify that. I do wear two hats. My name is Alex Wine Hagen. I'm the legislative liaison for the Vermont planners association. And we are a professional association of over 150 planners across the state of Vermont. We are a section of the Northern New England chapter of the American Planning Association. And our focus is on education and professional development, but we also have interest in legislative policy. And so we try to help committees like yours when we can and bring the expertise from our membership to your service. I also service the director of planning and zoning my day job for the town of Heinsberg and I've been there for 18 years. So I have some experience with municipal planning and development review. So we submitted 11 recommendations for improving S237. We're very much in support of the bill, especially the overall objectives, the housing objectives. So we want to, we want to be on record first saying we very much support the bill and appreciate the work on it. At the same time, we do feel like it could be improved. And that's the, that's why we provided those recommendations. You'll notice in the written testimony that some of those recommendations have to do actually with H926, the comprehensive act 250 reform bill. And that's because we understand that you're discussing pulling portions of H926 into S237 to create a more balanced bill which we do support. I do want to just preface my specific comments on S237 by saying that as an organization, we worked really hard with the commission on act 250 and the house natural resources committee to come up with a comprehensive act 250 reform bill, which H926 embodies. And so we're very concerned that by cherry picking portions of H926 and placing the next 237, we might lose momentum in seeing action on comprehensive act 250 reform in the next session. And we would encourage you to not let that happen to make sure that whatever positive things can happen in S237 doesn't stop us from continuing the work that needs to happen on a more comprehensive act 250 reform package next year. So, I'll just highlight a couple of the comments that we made it several pages worth. And so I don't want to belabor all of the points. You can read them in the written testimony. We do feel, as Karen Horn mentioned that section two is particularly problematic. We think that the entire section should be stricken with the exception of the good work that was done on the accessory dwelling unit provisions. As Senator Sirot can indicated in his testimony to your committee. That's a really logical improvement to and clarification to the state's accessory dwelling unit provisions and we fully support those my own community of Heinsberg made changes like that. Several years ago, the city of Burlington made similar changes more recently other communities have been have been providing some leadership on that front and taking that statewide makes a lot of sense. However, the other mandates that are in section two are are extremely problematic and we feel that rather than mandate provisions that don't actually address the issue at hand minimum lot size for example is not what provides affordable housing density is what provides affordable housing that if there are going to be changes to section 17 and new mandates, some of which might make sense particularly related to regulation of duplexes at the municipal level that we have a more considered conversation about that and and actually tackle the items from a from a regulatory point that will have the greatest effect and not have the unintended consequences that we feel this will particularly in relationship to water and sewer areas which from a local planning level do not equate to areas where we have that are destined for dense development. As Chris Cochran can tell you the designation programs focus on the areas that we have planned for growth. And just because an area is served by water and sewer does not mean that it is in a village center, a designated downtown or a neighborhood development area. In my community of Heinsberg we have a small water and sewer service area, compared to the overall town, but that water and sewer service service area is large enough that it includes areas that we are not planning to have dense development in, and we extended water for the purposes of public health for serving three of our mobile home parks and sewer to help serve industry. Not to not to sprawl outside of our of our actual village growth area so one size fits all approach that's in section two with regard to minimum lot sizes in areas served by water and sewer is a bad idea. And that's why we recommend that you strike most of section to section eight deals with active 50 condition transfer and removal. So, as you know this bill does a very positive thing and providing exemptions within designated downtown's and neighborhood development areas, we would suggest that extending that to enhanced village centers would also make sense. But the way in which it transfers conditions on existing act to 50 permits in those areas to appropriate municipal panels is flawed. And we would suggest that a different mechanism needs to happen than what's proposed in the bill. Frankly, the cleanest way to deal with these legacy act to 50 permits once, once projects in downtown areas are no longer under jurisdiction is to simply extinguish the permits and allow for proper development review at the municipal level and not worry about those legacy conditions. But if there's a desire to respect some of those conditions because of agreements with neighbors or, or what have you, then it's really the district commissions role to make those decisions, and figure out how those conditions will carry forward. It's not the role of a municipal development review board that never created those position, those conditions, and, and, and the municipality that may not have regulations that would support. The condition of those conditions or the enforcement of those conditions. So those some retooling needs to happen in section eight for those reasons, we believe. Moving on quickly. You've talked about some provisions from h926 that you'd like to bring into s237 to make it a more balanced package. One of those is adding criteria to active 50 related to force blocks and habitat connectors. We fully support that we feel that's an important improvement and and as a good part of the active 50 reform effort. We're concerned that the definition of force blocks that's in h926 is overly broad. And as the testimony received from Jamie Fidel and Brian shoot from bnrc last week indicate the objective behind adding these criteria is to protect large and intact forest areas. It's not to require active 50 review or require discussion during an active 50 review under that criteria of small patches of trees, small patches of forest. And, and so s165 that you've had some discussion about has a different definition of force block that does refer to a particularly mapped resource of interior forest areas. So that might be a better, a better definition to use, if you were to bring that in. I'd like to ask a question. I'll just go ahead. So if I may, tell me what exactly you mean by them, the mapped. Give me a definition of what exactly you're you're referring to that you'd like with regard to mapping. In general, the PA and planners across the state believe in mapping and believe that important resources whether they're used for jurisdictional decisions and at 250 or criteria review and at 250 ought to be based on a map that's been vetted and is scientifically used and for the purposes of a force block definition. The definition in s165 refers to a specific data set that was created, and that can be improved and vetted and and that's an interior forest mapping resource that is does not include every scrap of trees, but buffers house sites roads and other developed certain distance so that it focuses on on larger and tacked force blocks and not every patch of trees as the like the ones you can see in the picture behind my head. Right, but don't we want this to be I mean a and r wanted the definition of force criteria to be broad doesn't it make more sense for it to be broad. As long as it is scientifically based and and a mappable data set. And again, the, the level of broadness in the in the definition in h926 is just is just over, over the top there's two, it includes too much forest. Well don't you think rulemaking will take care of the forest block definition, you know, really help us through this process. So rulemaking could help. We definitely feel that resource mapping and vetting of those of those