 Good morning and welcome to the House Environment and Energy Committee. This morning we're going to continue taking testimony on age 687 and we are going to be talking about future land use mapping with our regional planning commissioners. Welcome back, Katherine Dimitrik. Thank you very much for having me chair. The first, before I jump into future land use, I just wanted to highlight a question that came up yesterday. I see 2 of the questioners were not here. So maybe I'll save that. Go ahead. We can pass it on. Okay, sure. So we were thinking about the question that was raised yesterday about the tier 1b area. And are the region planning commission recommendation that upon acceptance of our maps that would be automatic. And recognize the concerns that were raised about that. And so we wanted to suggest 2 ideas. The 1st being that since it would be a jurisdictional trigger. One of the triggers for that jurisdictional change would be a requirement that the municipality has zoning and subdivision regulations. That's something that's already tracked by the natural resources board because it impacts the commercial jurisdictional trigger for the size 1 acre versus 10 acre. So that is a system that's already in place to track. So that would be easy. And the 2nd piece of that is that we would like, we would suggest adding to our description in the statutory language for the 1b areas. A requirement that the area either has water or sewer or the soil capability to do the more community scale systems. Thank you for that. You're welcome. So I want to let you know that we did think about that and want to offer a couple of recommendations. And when we provide written testimony, we'll provide some language. Thank you. So I just want to take a few minutes today. We're talking a lot about future land use. And I just want to take a few minutes today to talk about what regional planning commissions currently do and how that might change. Just to ground that conversation a little bit more. And what I've asked before you and showing you the current regional plan for Franklin and Grand Valley County, so the Northwest regional plan. All regional planning commissions have a proposed land use section of their regional plans and have a map. And that shows what we envision is the appropriate future development patterns for conservation patterns for those lands. So, for example, currently, we've already mapped villages and hamlets and what we consider our regional scale and sub regional scale growth areas. And our regional plans also all include a description of what those areas mean and what the goals are for those areas. These plans are developed through a collaborative process with our municipalities with other key stakeholders. We have series of public meetings. We work directly with our communities. We use information from our communities to build these maps as well as outside information from resource areas and other important features. So it's really a collaborative process that we already do and is already reflected in our regional plans. And now I wanted to show you an example of how that might change under this new scheme that we are recommending. So this is a super rough draft of what a future land use map might look like under these recommendations. And what I wanted to highlight to you is really the scale of the different areas as opposed to the specific lines. So, if you look at the red areas, the downtown and village centers, you'll see them scattered about the region in St. Albans City, Fairfax, Richford, etc. Those are the currently designated downtowns and villages that already exist through our state designation program. When you look at this map and see the light pink areas and the purple areas, those are what we're proposing as the planned growth areas. So combined together, if you compare those to Tier 1A and Tier 1B, I want to just talk a minute about what that would mean. So the downtown areas, those in red, plus the pink planned growth areas, those would be the places that we would consider eligible for the Tier 1A exemptions. So if a municipality demonstrates they have all those things in place, then they would be able to achieve the Tier 1A designation. The village centers and the village areas shown in purple are more the areas that might be eligible for the Tier 1B. Did you provide this to our committee assistant? I will now. Yes. It would be helpful if we could look at it a little closer up. And I'll just zoom in on one community to give you an example. So this is the community of Richford, which is a. Community that has the unfortunate opportunity to hit all of the. Negative indicators for poverty, income, unemployment and a host of other social indicators. They currently have a designated village, which is the red area shown on the map. And the pink area that we've shown here is the area that really encompasses their traditional walkable downtown, including neighborhoods, opportunities for redevelopment. And Richard is 1 of those places that has a ton of opportunities for redevelopment. And we think that something like this process that we're recommending would really help to jumpstart that. I just wanted to highlight Richard. Representative Sebelia. Yeah, Catherine, just a quick question on the rich for sure. It's a thing that I worry about how we, how. So flood. So. How can we understand that when we're looking at these maps? And by the way, I love seeing these maps like to see 1 for the whole state. So. So, I'm glad you asked about that because this was a quick mapping exercise. We did not go through the process of like taking out the. Like a river corridor area or a special flood hazard area that should not be in this tier 1b area. We didn't go through that exercise yet, but it is something that I think we will definitely need to take into account because we don't want to. Encourage development in the very places we're trying to protect from development by changing the regulatory standards. So, so as we're doing this mapping. As communities are learning about their, their towns, like, how will that come into this. So through the arc, I think 1 of the things that this process will bring is a great opportunity to have more of those focused discussions locally. So, as we're trying to draw these boundaries really working with the community. So they understand more where their river corridors are where their vulnerable places are that's going to be a great opportunity to do that at the same time. So river corridors are critical resource areas. I think so they are yes and they are regulated. A lot of towns do regulate them. At least at a minimum standard. So is that how we're going to see those showing up on the map. I think that's an open question. And that's something that's a legislative policy decision as whether those should be shown on a map now or regulated in a different way, which is being discussed other committees elsewhere in the building. It's really important for the mapping now. Well, I think separate from whether we. How we might contemplate changing how we regulate development in a river corridor. I think that communities have that data available to them now and they would use it. I think what you're talking about, which is identifying areas that are not flood prone for their communities to grow into. So that would be, I imagine front and center of pretty much every Vermont community right now. In how they're going to work with their regional commissions on these future land use maps. And I think that you raise a really good point when you look at a community like Richard that has water and sewer that really wants to grow differently. The designated area, the red area on this map is right along the river. I mean, it's, it is right for flooding and danger. But if, if you look at the pink area that's been drawn here, that is really great opportunities for redevelopment for future residential growth. For future, you know, lighter scale commercial that will help support the traditional downtown in a way that's positive. And no flood recently, but future. So can you just remind us why we're zoomed in what your legend is the pink, the red is the current downtown. Can you stay zoomed in. It's really helpful for. So the red is the current downtown. The pink outside of that would be that area that's eligible for either 1A or 1B depending upon the community does for their local regulations. And then the kind of rusty orange colored is what we've recommended in our future land use study as the transitional zone. So an area that's currently in some strict development pattern that we hope really can transition into a more on contact dense development pattern. Thank you. Welcome. So it would just be helpful to me happen to see this, if you could. I would like to look at this map for Richard. And the flood map for Richard. If your office could provide that. And I don't know if that's something for the committee, but I would definitely like to see that. We have a great AmeriCorps person who's made these maps for me who's excited to use their skills. So that was what I have for you today. Just want to present. Thank you. Charlie Baker for the record director of the Chinne County Region Planning Commission. I am not going to offer you too much more because I feel like we've talked a lot at you in the last couple of weeks. The only thing I think I'll add to what Catherine said. She focused more on the areas like tier 1. So if I could spend a minute on tier 3. We would really appreciate getting as much direction from the legislature and statute as possible about what should be in tier 3. So we would like to get started on this work with our communities and the public. Soon and I think I think we have a concern about. It taking a long time. If we have a process with A and R that takes some, you know, even if it's defined in statute to take a year or two. You know, we've had some experiences that have taken a lot longer than that. So more direction and statute would be just helpful to us in doing our work. And also, I think for the NRB. After the factors are reviewing our plans and approving our plans, like. Are we consistent with statute? So. And we are kind of taking some of the things that are on the table right now and trying to also look at mapping for tier 3 and what that looks like. So. I think we'll, I think be prepared probably next week to have some more detailed conversation. If you're interested in that conversation. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. Can I ask, would you, would it be, would you be able to walk us through your definitions of the different categories in the future land use maps right now? I mean, I feel like. We may have questions for you and clarifications before we try to put them work them into our bill. Um, sorry, I was flipping to that page for what I was saying. So. Um, is the document we gave us yesterday. I think was that shared yesterday. I mentioned it yesterday. So it was given to me and shared. Yeah. So, I think from the document that we shared last Friday, and we will also follow up. I know we owe you comments. A map. And we'll also attach this draft statutory language. It's 34 pages of that sounds correct. That's right. So it is under, I found it under Charlie's name under witnesses. Yeah. As well. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The land use areas of downtown village centers. These are really. Pretty consistent with the current designations for those centers. You tell us a huge through. Oh, I'm sorry, page 19. They start out. And this, this description is actually taking taken right from the downtown and village center designation language that's currently in statute. No, you're not a lawyer, but I'm going to ask you to just read it. If you don't mind. The, these areas are the vibrant mixed use centers, bringing together community economic activity and civic assets includes Hamlet's villages, new town centers and large, larger downtown seeking benefits under the state designation program. Noting should strike Hamlet's probably the downtown village centers are the central business and civic centers within planned growth areas, village areas, or may stand alone. So, and that's just kind of acknowledging we have some village centers that are, that's pretty much all that's there. There isn't a lot of residential development outside the designated village center. There's a very small village centers in the state right now that are, I think we have 250. Yeah, so there's some small ones are still probably some potential for more. But that's what that is. Members have questions. I'm hoping that if you are able to engage on this level right now would be helpful because we're contemplating putting these into our bill. Representative Tori question about Hamlet's. Yes. I have one of the towns in my district that has some humans and they are definitely not so prone, and they have a stroke settlement, and they may have the soils and they may be. I don't know what visioning processes ahead for that community, but if a Hamlet was identified as an area that needs sense to be a growth area. Does the fact that it's a Hamlet handicapped in any way? No, I think, and thanks for asking that question. And we actually have another land use category strictly for Hamlet's kind of noting. And the reason for that is noting that they haven't yet asked or done the work to become a designated village center. And so within all of this is the notion that a community can move up. So they can move from a Hamlet to a village to, you know, put in infrastructure to become a planned growth area and maybe, you know, they want to maybe they could even become a downtown, right? So there is this notion that towns can grow and evolve. And I think if you talk with the DHCD staff as they're talking about the designation program and what they're recommending for statutory changes, they're talking a lot about a ladder. The community can climb the more they do, the more benefits they get. There's a same philosophy in here and it's just also just organically our communities evolved like that, right? Like, they started off small, they grew. And then so there's always the possibility as we go through the iterations of this that communities could move up or down, you know, for whatever reason that might happen. Sorry, that's a pretty negative thought. But I found this under, if you go under witness on our webpage and just look up Charlie's name. It's under yesterday's date. It is live today as well as just posted it under Charlie's name. So, and we are on page 19. Yeah. So item, I can go to today's date represent as well. Okay. Yeah. So that was item a downtown village centers. And that's really trying to line up with the designation program for those centers. Item B. And as is the more complicated plan growth area. I don't know. I almost feel like saving that for last because we've talked about that the most so far, but, but I'll kind of review. Plan growth area includes a dense settlement and future growth areas with the highest concentrations of population housing and employment in each region and town is appropriate to include a mix of commercial residential civic or cultural sites. With active streets scapes supported by land development regulations. Public water and or wastewater. And multimodal transportation systems. These areas include historic or new town centers, downtowns and village centers. These areas should substantially meet the following criteria. And we have a list of criteria that goes on to the next page, but the bottom of this page that they have adopted an approved plan through the. And there's statutory references there. That the areas within walking distance or municipalities or adjacent municipalities, downtown village center, new town center or growth center. That it excludes and represents ability. This is to your point, the flood hazard, flu, erosion area. Except, and this is we're trying to kind of comport with the existing policy except those areas that have pre existing development areas that are suitable for infill. And again, there's a reference to the flood hazard area and river corridor rule from A&R. So, I have a specific example in my in mine, which is town of momentum, which is very densely settled. It's drowned multiple times. Devastated. So how does that, like, are we treating that time in this situation? So it's a, it is a designated downtown. That's how it's not made. And it's got a river that runs right through the middle. So, I think, as we have been thinking about this, we don't want to see development in that hazard zone, right? And so we would do a plan growth area that excludes the hazard area. So that might mean, like, maybe working with the town, maybe there's some opportunity to kind of grow up slope a little bit into a safer area. And that's what we want to identify because we want to try to encourage that behavior going forward. And so the existing town, just an existing designated area, would still remain exempt or not? Or would be able to be exempt or not? Yeah, if that whole growth area, I think you're in the point of policy debate, I think. You look like you don't understand. No, I understand the question. I understand the question. Really trying to struggle through this. And I'm struggling with the response, not the question, because that is the subject of policy debate in this building right now, right? It's like, how do we treat those areas on the hazard zones? There's a lot of existing development there. Are we, you know, how is that going to be treated? How is it going to be regulated? So, from a planning perspective, we're going to be saying, you know, don't don't do more stuff there. Like, let's not compound the problems we already have. How that's, you know, legally protected or regulated to improve the situation there is not yet clear to me. We've talked in particularly in Senate natural resources about. The flood hazard, river corridor bills as to 13. That would kind of ramp up the regulatory regime that the state has for those areas. That's 1 possibility it doesn't become jurisdictional for active 50. And that's part of the regulatory system to review what happens there in a. You know, in a more consistent statewide manner. So, I'm sorry, I really do understand the issue and you don't want to compound the problem. I think exactly how we do that as a state is not perfectly clear right now. I would agree with you and I would also say that I think these are incredibly emotional conversations in these communities. Well, and it's and I think a public engagement. Oh, absolutely. This is very and I'm not seeing. Yeah, no, public engagement is is the foundation of our planning work to be honest. Yeah, I'm sorry. And these are very emotional conversations in each community was we're talking about flood, flood damages. And, you know, how to evolve in a positive and healthy way for that community is going to be support to the conversation. And that work has not happened, right? I mean, we're not coming here saying all that work is we're looking for a short language to