maps is the best step forward. And so we would encourage that to happen and through a rulemaking process perhaps it could, but but we do feel that, especially at the regional planning level, there are resources that can be brought to bear to improve those kinds of maps and whether that happens through a rulemaking process, or, or some sort of delayed implementation of this provision, once we have suitable data. Either of those might be possible. So one possibility on this is just a senator champion was alluding to the use of the maps as part of the rulemaking process to bring a greater level of specificity and nuance to the work, but the road rule is the triggering device and then the definition of that was well one we used it for 26 years, rather, you know, it has a hit we have some history with it, which you may or may not think was good history or bad history, happy to hear that. But it's also it does have the advantage of being a clear quantifiable measurement that can be used to sort of open the door to discussion. So the rulemaking can add in the, the nuance again of the, the map making piece. My understanding is important that the maps weren't developed with the intent of being used in a regulatory manner so there's some questions around that have been raised to me about their suitability for that is a regulatory data for regulation. I think that can also the commissioner can figure out the forest blocks. And since rulemaking is required in this bill, I think we're okay, but I respectfully disagree the definition of force block will drive what happens through any sort of rulemaking process and if the definition is as it stands in in age 926. It means everything, it means every, every contiguous patch of forest. And so some, some boundaries on that to make sure that it meets the legislative intent, which is large intact force blocks. I think is is appropriate to insert into the definition at the statutory level and then allow the specifics to be worked out through mapping and through whatever rulemaking needs to happen but the basic definition does not line up with the objective of the bill. And that's what we're pointing out with regard to the definition of force blocks and that's why we thought the definition in s 165 might be more preferable regarding the jurisdictional trigger which is an important point that you raise Senator Bray. We've listened to the testimony that you received last week from VNRC regarding the road rule. In the court of the road rule. Again, we'd like to emphasize that in order to meet the objectives of Act 250. We need to be able to make sure that jurisdictional decisions are based on actual impacts, and not just the easiest mechanism for getting a project into the active 50 review process, taken on its face. The road rule has nothing to do with the fragmentation of forest. Right. I mean it's about road lengths only. Well, I don't agree with that. But I'll just continue tell me why it doesn't have anything to do with fragmentation of forests. Because the actual language of the road rule doesn't mention forests, it mentions road lengths. It's all about having a development that creates 2000 feet or more of roads and driveways doesn't mention where that development occurs. It doesn't say that it has to be impacts within a forested area. For example, I have projects in my community that over the last 15 plus years have been subdivided, and these subdivisions may have been five or six lot subdivisions that in a community like Heinsberg that has zoning did not trigger Act 250. Those projects created roads and driveways that would have met this trigger. They would not impact forest resources and therefore it begs the question, why would we, why would we put them into jurisdictional review, based on this, this criteria, if the impacts they were having were minimal. So, our suggestion is not that there shouldn't be jurisdictional expansion, we believe there should be to protect from forest fragmentation, but we feel that that should be based on the resource itself. The stopping of that resource such that development can be judged, are you impacting impacting the resource, if you are, you should trigger Act 250 and be properly reviewed. The road rule is just a shortcut to try to get there, and sure it will work in some situations, but it will also pull in a whole host of projects that don't need to be in front of the Act 250 district commission. Well, so thank you. I mean, I think I'm sensing that this is maybe a bit of a false choice. I realize how you might think of it as too blunt an instrument. On the other hand, the there is, we would I think anticipate bringing the kind of sophistication and nuance to the discussion through the rulemaking process, but I also agree with you here. I mean things to be well defined at the outset, otherwise the rulemaking won't deliver the legislative intent. So, and I think that's on us to make sure that we ask for rulemaking that sets us up for success. I'm wondering how many 2000 feet roads are in Heinsberg. So it's not a matter of just the roads. It's not the driveways that come off of those roads. So it's the sum total of those two. I can tell you that 2000 like that is not thinking about smart grows I don't think but it's like two tenths of a mile. Not that long. So Senator Campion, I don't disagree with you that minimizing road lengths is a good idea, and that developers will do that in order to avoid tripping this jurisdictional trigger. But at the same time, I also understand the history of the 800 foot road rule when it was the case prior to being eliminated, and what was swept up in that was projects that did not need to be an active 50 review and and those projects are in it forever now, until there can be some sort of jurisdictional release which is another suggestion that we're offering in the written testimony. So, again, our what I'm advocating for is not that we do not protect forest blocks and in attack force, we should. This is this is a unfortunate shortcut to try to do that, and a better way from a planning is to map the resource we care about, and then, and then judge developments based on their impacts to that resource and perhaps it's still a road rule at that point but it would be a rule that would reflect impact to a mapped resource, and we use those all the time in Vermont both at the local level, and at the active 50 level, and sure, many of them have some accuracy issues. And that's why we work to improve them with the agency, and also make sure that there's on the ground vetting when a specific project is in front of a district coordinator for a jurisdictional decision. So, it, I think we can, we can have, we have data that we can use, we can improve that data and we can actually have legislation that enables us to protect the resource we want, and not take shortcuts that that will capture unnecessary projects. Yeah. What is so, you know, I'm in a way, I guess what I'm going to ask is, if this trigger the road rule is a trigger that you think sort of rounds up rather than rounds down captures potentially too many projects. So, 2000 feet is point three eight miles so almost four tenths it's not. It's a significant amount of road but how significant others can will judge, but sweeping someone project into active 50. Given how well it served the state I'm always surprised when people sound as though the one of their goals is to avoid getting into active 50. I think a proper good planning is the beginning of good development. So, I'm sure that's not your intent, but why is, what's the sort of motivation to try to avoid active 50 for a project with 2000 feet of road. That's a good question. So, to be clear, VPA and most of the planners I know across the state very much support active 50 and believe the review is positive. But I think we also believe that active 50 is designed to review a certain scale of development. It's not designed to review a property owners plans to place a garage. There are six acre lot that may have an impact to some woods that's within within that property is designed as the original triggers indicate for larger development projects. And so it's not that people should be afraid about going into active 50, but that active 50 should be used to achieve to achieve the objectives that it was set out to. There are many of smaller level projects that simply don't warrant active 50 review from a perception standpoint center brain I think you need to understand that there is a perception across the state. Not in the planning community per se but in the people that we deal with on a day to day basis that active 50 is something to be avoided that it is costly that it can involve appeals, and that people have a level of fear of that, of that permitting process. So now you're getting into, you know, how are we marketing and educating people about active 50 I mean perception sure perceptions one thing, but let's deal in fact in reality we've had good conversations with the chair of the natural resources about what's actually happening on the ground. So let's just stick to the facts and not people's perceptions at this point. Well, I was merely responding to Senator sprays question about why would there be that feeling about worry worry about entering an active 50 review process. I'm just telling you it's, it's a real feeling out there in the communities that we work in, especially the rural communities that aren't seeing city size development projects which everybody agrees should be an active 50 review. But wonder about it when a small commercial operation. It goes through an active 50 review process. So I'm just saying that when we set jurisdictional triggers, we should be cognizant of making sure that that what we are capturing matters, and that it actually deserves review and and that we will, we will capture the impacts and mitigate them that are important. So I'm just saying foot foot road rule is easily worked around like, like a lot of, you know, jurisdictional triggers. I can think of one particular project in my town where we had a single family home on an existing lot that punched a very long driveway into intact core forest, and, and it was very unfortunate. In that case, it would have been very easy for that property owner to simply make a 1000 900 foot driveway instead of a 2000 foot driveway. And, and so by mapping a resource and saying no no it's not the length of road that gets you into active 50, it's whether you are impacting the resource we care about that gets you into active 50. It's a, it's a much better way to deal with the jurisdictional decision. Okay. Well, thank you for that. I think I still think that we can. I don't want this to be set up as a false choice. There could be a trigger that brings you into a process that has the level of mapping data used and analyzed to determine what your experience in active 50 would be like. So we can distinguish projects that need a lighter review versus a deeper review because of forced impact so appreciate the we all we are fans of good data in this committee I guess a concern I have is, as it's been expressed to me is that the mapping data is not fully developed statewide. And so it's a resource that we can't count on alone for making these kinds of distinctions. It may be that Chippin County is ahead of the curve. I'm not I don't know one way or the other. If your RPC has been particularly, you know, sort of forward thinking I'm getting all the mapping done. Any other committee questions for Mr one Hagan. I don't see any. Thank you for your testimony and for your written testimony it's very helpful to get details I know that you were alluding to are the bill we had as 165 and on force blocks. I'd ask you a favor just so that I don't guess as to what piece of that that you prefer over the construct in 926. If you could call it out to me and send it to the committee, then we'll know precisely what language you're seeing and as preferable. Thank you so much for your work. It is simply the force block definition but I'm happy to forward that. Okay, great. Thank you. It's a belt and suspender thing this time of year to get things in writing and more than one place. Thanks so much. With that, like a turn to Commissioner walk. Who there is. Good morning. Good morning, Senator. I further accurate Peter walk commissioner of the DC. At this point I don't have any specific testimony. Other than to To be less than and be a resource as you walk through his testimony. Okay, great. I do have a quick question then for you. And that is, can you just share a little information with the committee about the mapping data that we've been referring to off and on in the last two weeks, you know, how I don't, I know it's a deep topic, but can you just say something about the how complete the data set is, and how it was developed and is it useful data to be referring to either for a jurisdictional trigger, or to as a data set to be referred to during the process or an active 50 process. So I don't be helpful for the committee to better understand what kind of tool that is and how it might be well deployed versus not so well used. I can begin that conversation, Senator, but you really ought to have Commissioner Porter in here if you want that detail information as it's his team that has developed that data set. It's part of the Vermont conservation design process which as you've heard was not intended to provide a to be used in the for the purposes of regulation because it is a the granularity of of that data is pretty it's, you know, it's pretty wide view. You know, the idea that we would get down to the specificity of the sort of individual case by case basis was never anticipated was designed to provide that sort of here are the major areas of intact forest blocks and connectivity habitat. And that is, that is the sort of the it's it's purpose and intent. If, if you're going to use it as a map as a resource in order to establish jurisdiction, the level of fidelity would be to be significantly different. As we've seen with other map resources. There are not necessary but maps are a static viewpoint of something if we look at the wetlands mapping for instance, the level of resources that would be needed to maintain those those maps due to the changing nature of the resource prevents that from being the complete necessary necessary trigger. So, if you want more detail and I, if it sounds like you do, you really need Commissioner Porter in here to provide you with that level of detail. Okay, great. Thanks for that helpful jumpstart. And Commissioner Porter is going to be in tomorrow on the migratory bird bill piece. So we'll have a chance to ask him about it, then a center campaign. Yeah, I'm sorry, I have to step out for a moment, but I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because I walked in late to the commissioner's testimony but part of what I grabbed at the end of your testimony center, your comments center Commissioner walk is that, you know, in part if we were mapping and mapping and mapping, I feel like in a way we're not going to get everything that we need to have done actually finished. I think maybe that was more of what you were saying before Commissioner walk jumped in Senator Bray. So I'm not quite sure I'm following your if we're, what's the concern again. Well, part of, you know, I think, you know, if, if we wait, you know, for all the data on mapping, then we're not going to be able to do the protect the necessary protections that we actually need or we're not going to be able to do them as quickly and efficiently. Makes sense because I mean I'm struggling with this I think the road rule has a lot of questions and I'm still trying to understand why we got rid of it, what 10 or 15 years ago. Would we be better off making this part of the bill into some kind of a study committee or task force to come back with a proposal. Next year. I'm all for putting the road rule back in I'm sorry just around the mapping piece. I think there are a lot of questions on the road rule that I think could put this entire bill in jeopardy from having enough support through the process, even at the, you know, the administration's raised significant concerns. You've got legislative council that's, you know, raise some questions. I just think, and you know if we were in the building and working like we normally do we might be able to work through it in the next couple weeks. If we can through this kind of work method so I think looking at possibly, you know, producing that into a study committee or something we can look at during the off season and come back next year and examine in full capacity might be the best way to go on this front I think include mapping and stuff into that. I think we can respect a senator. I'm not there, I think we can go ahead personally and do it. I didn't mean to just raise that one question. And in directly I wasn't thinking about directing in that way it was just a general question. I think we're personally I think we're okay with moving forward, putting the road restoring the road rule. I still have not heard personally reasons to proceed. You know as business as usual and not restore it. I haven't seen any reason not to so. I don't understand why