tell us to go do that work. So that's really what we're talking about here. Well, and just to explain my reaction. So yesterday and then share, we heard multiple witnesses say, you know, do this firmly. You have to do it quickly. But you know, really bring the hammer down. And I may agree with all of that. But again, we have to get in front of these conversations with our communities. Yeah, I don't see that on the table right now. I'm sorry that we're not articulating that. I mean, it's not to you, Charlie. In general, I am not seeing that on the table right now. It's not to the RPCs. I apologize. We're going to own a lot of that. Yeah, we work with our communities every day. Sometimes we're helping them, you know, evaluate their flood regulations. You know, and there are really tough conversations. You know, I think we've all been through flood damage situations and, you know, the recovery is is hard and what does the long term look like. You know, FEMA doesn't always help us because they're kind of like doing the short term fix and not the long term fix. And I think that's kind of the conversation we're having in the building is. How do we get to a healthier long term place and still really value those communities and the investments that we have there and, you know, people's roots for their families are there. So I totally get the emotion. Those conversations do need to happen. And I don't know if there's a way for us to articulate because I think we do feel a great sense of responsibility of having those conversations about what should happen in our communities with our communities with our residents. If there's a way that we should articulate, I guess we kind of like know that and we just expect it like we're going to have, I don't know how many we could have 1000 meetings before we get to our regional plan. I hope I'm exaggerating, but, but it could be hundreds and I don't know that I'm exaggerating and saying a hundred meetings to really kind of work through these issues with our community. So that we fully expect that that is the work in the next 1, 2, 3 years to have these conversations. Yes, I mean, you all are the front line on that and I understand that and you're doing that now, but we're also talking about historic changes here. Yeah, historic. And so, you know, we should not all move along. So this is just kind of run of the mill. We need to talk to Vermonters about this. And we need to make sure that you all have a good mandate and good tools to have robust conversations with our communities. And, and the specifics of how those area, how we become more thoughtful about protecting those areas are really important. You know, flood regulations can allow just elevating a building or doing some flood proofing. You know, you know, where there's gray area between there. This is not a black and white conversation. It's easy to prevent people from going into a floodplain in a new, new area. Not so easy to do the redevelopment or the reinvestment to make an area more flood. Thank you. Okay. Is this regional plan. Update been sent to David's not a parent and NBDA. Um, that's a good question. I just sent this out last Friday. I. And I've been sending too many emails and I'm a little overloaded. So I'm not sure if I send it to you. Would you please send that to him? Yeah. Already I value his, his opinion on things that I'd like to talk with him. And he's back from vacation. So yeah, and this is, but this is really reflecting. This is a statutory version of the study that we did. So he has seen the concepts here. Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. Charlie. Thank you for mentioning going up. In the flood areas out there's a community down around my district of Ludlow, which had flooding along the main street that had the wiped out. The mobile home park and the businesses on this end and the hotels and restaurants on this end, but in the middle is a set of condos. And they're elevated. They don't be unaffected by that flooding. So there are ways and that's where the local process needs to command to understand those areas. And I think that's what you're trying to live to. Yeah. And, um, and also in, in other conversations to go around to 13, I think we're also having more conversations about, uh, you know, flooding isn't all local. It's not a local issue. It's a, it's a watershed issue. Right. watershed moment. But, um, so I think there's going to be a lot of situations where we need to look further upstream. Are there flood mitigation things? Can we get more functioning flood plains? Upstream of our village centers to really protect them. So there's a lot more conversation that does need to happen in that area. Yeah. Um, okay. So that was number 3 of the criteria for playing both area. What's the flood hazard? Um, number 4, uh, was, is that the plan indicates this area's entire intended for higher density residential mix use development. So we want to make sure they've done the planning work within the town. Number 5, the area provides for housing that meets the diversity of social income groups. That's pretty related to. Oh, sorry question. We're kind of Logan. Thanks. Um, for number 5. Um, would you be open to making that a little bit more prescriptive? Um, interested in seeing how we could, um. Bring over a concept that is something like a priority housing project. Um, type of requirement into plan. Uh, and I do think that's what we mean by diversity of social and income groups. Right. This leaves it really broad so that would potentially give municipalities. You know, very wide range. You know, a way to interpret that. Um, locally, but I think I would be more comfortable if there was a little bit. So a really good point and, um. And actually in rereading this, I kind of wish that it said, um, also addresses the housing targets, which. Um, a home act is requiring us to do. And so. Um, and that's also for a diversity of housing, not, you know, not just high end or not just low end. Um, and so, um. There's that language could definitely be a strength sense. Thank you. I am already working on something. But, um. But yeah, I'm very interested in that particular piece. Us too. Yeah, I think that's it. Representative Logan's bringing up a really important point around right now. In these neighborhood development areas. For example, we prioritize. Priority housing projects, which are for low and modern income housing. And how can we make sure that these areas continue to require that essentially. And then it not just result in market rate housing being built. And maybe you're both talking about 2 different ends of the same thing when you're talking about the housing inventory, which. We have asked yesterday representatives to ask that it be broken down by requirements within different income categories, not just. We need 6,800 units, but what types of units. And then making sure that we continue to. Build that housing in these places. Yeah, and we didn't get specific. I think I do think that's another. The policy question that needs to be resolved, you know, I think there's an argument for doing your php's ought to be required. You know, for you to get the exemption, maybe 1 way to go about it. I mean, and the php requires 20% affordable. So, you know, by kind of by definition, it's a mixed income. Project and some of them may have more than 20% affordable. But that is interesting. And I think the reason we didn't go there is wanting to just leave the community, the flexibility that it may be, there may be a mix of things happening. There may be a market and then there may be a fully affordable project and then there may be a priority housing project that has a mix. So, yeah, we're trying to get to the same result. But not quite sure how much should be mandated. Yeah. Thank you. Number 6 is just that we have. They're doing infrastructure on the transportation on the streets that meet the complete streets requirements that are already in statute. And then 7 is kind of the. Anti sprawl language and we took this from the existing NDA and smart growth. Language that's in statute. So, this is kind of a condensing of that. So, we're talking about. It's not characterized by scatter development outside the centers. It doesn't limit transportation options. In other words, it's not just auto centric. It doesn't fragment farm or forest land. And it's not serviced by municipal infrastructure. And then the last one is, and it's not just strip development along the road. So that was that was the end of the plan growth area. And again, we're thinking those are the areas that are would be eligible for 1 a and if they don't meet the 1 a criteria, there would be 1 b village areas. Yeah, I'm supposed to be elsewhere, but it's okay. The village areas. We talked a little bit about yesterday of this. So, this is a traditional settlement area or propose new settlement area typically comprised of a code is a mix of residential civic religious commercial and mixed use buildings arrange along main street and intersecting streets that are in within walking distance for residents. Who live within and surrounding the core. That definition again is taking kind of current from current statute about the village areas. And it may and this is what Catherine was just referencing. This is the key sentence about it. We said may or may not have 1 of the following. I think we're kind of evolving to like, no, you need to have some way to deal with wastewater and you have some level of development regulations. Again, you know, I think we were airing on