we got rid of it 15 years ago. Perhaps the chair would take a strong hold on whether or not we wish to continue to head in this direction on this road. Okay, so thanks I think you know one thing we like this so thank you senator parent for raising the question I think that's a great question and we should, you know, better understand the answer. The other thing too, by way of reassurance is that the bill contemplates rulemaking and there's a pretty long development timeline so I think the mapping issues and the road rule issue. There can be another legislative session that could come back in and make adjustments. So, I, I say that not to sort of invite sloppy thinking on our part now which I don't think we are getting involved in, but that we don't let you know that we're aiming for a perfect bill at this moment stop us from engaging in a process that will help us figure this out. So, you know, I'm keeping an eye on the clock, and I want to change the batting order up just a little bit because we have heard from we will come back to Mr. Mr. Cochran, but Mr. Sawyer hasn't been with us before. And so I'd like to invite him to join us next, and then we'll double back to our colleagues at ACCD. Thanks. Thank you Senator Bray. Mr. Sawyer, director of planning and development for the city of St. Alvin's and in general, you know, as a, as a community with a designated downtown and a designated growth center we, we wholeheartedly support the idea of allowing communities with designated areas to use their rigorous planning processes to eliminate some of the permitting redundancies from both the state and local level. So exempting what we call an active 50 exemption, what others might call a local assumption of some of the active 50 concerns and standards that might be another way of looking at it. You know, I think they're the optimal places to address these permitting redundancies for projects that would be subject to both active 15 local permits. And they said that the designation process proves that we possess and we can augment the rigor of our planning and regulatory processes to consider statewide and regional concerns, as well as issues of local context. As a city, you know, said almost ready for that responsibility I know that there might be more things that come with it obligations. We might have to build some capacities that we don't have today but in terms of economic development and building more housing in this state. If, if this sort of exemption can get us on the road there then we're willing to be a partner in that process, including working through the intricacies of what we do and we're passing an active 50 permit off to a local level. And we're willing to be part of that process and we know we could handle it at the local level to reduce that multiple permitting venue issue. Okay. Mr. sorry quick question. So as you take on that those duties. For instance, mapping of waste and water systems. I don't know if that's something that city of St. Albans is already done completely so there's no new tasks there for you. But I'm just thinking about to what degree do we end up shifting costs onto municipalities. If we ask them to do the tasks related to becoming a designated downtown or are we helping towns gain that certification and supporting them or is it relatively costly for municipality to step up to the level of planning and expertise in order to be able to pull that all off. You know I think it depends on what rigor you're looking for. You know the city of St. Albans has has very good water and wastewater system maps. We actually don't have a great process for doing digital updates to those maps on the fly. Clearly every public works staff member would have an iPad where they can mark when they've fixed a section of waterline or updated a catch basin. But I would, I would, I would follow up on Karen Horn's comments by saying two things one is, I think we do need to determine, you know, if, if we're forcing communities to look for every single 150 year old water or sewer line that they can find that would be hard. But I don't know if that's the degree of, I don't know if we need to be that fine to produce a resource that could be used for both local and state planning. And then the other thing I would say is, yes, it, you know, either way it could be a significant cost for many municipalities but when you recognize the fact that having these maps would not only be a local resource but a regional resource in the state of Vermont. You know, imagine if the state of Vermont could know where every water and sewer line was in the state. That's, that's worthy of state investment and, you know, perhaps one of the answers to BLCT's concerns should be that the recognition that if we had a map of water and sewer lines in every city that's not just a community good that's a public good statewide and it should include some sort of incentive, whether it be grants or whether it be direct funding to make that mapping happen in the communities that need the assistance. Is there in general either fund funding or technical assistance from the state as you folks further develop your local planning expertise. I believe so I believe that because our cities use this within the decade but I believe if a community wanted to do some mapping of water and sewer and certainly storm water infrastructure. You could write a grant to DC, I'm sure one of their funding mechanisms would allow for that to be an eligible eligible funded project. Of course you know it has to be competitive and you don't know whether or not you're going to get funded but I do believe the state does provide some of that financial assistance in a in a manner of speaking right now. Well I don't want to ask too many questions and take you off your testimony are there things that you would are of concern changes you would like to see in nine and draft 911 that we're working with my my real concern is the fact that there are many fundamentally beneficial things in s237 and yet it's saddled with section two, which, which includes a lot of state mandates for local land use regulation that that are that are sort of fly in the face of what's been a working partnership between the state and local communities where the state identifies statewide planning goals and sometimes sets perhaps even a hard hard hard objectives you need to meet. And then the communities come up with their local planning processes that divide solutions to meet those goals in our local context, for instance, there's a provision in chapter 117 that a community can't outright prohibit a prohibit multifamily housing that's a good goal. It allows the community to decide though where multifamily housing would be a good fit in where it might not be. The section two of 237 preempts our local planning processes by forcing fundamental changes in land use regulation without any public discourse. And we hear a lot about how minimum lot size is not the best way to regulate residential density but it's still a central aspect of how we do it in our many communities. And section two would turn the legislature into the de facto planning commission for any community with water and wastewater service which totally upends the planning process is set by state statute in chapter 117. You know, all of the city, the entire city of St. Albans is has water and wastewater service. So section two would rewrite across the board, a really fundamental piece of how we deal with local land use regulation. We welcome housing in our community and we welcome change over the past decade we've issued permits for more than 200 new housing units of all types single family homes, duplexes, large multifamily projects. That's a significant number for our little city. I would, I would counter the argument that it's hard to find land in a city like ours to build housing. We actually get involved in making sure developers can level the playing field and dealing with challenge properties. And I think that section two doesn't solve the sorts of problems we have with housing in our city and it would create more problems. We're directly involved in a public private partnership to build 63 new affordable and market rate housing units in our downtown housing Vermont's part of that. Moving on to multiple BCDP funded projects with Champlain Housing Trust and Housing Vermont to construct and stabilize the portable housing units all over our community. Section two is not what we need section two of s to 37 is not what we need to make that easier in our community. There's been a lot of talk of a stakeholder process that resulted in the provisions that got