trying to be more inclusive so that more towns could participate in the 1 b option. Which is the kind of conversation that was happening at the NRB table study table there. But, you know, if it needs to move a little bit. Understand and they provide some opportunity for infill development or new development areas where the village can grow and be flood resilient. These areas included system build center and some of the designations, but this area is larger than the village center. So, yeah, we're trying to the village centers focus on the commercial core. The village area would bring in the residential that are adjacent to that core. Catherine just mentioned this, this. And now we're kind of moving out of tier 1 to tier 2. As you think about the NRP recommendations that transition infill areas. So, do you want me to read this or just talk more general? You want me to read. So, this area includes existing or plan commercial office mix development or residential uses. Either adjacent to a plan growth area or a new standalone transition area. These areas serve by our plan for water and wastewater. The intent of this land use category is to transform these areas into higher density mixed use settlements or residential neighborhoods through infill and redevelopment or new development. New commercial strip auto oriented development is not allowed as to prevent negatively impacting the economic fatality of the commercial areas in the adjacent or nearby plan growth or village area. This area could also include adjacent greenfield safer from flooding and plan for future growth. In this area, we're really trying to say they haven't necessarily done the bylaw work yet. But we're identifying there's an opportunity in this area for them to evolve and get denser in this part of town. So they have some infrastructure, but they really haven't done the bylaw work. Item E. Can you say they haven't done the bylaw work. These are towns that have bylaws. So what does that mean. The villages have bylaws. I guess when I think about the transition infill area, I think of communities that are served by water and sewer. Yeah, these, there's a lot of these areas that would not be. So this is our more rural villages that may not have the infrastructure. And they may have and they may have bylaws, but it may be very old bylaws to a plan growth area. So this is probably the plan growth area. I bet you're probably right. The village area ones. So where we have strip development, you know, leading into a village. They may or may not have bylaws. They may or may not have the infrastructure. So this is kind of a two wronged land use category where it could be a place where historic zoning may have allowed for a more linear auto focus. And they're trying to kind of correct it back to a more walkable accessible area, but it also could be a place that communities are hoping to grow into. Okay, I thought that was in more of the previous two categories also if. If they've done the bylaw work, it probably would be in the upper two categories. If they haven't really done, I'm going to use the word good and to mean a lot of stuff. If they haven't done updated bylaws, it kind of like are trying to do a mix of uses and make it more walkable. So like they have bylaws, a sort of encouraging strip development or larger lot development. This is where we would kind of say, hey, this area could be could look different if you updated your bylaws. But we're kind of flagging it because it's an opportunity that maybe the town's been talking about growing into. And it's kind of. I think we've been kind of literally we're probably in a transitional conversation with the town. You know, or the town is in a conversation with themselves about how do they want to treat that, but they haven't made the final decisions yet. If they did make the decisions that I agree with you, then it would move up. So, and this we were just trying to, I think, capture, we're going to have some times that haven't done the work yet. And, but there's an opportunity here. Thank you representative. Thanks, chair. Is it appropriate to ask me an example. I'm just having, I'm having a hard time envisioning like a specific community. Thank you. That's posted child is in South Burlington. I was going to go to Shelburne, but maybe it's the initial actually both of them because so if you're familiar at all with Shelburne road seven right coming south from between Burlington and the village of Shelburne. I'm not sure if years ago was beautiful farm field and has been, you know, car dealerships and gas stations and fast food restaurants right in South Burlington. I would probably argue that they might be part of a plan growth area they updated their zoning they have the infrastructure they're trying to you'll see there's there's been changed there apartment buildings are coming closer to the street. There's mixed use projects. So they're probably a good example of community that did the work and can move up Shelburne has tried to do the work a little bit, but their zoning right now between Shelburne village and South Burlington is in the process and needs to be updated. So they probably would be a transition area right now. And if they did get all their zoning updated they do have water and sewer they're on a transit route. And so they could probably get there but right now we were probably say you're transition right now until you've done the work. You move up. So is that helpful. Sorry Shelburne it's out Burlington. I guess not sorry does out Burlington sorry Shelburne. Hopefully that doesn't cost me later. Here, please pay your dues. Section E. So now we start to get a little. These are still kind of in tier two resource based recreation. A number of regions kind of call out a special areas the ski areas. And this kind of started as that. And then as we were talking about it, we're like, there could be some other areas. You know, maybe space and Harvard. Thank you. We definitely did too too many meetings together. But based in Harvard is probably another one of these where they've got the wastewater and they've got a bunch of units and right there. Right. So that's what that is. But they do have infrastructure jobs housing to support those recreational activities. So item F enterprise. So these are locations of high economic activity and employment, which are not adjacent to plan growth areas. They include industrial parks areas of natural resource extraction gravel pits like that. And other commercial uses, which involve larger land areas enterprise areas typically have. The access to water supplies, which both electricity and freight transportation networks. And this was just acknowledging as we looked at the regional plans around the state. There were some of these. Industrial parks and things that are not really tied closely into a village or center. So. Acknowledging this. So these are all in tier proposed to be in tier two. And we were thinking about experience for development and industrial park. Today versus if we pass this. And it's in a tier two would be what. What is the change. We didn't when we were writing this, we didn't think there was going to be much change in tier two. But I don't probably. So, I can answer that better than I can. That's great. And I think important to note that we do have a lot of industrial and business parks that are kind of part of the community fabric. Those would be probably in the plan growth area, but they're part of that tier 1 area. So this is really the standalone places that are just not connected to the fabric of the community. So in item G, we get to that Hamlet. Places, the small historic clusters of homes and perhaps a school church or other public building that plan for significant growth. Without public water or wastewater. Mostly focus along 1 or 2 roads. And as we were talking about someone were so small, some of the RPCs are saying, well, you might just note it as a point because the point is probably going to be bigger than the geography when we particularly for the kingdom. They were kind of like, that's how they're kind of, I expect they probably will probably treat these places. And I was made to the same questions on that. And again, this was kind of just wanting to acknowledge those little centers of the community that again could could grow, could evolve into and move up the scale into a village. And then the last 3 we really get into we started off with the kind of the word rural in all of these very purposefully. And, but we decided to break it out into 3 categories of rural. Some of the regions are breaking it out. Some of us just have a blanket rural zone now. The world general is. We're trying to promote the traditional working landscape and natural area features, but it does allow for low density residential and sometimes limited commercial that is compatible with productive lands and natural areas. This could also include an area that municipalities plan to make more rural than it is currently. And remember some conversation about that, like if a community wants to actually kind of de densifying area, how would they indicate that so you want to be rural or talk about the future here. Not necessarily what is, but what is your plan for the area. So item A is getting more into those productive lands that agriculture forestry. The blocks of forest and farmland that sustain resource industries provide critical wildlife habitat movement after creation flood storage aquifer recharge scenic beauty and contribute to economic well being quality of life. Development in these areas should be carefully managed from what the working landscape. And rural economy and just regional goals will particularly agriculture and. Forest resource value and there's just a note in 2016. I think you pass act 171, which is. You know, about having us do more forestry planning in our town and regional plans. So this just kind of a connection. This is kind of the area where some of that mapping would probably live in that area. And then, and there could definitely, there's some overlapping here. We wanted to have a rural conservation area. That is intended to be conserved often with regulations or state or nonprofit purchase of proper rights limiting development fragmentation and diversion in order to maintain ecological health and scenic beauty. These lands have significant ecological value and require special protection to their uniqueness fragility or ecological importance. They may include protected lands areas with specific features like steep slopes or endangered species wetlands flood hazard areas and shoreline protection areas. And you'll see no, that was a start to a list, but we're not sure that it really is the list, but we're really would like to get some clear direction here. And these areas are intended to remain largely undeveloped for the benefit of future generations. Some portion of managed forest and will likely fall into this category. So kind of acknowledging, you know, there's a little. I don't know just need to get some clarity about, you know, what goes into the forest versus the conservation. And. And it's also help intended to help me the requirements of 71. And I think 10 vs 89 maybe the 30 by 30, 50 by 50 section of statute that you passed pretty recently. So, you know, we're kind of anticipating that work may also inform this. So, I'm sorry, representative on also be a good place to plug in reference to the law constitution system. Yeah, and that may be that may be the direction. Give here. These are the tier 3. Thank you. Oh, that's good to mention that. Yeah, when we've been thinking about this, we're like, okay, if this is where the tier 3, you know, extra jurisdiction would come in through active 50. Okay. Yes. Thank you. So, just a flag I want to. Here's I'm looking at the language on this. And thinking about people who have this land. Yeah. The language. So, thanks. The language and I is helpful. It's kind of descriptive about what it, what the land is and why it's important. So, and J. Include areas intended to be conserved. So that, you know, that language doesn't quite sit right with me. It feels. Feels not respectful of the people that may be on that land and not as helpful as the language before in terms of describing its importance. So, I don't have any suggestions. I just want to note that I'm seeing that and thinking about that. No, I think that's, that is a really good thing to think about. I think we were intent that it says intended to be conserved. You know, so it may not be the property owners intent to have that conserved, even though so we have to help kind of explain the line here. Yeah, and I think. Our thinking about this was trying to be supportive of wherever the 30 by 30, 50 by 50 conversation goes up. We know there's going to be some. Some mapping or some criteria that comes out of that. I think we're going to have to line up with that. So we're, we are having clear conversations with property hours. I have a suggestion actually, which may not work, but something instead like important to be considered for conservation or something like that, which feels more helpful to a property owner as opposed to. I don't intend for that. Obviously, when we use the word intent and statute, that's the state's the legislature's intent. Right. That's the end of future links Charlie. Thank you for taking the time to walk us through that and help us understand. We'll probably have further questions as we work it in. Sorry to take so much time. No, no, we had time for you and that was the intention of this morning members were to take a quick break until 10. And then start up again with our next scheduled witness. We're going to reconvene our hearing and welcome Janet early. The assume welcome representative Sheldon and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on each 687 as introduced. I come to this testimony with over 15 years experience as a land use planner currently with the Bennington County Regional Commission. And previously as the planning and zoning director for the town of Manchester. I am here to testify in support of each 687. The bill has the potential to lead to meaningful protection of Vermont's landscape and biodiversity. Well at the same time further addressing the state's housing needs. This bill underscores that addressing the climate crisis is inextricably linked to addressing the state's housing crisis by aiming to protect ecosystem functions. While facilitating the development of denser and more vibrant built environments in our community cores. Although at 250 can be rightfully credited with saving Vermont from indiscriminate and uncontrolled development. For too long it has allowed continued small scale sprawl that has had negative consequences on our forest environments are working rural landscape. The development of an adequate supply of housing and on the vitality of our towns and villages. By restructuring the board that implements the law and underpinning its implementation on approved future land use mapping. Vermont's land use goal of compact vital and resilient centers surrounded by working rural lands and protected natural areas will be better served. I will focus my testimony on provisions of age 687 that I think may need further clarification or revision to maximize the effectiveness of the proposed reforms. Particularly with respect to the ability of Vermont municipalities to secure the tier 1A and tier 1B planned growth area designations. That will reinforce centralized development within our community cores and. Protection of rural character and ecological integrity outside of those course. This will happen by incentivizing environmentally responsible development in the core areas with active 50 exemptions. And ensuring clustered and environmentally responsible development outside of those cores through improved implementation of active 50 review and permitting. First of all, it is clear that the proposed reformulations will take years to roll out and implement consequently in the interim. It will be critical that the active 50 exemptions that were for priority housing projects within state designated designated areas that were enacted under the home act. Are carried forward until the new active 50 rubric is in place. Therefore, I support age 652 is introduced by representative bond guards as a companion to age 687. As currently contemplated under age 687 the tier 1B designation will not likely be attainable by most municipalities for which it was intended or envisioned. In the Bennington region only Bennington and possibly Manchester would be eligible for consideration of the tier 1A designation. And none of the remaining 15 municipalities in this region would likely meet the requirements for tier 1B designation. This is because they lack staff capacity to meet the requirements and none operate both municipal water and wastewater systems. Although three incorporated villages utilize the Bennington and Manchester water and wastewater systems, they lack staff capacity to maximize the effectiveness of the bill. It will be important to consider revisions that will allow more more municipalities to attain the designations. Accordingly, I suggest the following revisions for age 687. Incorporate regional future land use categories and mapping into regional plan adoption procedures as proposed by VAPTA representatives Charlie Baker and Catherine Demitrick. These future land use categories should be clearly defined and delineated from the designation categories contemplated in age 687. Consider requiring only a municipal water or wastewater system or allowing for the development of community scale water and wastewater systems with proposed development for the tier 1B municipalities. Require flood hazard and river corridor regulations for tier 1B municipalities unless there are no identified flood hazards or river corridors within the municipal boundaries. Articulate minimum standards for permanent subdivision regulations. These are currently not spelled out in statute or rule. Articulate minimum standards for wildlife habitat bylaws contemplated under 10 VSA section 6032 B1H in the bill. These there are likely very few municipalities that have any such bylaws currently and most would require assistance to develop an adopt minimum standards to be eligible for the tier 1A or 1B designations. Increase RPC capacity to help with municipal staffing deficiencies for contemplated tier 1B towns and villages. Coordination on future land use mapping and assistance with adopting land use regulations that meet minimum standards for designation. Increase capacity of the Department of Housing and Community Development bylaw modernization grant program to assist more municipalities to adopt land use regulations that meet minimum standards for tier 1A and tier 1B designations. And so far as the online A&R Natural Resource Atlas GIS data will be used to help develop regional and local land use maps. The Atlas must be updated with current and corrected data on a more regular basis. And finally, consider removing language from 10 VSA section 