written into section two. There was a state project underway called zoning for great neighborhoods engaged a lot of great multiple types of stakeholders into the question of why housing costs so much in our state. We all know there's an affordable housing crisis. The top votes went to construction and land costs permitting process for permitting processes were also noted as a, as a difficulty. I participated. We were told to expect some great recommendations for local communities like ours to consider. I'm still looking forward to these. But we weren't told that we should expect new legislation that would mandate fundamental changes to local land use regulations part of the process. I've consistently protested against the taxes, the tactics of section two to both DHCD and to legislators to the Economic Development Committee. I kind of snuck in I think that maybe we could have gotten our concerns out a little earlier but we're here now and hoping that folks will listen to our concerns. I would follow in the footsteps of Alex Winehagen and the VPA advice that the clarification on ad use to have that I believe it's a 900 square foot minimum size. That works and I think that should remain that is a clarification of an existing state mandate that already passed many years ago but I don't think the additional mandates in section two to remain. I would suggest they be struck or sent and or sent to a study committee, or substantially rewritten to include measurable goals that can be achieved both the planning solutions. For instance, it could be rewritten to mandate that communities with water and wastewater service need to achieve a certain average allowed density of your own units. Amongst all their various different languages districts, let them work out how they achieve that, or that a certain percentage of regulated districts need to permit for unit projects by rights, but not the entire community, or that they need to effectively reduce minimum parking requirements in a certain amount. You could give us some hard percentage or relative numbers that we need to meet, but let the communities decide the details of how they meet these steps forward for providing more affordable housing around our state without passing these community wide cookie cutter changes to minimum lot sizes and things like that. That's the extent of my comments at the moment. Aaron. Chip, you know, I've been obviously you and I've been talking about this but you know my mind I'm thinking about it too and I like your idea of the average. You know density across community because I look at you know the way the rule currently written is say, I own an acre in 10 urban city, I could build, you know, eight duplexes on it well it might be more cost effect from better for the community if I can build 16 units in one building but then it becomes you still trigger a lot of these development things where, you know, you I would look at it and I'm sure you guys look at very similarly that 16 units on acres 16 units on acre we want to make it look the best we can if it if it's pliable so I Ellen and I've been going back and forth but I was hoping to get you on here to kind of tease out some of those ideas but would you be more supportive if we kept a section to but in and I know you kind of already answered but I just want to clarify. If we went more along those line I'm trying to find that way that gets where Senate economic development wanted to go and where stakeholders want to go but give you the ability to put that local flavor on it, you know what works for us because what works for us here in ten ovens is different than what's going to work for Senator Campion and Bennington or, you know, Senator brain Middlebury we all have different fields to our community and where we want development. The thing that made me think of the average solution to that you know we have in the center part of our city we actually have some zones where if you're building above the first floor, there are no limits to how many dwelling units. And then we have neighborhoods with with lots that are an eighth of an acre in size, and there are infill opportunities there to do more. And then there are less dense neighborhoods where the requirements of section two would actually just result in the chopping up of historic homes. Our planning commission in our administration in our city are working on a program to allow bonus densities of dwelling units. When you rehabilitate large homes, especially historic home. We want, we do want to increase dwelling unit densities in our city but when you can pair it with something like a program like that that accomplishes to public goods at the same time that's even better. So that's a solution that we've developed to issues that we have in our community, and I think that's more the flavor that section two of 237 should take is. I understand the state and legislators might want to see some real change they might want to see some numbers that communities have to meet so that we know we're making forward motion in the affordable housing crisis. But these across the board cookie cutter minimum lot size mandates in section two aren't the way to do it. There's got to be there's something in the middle between just saying please allow more affordable housing to forcing this mandate. There's something in the middle about make some sort of percentage increase in terms of how much housing densities allowed in your community, you figure out where it is, and how it's done. I think I think we can make that work instead. So you actually kind of got it there but I want to clarify. How would we, do you think we should do a recommendation of a percentage increase in density or try to because what the hard part I have is coming up, figuring out how we'd come up with a number and the legislature to say, you know, units per acre per square mile or, you know, whatever the density measure is. How, how would that work, you know, if we're going to set a goal where we want to increase do you think we should say a 10% increase or 15 versus this is the new number we'd like you to get to. Well, you know, in the absence of a lot of time we might just have to choose a number arbitrarily but that seems like what's already gone into section two is a lot of arbitrary numbers that I know are based on. You know, situations in other parts of the country, but you know this is Vermont I think we need something more homegrown, and I do think that, you know, I, what the section to already has a, I believe a three year window before it becomes effective. You might be able to choose an arbitrary number now so that you're relatively assured you're going to make some measurable progress. It could be altered in the next biennium if we find out there's an issue with that number. Or I think there does need to be a greater discussion overall between some before something as ambitious as section two does end up in legislation I don't think it's quite ready for primetime. I don't think it's ready to come out of the oven yet. It would, I prefer to see this housing for great neighborhoods process be completed and to have some more conversation about that before we really start setting some hard targets. Well, thank you. You know, I think in general this committee has a long and in a way that's compatible with what you're saying. I think repeatedly over the years we have chosen to set performance targets, and then we invite communities to figure out how to get there as opposed to prescribing the pathway there we set the target and then because things vary physically and all the rest so widely around the state. So, it's good food for thought. Thanks. And thanks for posing an alternative, not just saying pitched section to overboard. So it's good to hear another way of how we might get there. Okay. So once again I keep my eye on the clock I know we're a little press for time I want to keep us moving. So, I suppose I would say, because we heard from Mr. Hamrick and Mr. Cochran before this is sort of like a time for rebuttal or something like that. I'm not going to turn into a debate but you've heard a lot of testimony since you first spoke to us. Any thoughts you want to share with the committee at this point. Can you hear me. Yeah Chris Cochran for the record for the Department of Housing Community Development. I would mention, I have a lot of respect for poor chip he is a member of our downtown development board and he always comes with creative ideas and solutions. And that said, you know, land use change and affordable housing is a never an easy proposition. It's always controversial kind of we went