6027C, allowing the board to designate or require a regional planning commission to receive applications, provide administrative assistance and perform investigations on active 50 applications. Although RPCs are regularly called upon to comment on applications for development with regional impacts, they have not been tasked to assist in the administration of Act 250 and are likely not equipped to do so. The key idea that will lead to better land use decisions going forward is basing Act 250 jurisdiction on approved future land use maps. This will shift us to better decision making early in the land use permitting process and reduce conflict and unintended consequences later. These maps will be developed with close collaboration between RPCs and municipalities, reflecting the long standing working relationships that the RPCs share with their member municipalities. As you continue to work on Act 687, I would welcome the opportunity to comment further, and I'm happy to answer any questions that committee members may have this morning for me. Great. Thank you for your testimony this morning. I have a, maybe I want to start off, which is your suggestion that GIS data be more regularly updated. I guess, can you speak to that? What's the data that is not being updated and what would regularly look like? So the natural resources Atlas, the online data that identify particularly some of the rare threatened and endangered species and communities data. Some of that data, also deer wintering areas, a lot of it is just dated and, you know, for instance, in Manchester, I know there's a large deer wintering area identified on there that is mostly now developed and has been for many years. So I don't know how to do that. I mean, you, I don't know. It's just, it's just something that I noticed when I was administering an ordinance in Manchester and, you know, that there are some, there's some old data on that, on that layer in particular. Yeah, no, that's very helpful. They have. Yeah, I'm not sure when the last time those were updated. Representative Sebelia that steps. Good morning, Janet. Thank you for your testimony. Can you give me an example of when these future land use maps might change so when we might see a change in the future land use maps or do you think that these are kind of one and done maps. No, I don't think, I don't think they should be one and done. You know, the landscape changes all the time. And so I think that the eight year, the every eight year cycle that regional plans and municipal plans go through will inform any needed changes on those maps. Can you think of any, can you help me understand like how land might change to shift categories? I know I'm putting you on the spot here. Yeah, I mean, I haven't thought about that that much, but you know, maybe there's, maybe there's a municipality that continually it's core continually floods. And maybe there be plan for over the course of many years, shifting the core of the municipality out of the floodplain. And maybe that would result eventually and changes to the future land use map. That's one example. You know, maybe there would, maybe there would be some other sort of natural event that would change the characteristics of certain lands. Yeah, I haven't thought about that, but I'll think about it further and see if I can. It makes me think about the increased number of landslides that we've seen on the landscape and how would those be incorporated in a in a map like this. You know, maybe they would become part of the critical that the category that the tier three in the in the 687 and the future land use map. That informs these these 3 tiers in this bill. I haven't really thought that much about the relationship between them. I do point out in my testimony that I feel like that does need to be further. Contemplated in this bill. Thank you representative on guards. I was only going to stay in response to that civilians question that. And your answer is that town just may also rethink. So that that would relate to, for instance, changing the towns, potentially changing the town center rather than based on consistent flooding. Or, or maybe deciding that they went one direction early and wanted to either make it tighter or go the other direction. But I think towns we think towns. Over time, what what are we thinking things would get tweaked in the bus that does the every other eight years, every eight years. Representative so that suggests to me that the towns kind of have final. Determination on these maps, but my understanding of what we're looking at the board has that these are approved by the natural resources board. So, is the board. Am I not understanding that. Both my own sense is that the board, the way I understand this, the board would have to approve changes and maybe some way that we could. Really for minor tweaks, I have to go through the full process. I don't know, but. But yeah, and this cycle, things would change in the board would look. And they'd be working with the RPCs in the first instance towns and communities reaching. We should kind of consensus on a change of that taking it to the board, depending on the scale. I don't think. Just want to give Janet a chance there. Did you want to add anything? I mean, the way that stuff has described that I would say, yeah. I don't think any of these kinds of changes would come out of the blue and be a surprise to the board by the time it got to the board, you know. The, you know, our, our regional planning commissions have consistently worked with towns closely on the development of their plans. And currently the regional planning commission, you know, approves those plans and I'm not aware of any circumstances in which by the time it gets to a regional planning commission, a town plan is not approved. It's, I think, a very rare event. So. I would imagine the same kind of, you know, working relationship would pass up to the, the, the newly conceived environmental board for these kinds of approvals. Continue on this thread. Yeah, I. You know, I'm just, I'm just struggling to think, I mean, like we are the town plans are really going to have a whole different level of meaning in terms of the mapping there with this aligning jurisdiction with the mapping that I think they don't have now. You know, would you agree or would you challenge that? And if you would challenge that help me understand why this is not really going to be of consequence to communities. I think that all of the town plans have mapping now and they that mapping is reflected in regional plans now. This might, this bill might underscore that it'll be much more important to make sure that the regional plans are accurately reflecting those local town plan maps. But I don't think it. I don't think it fundamentally changes the. You know, the, the fact that the town plan. He informs the regional plan. And what's changing is that these categories will have. More meaning in terms of the implementation or the jurisdiction of active 50. And so what that means is that as the regional planning commissions work with towns to develop the certainly, or at least the regional. The future land use map and the regional plan that it must be much more careful to be sure that there are not conflicts between the local and regional plan maps. Representative Stevens. It's a shift in gear. So, yes. Good morning. On Tuesday, we heard testimony about what's going on with our, our, our waste from a lot of failed septic systems. We know that various. Older municipal sewer systems have overflows. You mentioned it and we have a, you know, we're environment and energy. So we're, we're thinking about planning, but there's also, you know, where do we put all of our. Waste. So my question is, you mentioned tier 1 B. That's not currently likely attainable for a lot of communities. I'm wondering what you think the appropriate balances to try and make sure that. You know, if we have a community that doesn't have staff and has water, but not sewer or sewer, but, you know, what is that balance to make sure that. We're not setting communities up for failure in terms of what then happens with human waste. I think the state permit system for water supply and wastewater disposal. You know that nothing's changed there and. Development within these more rural villages. Without water and or wastewater systems already. They still have to meet those environmental, you know, standards in terms of what's being proposed for development. It still has to have a water supply and and wastewater system that is that meets those standards. And so I think what I suggested is that. If we want to and if we want to incentivize development in these smaller cores. It's not likely going to happen because are under this under the way the bill is currently written it's not likely going to happen that they'll get the. Do 50 exemption to provide that incentive unless we consider something other than already existing larger water supply and wastewater systems and so. I mean my understanding is I'm it's certainly not my area of expertise, but that there has been a lot of work in recent years. To develop smaller scale community level systems that could function essentially as a municipal system for. This this kind of scale of development in in these kinds of rural cores. Yeah, I mean we do have a couple of bills on the wall that relate to, you know, alternative systems. But if we have time, it'd be great. I don't think we will have time to talk about them, but really that's something that we need to talk about in the future. Other