into this conversation into this process knowing that we would get some pushback. And this is why we consulted with CNU the Congress for the new urbanism and a national smart growth expert. We consulted with experts from Oregon on ADU statutes and provisions we work with sister agencies and departments. We have their input we engage with mayors, local and regional planners policy advocates in the State House everybody from you know vnrc to the Chamber of Commerce. You know, they're never easy and striking that right balance is is a difficult job and and one that I think you are well positioned to do, and you've done before. So land use section two is one piece of it but if you add kind of the act 250 conversation on top of that. The bill represents at least three years worth of kind of careful work and compromise and you know if the committee needs to make changes to it I just I urge them to be judicious in their approach. I do think we have an affordable housing crisis. These changes combined with additional funding that comes with the care acts will ensure that we get housing in the right location in a more affordable way. And with that I think I will conclude. Okay, thank you can you fill us in a little bit. I don't think the committee's heard much about the, I don't know if I caught the phrase right like joining for great neighborhoods is that what it's a it's a project we worked on, you know, briefly, we big thanks to VHC be a RP and Vermont Readers Association, you know, we rarely have money to do anything creative. But they helped us with some funding to hire a national consultant to say, you know, let's look at our neighborhoods, and how can we make changes to create, you know, more housing opportunities within and around our Senators our housing demographics are changing dramatically in our state. We family sizes are getting smaller, people want smaller units they need smaller units, and how do we make that happen on the ground. We are in the process of finishing up that project it is going to come up with some guidance for communities to make incremental changes to find ways to find more housing opportunities in their communities. Is there a flaw with the notion of expressing performance targets, rather than the mechanism for achieving those performance targets, you know, basically what we were just talking about with Mr. Yeah, I mean just all, you know, it's wherever you set the line it's like any regulation it's picking that number is the challenge. Okay, and can you say a little more about what will happen in the next three years. I mean, I don't think it's a little so that we know how this bill will actually play out in the real world, if it were passed, just the way it is for instance. So, communities have, you know, three years to work on this. We're going to provide guidance and assistance the initial bill had funding for regional planning commissions and increase for municipal planning grants to help communities make this transition. If communities find for some reason they have a constraint, you know, be anything from, you know, we don't have the water wastewater capacity to support that kind of density or we don't have, you know, this will impact our schools in a negative way they were to have a capacity constraint report with the department. And with that, they were not required to meet these requirements. Okay. It's an offering of sorts. Exactly. And that's something that we worked on. You have to get the league or to it, correct. You have to demonstrate the problem you can't claim there's a problem alone. Yeah, yeah, and to be completely frank the the off the standards for the off ramp or not rigorous. This was to get communities thinking about ways that they can create more housing opportunities within their centers. Obviously, if the community really wanted to push back and they didn't want to do it they could file a report fairly easily. But a lot of communities without the nudged in the push aren't going to make these have these conversations they're difficult. And then can, can you say a little more about the, in terms of like technical assistance and funding that would flow to municipalities that say, we're on board we want 10% more affordable housing in our town. And what we're not quite sure about is how we're going to get there. Can they turn to you as a resource and and Mr. Sawyer alluded to grant making, for instance, but can you say something about what kind of capacity is there to do that assistance capacity to help yeah. Like, you know, we were closely with all of our regional planning commissions. There was proposed additional funding in this bill that that that probes may have stripped out to augment their capacity to ensure easy implementation or easier implementation. And we're also talking about increasing the municipal planning grants that go directly to municipalities to help them do that. I think COVID probably dashed the prospects for that funding so it's something that you should consider. Okay, or yes, it's casting a long shadow on a lot of worthy projects for sure. Okay, so any other questions from the committee to Mr. Cochran. All right, well thank you for hanging in there with us and following us. And thank you for taking this up I know you know this is an incredibly compressed timeline and we really appreciate you looking at this and your efforts to kind of keep this moving. Thank you. Yeah, I was saying this is like having all six burners going in the stove. And I've noticed that all the chefs I've ever been around they have no hair on their hands it's all been burned off. So, with that we're going to turn to river corridor provisions in S237, which we spoke very briefly about a long time ago before we left the State House to start working outside the State House. So Mr. Kowski, can you and Mr. Chapman is also here to help us. Can you walk us through the nature of the proposals and why they're being made. This is, you know, I would, this is like back to initial pitch. What, what's the reason for saying something about river corridors at all the bill, and then how does this bill address it. I don't pose. I don't ask counsel to pitch a bill right so I'll turn to Mr. Chapman, who, and ask from your point of view, what was the reason to be working on river corridor language at all. And what's the strategy that the bill takes. Matt, do you want to answer that question I Chris might be able to answer that question also. Okay. Sure, I mean I don't, I don't know whether you want to start by walking through the language itself or framing out why I mean there's there's sort of two distinct components in here one is to deal with sort of a historic. oversight or within the NDA designation and some of the challenges that it's presented to downtown development and frankly creating somewhat of an inconsistency with the way the rivers program approaches in fill development in a previously developed area. And trying to correct that historic issue and then also making modifications to the floodway floodplain criteria in act 250 to basically make it consistent with almost 20 years of testimony by the agency before act 250 around protecting river corridors and fluvial hazard erosion areas under the, the, the quote unquote floodways criteria under act 250 so again, bringing the language of the criteria up to date with sort of the modern interpretation of how we protect river corridors and assets within those corridors. Okay. I'm not recalling off the top of my head how, how long that section is. Ellen is that something, Mr cows here that's something we can walk through in the next five minutes and get a reasonable look at it. We already took a look before so so be more of a refresher than starting from scratch. Thank you. I don't think we necessarily need to talk about the specific language but broadly s 237 draft 9.1 the same piece of legislation we've been working on that came out of Senate economic development made changes to the neighborhood development area. Requirements. So, you recall from our broader discussion, we're proposing that neighborhood development areas and downtowns are exempt from act 250. So we're going to impose a few additional requirements on those areas. And so we amend the requirement section in chapter 76 a. So for neighborhood development areas currently. You are not allowed to include identified flood hazard and fluvial erosion areas in the area that is mapped as a neighborhood development area. You are not allowed to include the flood hazard areas in your mapped area but this bill proposes to allow for some for some areas for the neighborhood development area to include areas in the flood hazard and fluvial erosion areas. Containing pre existing development and areas suitable for infill development as defined in the rules. So, you're now allowed to include those areas. There is also a provision that extends for their tax credits. For qualified flood mitigation projects in those areas. Also, so that becomes part of the incentive package of being in one of these areas. Okay, so I'm reading right now and I'm seeing the new development is elevated or flood proofed at least two feet above base flood elevation. And someone who has experience with flooding and flooding levels. I mean, I don't know how does that would tropical storm Irene have exceeded two feet above base flood elevation in five to be specific in in Waterbury or something like that. I don't know the answer to that. So, Senator, I, I can't answer the question about where tropical storm Irene ended up as far as base flood elevations but but estimated base flood elevations are kept by FEMA. And so people can go to FEMA maps and see what the base flood elevations are in order to determine what that that that's sort of a term of art used by FEMA. Senator if I may Peter walk again. Yes, thank you. This, this language is consistent with how we regulate these types of issues in and around built environments, right because they're different than a existing and intact floodway right so we're, we're there by their nature different because they've already been constrained in some way typically by previous development we've armored banks we've raised them etc and so it's a it's a different path. You have testimony provided written testimony provided to you by Mike Klein who ran our reverse program for many years, talking about the unintended consequences of excluding those areas explicitly from neighborhood development areas, and, and testimony in support of providing this is a path to better to better align both the sort of ideas of infill development with our normal environmental regulations in place, and I would, I would recommend you refer to that if you have any questions. Mike is obviously a recognized expert in the field and wrote this after his retirement and so with no affiliation with our organization. Great. Thank you for that reminder. I think actually we got my client's testimony matter of 10 days ago so. I'll ask you to add it to our folder for today. So that he recently recently by the testimony originally from March. Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks for that reminder. So, if you can finish walking us through what the PowerPoint, then. Yes, so. So we're talking about adding more areas that are allowed in the neighborhood development area. There are some incentives that come with that. The neighborhood development area also has to have adopted local bylaws around these areas also. And so then as I already sort of touched on the bill expands the downtown Villa Center tax credit program. To first it extends it to neighborhood development areas. These areas are able to receive these tax credits, but there it also adds a new type of tax credit which is for qualified flood mitigation projects. And so here's the language for that so we're structurally non structural changes to a building located within a river corridor flood hazard area are eligible for these tax credits. If that project reduces or eliminates flood damage to the building or its contents. What would be an example of a non structural change did someone. Are we being entirely literal, if you're changing framing versus you're changing. Sighting, I don't know what we're pointing out structural and non structural anyone on the session today who can explain that one. This is Chris Cochran, you know, you could change the grading in the yard, you could, you know, to reduce flood hazards you can do, you know, reduce the elevation of Phil, you know, there's lots of things that you could do that reduce flood hazards. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I think that covers the river corridor language in s 237. Great. So thank you. Any committee questions for. Team and our council. All right. Thank you very much. I don't know if Mr. O'Grady has come in. I see he has. Quickly, Senator break, there's one other provision that we have only sort of alluded to the age 926 bill contains an update to the definitions in act 250 criterion 1d. It changes the definition of floodway to flood hazard area and floodway fringe to river corridor, which matches and ours language in 752. And it just restructures that language to match and ours current practice. Okay. That is not in s 237. Currently you would need to add that if you want it. So. If you add that to your, the growing amendment that we, that we're working on with you, please. Sure. Thank you. All right, any other questions on the river quarter portion. All right, then. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have a meeting here on our up tempo tour of the bill. It's time to switch over. To municipal water and wastewater connections. Mr. O'Grady, you have been working on some language with a and R. If you could walk us through that, that's probably the most direct. And then show us the new language. Thank you. Sure. So under existing law, the connection of a new building or structure. To an existing potable water supply or wastewater system requires permit from a and R. From their wastewater and portable water supply division. Municipalities generally don't like this requirement because it's a, I don't think it's a significant action. And they think that it's an administrative burden for them to get the permit. Or for the homeowner property owner to get the permit from a and R. A couple of years ago, what you did to address that issue was you gave the municipality the ability to get delegated to issue permits for connections. And currently that is still too onerous for some municipalities. So what was proposed in S 237 was to give municipalities the ability to approve connections of buildings to existing potable water supplies and wastewater systems if certain criteria were met. And that was asked to review asked to 37 language. Since I had never seen it before. I had a lot of questions. And I think that document with all the near right and so was one of the last things we saw before we stopped working in the state house, I think, right. Can you see my screen. Yes, thank you. So, so these are the questions I had basically why was it needed. It was going to go forward. It had to clarify that the delegation to municipalities was not going to apply or was not required for this approval. There were a ton of terms used where the meaning generally was not defined or the default meeting in title one would have created created confusion. There were some things that needed clarity. If the municipality was going to certify or basically state that it complied with the technical standard to is going to issue that that certification that that notice of approval. Was it going to be a professional year engineer or or a licensed designer. And what, what are these technical standards. So I had a bunch of questions. You asked me to confer with the agency. I did. Can you see my screen now. Yes. So I proposed adding definitions of the terms that were undefined in the language. I clarified the what the exemption was in section 14. I added that notwithstanding the delegation provision and notwithstanding the requirement to get a permit under title 10 1973. I clarified the control owner control provision. I clarified that the technical standards were and ours. Rules, and that the municipality needs to provide documentation in the land records from a professional engineer or a licensed designer that the connection was installed in accordance with the technical standards. And then I made some just minor changes to the study provision. Matt was good enough to look that over and confer with Brian. And I'm not sure who else at the agency. And they, they were good with it, but they wanted one additional change. So I did in the 1983 section, the new section that allows municipalities to approve connections. They wanted the language on lines 12 through 14, upon request of the secretary municipality approving connection shop provide copies of approvals of connection connection plans and any associated documentation. So that's, that's what it is. It's really not changing the substance of what was originally proposed in 237 it's just proposing some clarifying language and definitions and actually making it work. Always something good so this is right where we happen to be right now, notwithstanding 