questions for this early. Another question I would love to kind of talk about the regional plans and the process for how that could change for an extended period of time. So, is that a question. It's, would you like me to, I mean, I could continue like just asking a bunch of questions or I could focus them if we have another opportunity to have discussion about that. I think we still have time with Janet Harley. You want to start. So, I really am trying to and I'm trying to get to an understanding here about decision making. And who is making decisions. So, would it be possible. Do you think for a community to say a community and the natural resources board to disagree. And the regional planning commission about a critical resource area in the town. And if there was disagreement. Who gets the final site. I mean, I guess what's at stake is an active 50 exemption. So, you know, I don't, I, I can't envision something that would be a disagreement between the board and a locality. You know, I still see that, you know, the local planning commission is the body that develops its local plan. It's local land use plan. And it does so with input from its, you know, it's municipal citizenry. And it's the legislative body of that municipality that adopts that plan that plan has to meet statutory requirements. But within the statutory requirements, you know, it's, it's a plan that's developed by the locality. So, and as I said earlier, I'm unaware of any instances in which a local plan that was duly adopted with public input and that meets statutory requirements has been rejected by a regional planning commission. I think because of the, the proposed tier one a and tier one the categories that it'll be more important that the regional plan. Be carefully, especially the maps, be carefully delineated so that there are no conflicts with these local plans. But those local plans inform the regional plan. It's not, it doesn't come down from the top. It's the local plans are developed locally, and they inform the regional plans, which, so, I'm not sure I'm getting at everything that you are asking me to, but I, I, I don't see that this bill is taking away, you know, the local, the importance of the local, the localities coming up with their own plans. So, I can certainly envision a community saying we want to develop this area. And the regional, the RPC saying this is a critical resource area you really can't that natural resources board saying it's a critical I can certainly see conflict there and you know, I don't know that how much that exists right now. In fact, I would anticipate that happen, given some of the rural towns that I'm aware of. Are they towns that would want this one a or one B designation. Don't know. It's just, I think it's really important for us to be very clear about what is changing here and helping particularly communities that don't have a lot of capacity understand what's changing it and Janet. I don't know if you were on when Charlie was testifying earlier Janet is in my region. And, you know, we, we work very closely we understand how important a resource the RPCs are for our communities but these are historic changes that we are considering here. And on the other side of the mountains in southern Vermont. You know there's been some challenges around around quorums with our RPC. There's been some challenges with our district commission on some, you know, we have three year permits. And so when we talk about you know the only thing that's at stake here is whether or not you are exempt from an active 50 permit. And actually, you know, having the jurisdiction of an active 50 permit for a working Vermont or or someone who's trying to develop their land or start their business can actually be a very significant cost, a very significant amount of time, which may be appropriate. And I think it's important that we're very clear about that. And so those can be powerful motivators for conflict for a community for instance say, no we want to develop in this area, an area that may in fact be an area that shouldn't be developed in. And so I'm trying to get to the nature of, you know, how that conflict is going to be resolved. I think what the bill says is that the NRB resolves that. And that made me the right thing. What I'm concerned about is how do our communities know this is coming, which because that's a pretty significant change. So, a lot of statement there, but invite you to kind of push back on me or for the chair to plug if she'd like but the user I'm worrying about. Yeah, I mean, you know, the, the jurisdictional trigger for active 50 currently in those towns is, is the same as it will be. Except for the, the road rule, I guess, that language has changed around the distance from, you know, an already established highway, instead of the length of the road that is proposed, I guess. But, but I don't see that it's changing active 50 jurisdictional triggers beyond that. So, I'm not sure that this reconceptualization of the implementation of the act in terms of these maps will will further burden anybody. I think what it is, is it is allowing for an active 50 exemption under certain circumstances. You know that the, so I don't see how it is. I don't see how it is going to lead to being more of a burden to anybody. I think what it's doing is, it's relieving that burden for development that occurs within these identified cores that have strong land use regulations. Those are not the places that I'm actually talking about. I'm thinking more about tier 2, tier 3. Blood corridors or river corridors, which is not in this bill, but is in this building and is likely to be a part of this. Which would be a pretty significant change in terms of. Could be, could be a significant change in terms of mapping. Right, but is it changing any. Jurisdictional triggers for active 50 and how active 50 is administered. Why are we doing the maps. To identify areas that would be eligible for exemption. But we are not. So, those are not the only areas that we are identifying in the map. Right. Um, no, there are 3 tiers. Yes. I'll say this goes to your point, Jennifer, you made partway through your testimony. About making decisions upfront during the planning process. And having them be clear or there and then. Not utilizing for after the fact planning, which I. I think you're alluding to this is really in everybody's interest. And I think that's where we went when rep civilians talking about the. The fact that the mapping will have, you know, there are different or there are different jurisdictional triggers beyond simply. The core areas for instance, tier 3. That's right. I like the 2,500 foot rule. Yeah. I think that's an important point that rep. Thank you. Represent bond guards, you know, we're making planning decisions upfront. And so that is again, that is a historic change. I think it's probably has no. Then why are we doing it? I, um, I. Representative 7. I mean, I feel like there's been. A lot of planning for a long time. And for my understanding, the question is, is, is it. Is it locationally based. Based off of, you know, whether or not it makes sense to build there in the future, whether or not it makes sense to. Make sure we keep forest there so it doesn't have a landslide on the town. Like it hasn't, we've done a lot of planning that hasn't necessarily correlated with how it relates to. Natural resources. And then the other piece is we've done a lot of planning that to your point. People only really wake up. Once the permit is filed. And so. It's not necessarily. Planning that. I mean, sometimes it's been helpful, but my sense is it hasn't always. Really, it's been more of an academic exercise that hasn't necessarily always. Really informed the discussion of. How do we want to develop and where. Yeah. So I, that's why I made that face is I do think we've done a lot of planning. There's a lot of planning. It's just hasn't been useful helpful actionable and. Yeah, I would say it's been perhaps inconsistent. Many towns have done proactive planning. That's been. Yes. And I think. We is something that I think about a lot and. You know, who is we? Yeah. So. You know, there's we in this room and then there's we that. Run our towns and we that live on my road. And just making sure that we're connecting all of those dots because they are all connected in terms of the decision making. And communication. I would like to give you an opportunity Janet to add anything else before we shift to our next witness. Um, I guess just that, you know, 1 of the things about act 250 is that, as I said, it can certainly be credited with saving Vermont from indiscriminate. Development that, you know, we'll have marred our landscape, but that because of its implementation as and because it's seen as so cumbersome that people all over the state. Small scale developers. We'll do anything to avoid triggering act 250. And so what's happened is we get a lot of. You know, 9 lot subdivisions in the outskirts of towns and. And that sort of thing. So, it's, it needs to be something that is not as cumbersome to get a permit for, you know, for it needs to be something that isn't something that everybody's going to run away from. And I think that part of what this bill is doing is it's trying to make it something that is not as objectionable to, I think it's trying to streamline. The, the implementation of the act 250 review and permitting. And I think that's a really important part of this bill. Yeah, I want to know, I see that, and I see the benefit of that. And I know that, and