1973 so I'm going to keep up here, but so what do we need to not withstand if we're now providing an alternate mechanism for approval. Well, first you need to now stand the fact that they need a permit right the statute requires them to have a permit for a connection. Okay, and then you have to not withstand that the way that municipalities can do it without a permit is through delegation is that's in statute to So you not withstand the delegation which is 1976 and you not withstand the permit requirement with actually 1976 is the permit and 1976 the delegation 1973 is the permit. You not withstand the both of them and then you give the municipality the ability to approve that connection. Okay, is there a reason we don't repeal 1976 1973, as opposed to not withstand that. But you don't want to repeat well repealing the requirement for a permit for connection that's that's a policy decision. That's that I think you're going to have arguments on both sides on that. repealing delegation, there might be a municipality that wants to be delegated to, but now with this authority, I'm not sure why municipality would want to be delegated. Well, yeah, and I'm not trying to expand the complexity of the task but I was just thinking if we're not withstanding the two other ways to be able to do something. Why would we maintain them but Mr Chapman do you have something you want to chip in. Well sure I'd happy I'm happy to sort of flag I think the two reasons why you would want to remain those sections is one with respect to the delegation. This is very focused on connections to a home from a wastewater treatment facility and a drinking water facility. We also have two municipalities in the state who administer the on site septic system so they actually permit in ground on site wastewater systems and they do that through a delegation agreement with the state connections to municipal wastewater treatment facilities and and wastewater systems are are relatively straightforward technical issues that the that don't have the sort of design components that the state feels the need to have a delegation agreement around. I think we're comfortable with giving municipalities the authority to issue those. I think it would be much more. It would be, it would be potentially more problematic to to just sort of exempt that delegation already so I think the other, the other thing with respect to why do we need permits over these connections. So we're comfortable, allowing municipalities to issue permits when both wastewater and drinking water are are connected to a municipal wastewater treatment facility or drinking water system. When you start blending those two again there starts to become more complex engineering issues that the state either feels needs to take place under a delegation agreement or alternatively. We need to continue having technical review over those those hookups. I think the, the, the other thing is, is that those those permits typically provide useful information to both the state and municipality around the design capacity and flows of individual systems to a wastewater or drinking water system that then helps us ensure appropriate engineering controls and other controls. So that's that's sort of the framework around some of this. In other words, as you keep approving permits you're also adding up the total additional flow for instance to a wastewater treatment facility. I would also think they provide a healthy helpful record for anyone has to come back and dig maintain fix whatever that you have all that stuff. So, and I take it then that the revised revisions that Mr grates put together behalf of the committee and our supports, is that correct. We do yes, I mean, I think Mike there are a lot of really great changes I think it basically take some of the definitions that are in the rule and brings them into statute which I think makes sense and then clarifies some of the things that could be ambiguous so I think it's a good amendment. Okay, thank you. So then I would look to the committee and say, is the committee. So this is yet another piece that we're assembling into our amendment is the committee support taking Mr ready's language we just walked through, and we would, I don't know if there's a hand off to Mr cowsky but who's, yes, including in this. Yes. Okay, everyone said on that. I'm not hearing any nays. Okay, so then let's do that. Thank you Mr ready for putting that together and working it through Mr Chapman as well. Yeah, thanks to Matt. Okay, so this really completes the three topics that we had teed up for this morning. And tomorrow, just as a heads up. So, we'll be revisiting force frag again. And hearing from a few additional witnesses that missed out on earlier discussion. We also have had in the wings, no pun intended, no bad and pun intended the migratory bird bill and had discussed whether or not that would be part of our active 50 work. So if we'll have a visit with David Mears and Commissioner Porter on that. I think it's for nothing but positive things about making this step forward. So that's something we can also include. So you're thinking about incorporating that into the into everything, sending it as part of the package. Exactly. Okay, thank you. And there actually is a, you know, if you read through some of the documentation on it. Tourism and birding are actually a significant academic bit of economic activity for the state of Vermont. So there is a nexus between economic development and maintaining a natural resource that brings people here. Absolutely. The other thing also I think at some point I'd like to have a conversation. Are we going to do anything with the tree warden bill. I mean, that was another conversation we may have had at one point to see if we might incorporate that into this as well. Yes. And I think you and I can talk offline. It's another thing that's out there that I think seems like a worthwhile item to include in this overall package. Right. Yes, so exactly as it's a little bit like how how big our arms at the moment so I'll follow up with you offline. Anyone who's on this meeting now if you have feelings one way or the other, not being able to bring the tree warden bill in which was passed by the house and refer to us I don't know maybe two three weeks ago. If you're absolutely free please weigh in with me and the committee at large and we'll keep that conversation going as well. We'll add a seventh burner to the six burners stove. That's right. I would just encourage you to while you're hearing from Commissioner Porter about the migratory bird bill that you also hear relative to your questions about many number of topics that have come up as a result of this conversation primarily around the force of fragmentation issue. Yeah, great. Yeah, I have a highlighted note that while he's in to talk to us. Let's ask about the conservation maps and that piece as well. So we'll better understand those. And I guess one quick week we're still actually a little ahead, amazingly enough. Miss Chakowsky, could you get for the committee access maybe I don't know if it's just sending us a link or connect us to that the mapping resource that we keep referring to. I don't think we've looked at it for two or three months now. So just for those who want to see that data. There's a link as I recall, it's up on a website right I mean it's an estate planning and an our database that has a web front end so you can call up maps for any particular area. Is that sound correct. The NR natural resource Atlas. I'm not, you know, the maps that we're referring to is potentially useful to the force fragmentation review. I, I'm not sure I know precisely where those maps are and I thought it'd be helpful if, if you can send a link along to the committee so we could go look at these things before we have our next conversation. I do want to ask an R to send that, if we could, to make sure I know. I don't necessarily know if I know all of their resources. Commissioner walk, can you help us with that. Sure, what I will do is have mission reporter and preparation for its testimony. I'll provide you with some of the background information on those maps. Okay, great. They can give us a running start will be up to speed on a little bit because I know tomorrow will also be pressed for time we actually only have 90 minutes tomorrow. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks for soldiering through we had a lot of material today very helpful review and of course if people have more comments. Don't be shy. We look forward to your correspondence. All right. And with that we are adjourned for the day.