it's in a very, very, very small part of Vermont that there's a lot of interest in developing. We're interested in awareness, communication, empathy, engagement with the rest of Vermont about what we are doing, because we are not just making it easier in that very small important part that we want to develop in in this building. We are making it harder. Outside of that, I think, or at least we are changing the rules outside of that area. And so, you know, when we are changing the rules. I think it's really important that we talk about how to talk to Vermonters about that, why we're doing it. How they can engage, how conflict will be resolved, what we anticipate for conflict. So, that's it. Thanks. We do need to move on. I guess there's 1 more from representative Stevens and then we will let you have the rest of your day back. So, it's a question for you. Okay. Do you, do you want me to sign out or it's not a question for me. It's not a question for you. Apparently, I want to thank you in the time to thoroughly review and give good input and volunteer to continue to help us. So thank you for that. Okay. Thank you for having me. Yeah. And you're welcome to see in the zoom room if you like. Okay, thanks. Thanks. I should know. 67 better than I do, but offhand of this 60 plus pages. I am not remembering how much if there is commentary on the public outreach communication process. I found it helpful that Mr. Costa was here the other day. We're talking about some of the processes that they are currently does, but maybe at some point. I'm curious whether or not you'd be willing to sort of spend a little bit more time looking at how do we make that conversation trickle. You know, down and up because having held many, many public meetings in my life you can do postings you can do notices, but people are busy they don't show up. Or, you know, so how do we, how do we connect to that key question of. How do we bring people to the conversation and make sure that if they want to be part of that conversation, they are. Yeah, yeah, we can learn more about how people are doing that successfully now. And that we make sure it's in our bill. That's probably good segue to Megan Sullivan joining us. Good morning. Thank you Megan Sullivan vice president of government affairs for the Vermont Chamber of Congress. It's nice to see you all again today. So yesterday I spoke about the tier 1. And I think I'm starting today talking about the land use mapping and then I'm going into tier 2 and 3. What I'm here for. So, you know, I think the, the coordination that happened over the summer and fall on the 3 studies, the NRB study, which is specific to active 50 and I'm going to keep coming back to that because I, you know, our housing crisis is not going to be solved by active 50 alone. I'm talking about active 50 in here because that's the, that's the steering committee I was on. But know that there is so much more that needs to be done for our housing crisis. It's not going to be part of my conversation today unless you have questions to ask, you know, what are the other ways we're working on this. But for the active 50 piece. The opportunity to work on our housing, you know, as was just said that people who want to avoid it at all cost. We know that there's there's challenges for people to go through it. On the mapping, I think is an important piece to say, okay, if we're going to move to location based jurisdiction, we need to know where those locations are and what we're talking about. And so the delineation that's done to really understand our land and recognize that we're not talking about a blank slate. We have existing housing and infrastructure and buildings that are here that may not have been done in the way that if we were starting over we would do them, but they are here and we need to acknowledge their existence. And I think that's an important recognition that we have that we can't start from scratch. We need to acknowledge what exists and how to and how to think about that. So things like the enterprise areas, which are part of tier two that are saying this is an industrial park and maybe it's not where today when we're thinking about complete communities we would put these job centers, but it exists today. And we need to acknowledge it. It's there and think about what that means for our future. The only thing I would, you know, say is that when we go from the idea of, you know, the study on on the big idea to then the mapping and the planning, then the implementation, we need to be cognizant of what does that mean for an individual. If they're coming to say, I'm going, I want to build four units of housing, I want to build another house on my land that they're not looking at 13 different. Well, where am I on this map? What does this mean to me and they're, you know, likely going to go to their town and ask and if their town can't figure it out. This is where I think that that challenging part comes in of how do we take these maps that acknowledge the existing infrastructure and development that we have and incorporate the reality of what people are going to need to do and figure out. So, you know, I think, I think there's opportunities for that, but just as we're looking at implementing the land use mapping, that that needs to be part of the conversation of how do we make sure this is accessible for everyone bringing environmental justice and social justice voices into that conversation is also I think critically important to make sure that we're acknowledging where land use mapping is a history of being exclusionary that has had implications for minorities and low income people nationally and in Vermont. It's just part of our history. I think we have to all acknowledge and then think about really consciously as we move forward. Any questions on that part of where I sort of go. Okay. On tier two and three, so I think this has been a really important process, you know, for, for the chamber. You know, I think a few years ago we were saying, you know, no way on the road roll. And I think this process has really has helped us to think about, you know, we need development and I think it's helped bringing these communities together of conservationists and developers and housing advocates and business advocates bringing us into the room to say, you know, we can no longer have this argument that we can't do housing because of our environmental challenges and we can't fix, we can't address our environmental challenges because of housing. Those, those pieces have been at odds. I feel like in this building and and in the state and nationally for a while. And I think this process has really given the opportunity to say these don't need to be at odds. They can work together, but it's really hard. And we have to be really aware of the decisions we make because of the impacts that they can have. So, you know, when we're seeing the opportunity to say, we're going to define areas and those areas need to look at not just where we're growing now. And this gets into that environmental justice saying we're not just going to say we are going to put affordable housing in flood plains and have the people who can least afford to deal with these impacts having to relive this impact over and over again, but it means we're going to need to allow and incentivize growth outside of there. And, you know, the priority housing projects have been incredibly effective. And I certainly hope our housing committees are looking at how do we continue to incentivize that because we also need to be incentivizing middle income housing so that people have an opportunity to move up in their housing. As, as their circumstances change. And that when we're outside of those areas that need to incorporate these these housing goals that we're not saying no to development, but we're again incentivizing more compact development. And that's really how we came to to agree to the 2000 foot road rule of saying, if you can, if you're looking at building housing. That it continues to be done in a more compact settlement pattern. And there are, you know, there's still a need for single family homes. You know, I think there's a lot of people who who strive for that life to live live in a single family home and I'm sure there are other people in this room that live in single family homes. I think we're not saying you can't build single family homes anymore, but saying if we're going to continue to do that that if it's that the incentive is to do it in a compact way. And if we're not doing it in a compact way, then looking at potential impacts that it can have. I do, you know, again, I, I disclosed yesterday I'm not a planner or a lawyer. I'm an economic development specialist. So that's, that's my frame. So that brings me, I think maybe hopefully hopefully to a point of looking at some of the definitions that don't come from a background world that I live in and have me asking questions that I hope are helpful for the committee to be thinking about. So when I'm looking at definitions for, you know, I think I'll start with habitat, as we get into tier two and two or three. And, you know, means the physical and biological environment in which a particular species of plants or wildlife lives. What does that mean? You know, what is a particular species of wildlife? And, you know, this is where I want the DC opportunity for the appeals that I think is what we need to really contain. So if I've got squirrels running around, is that a habitat? And if they run from this tree to that tree, is that a connected habitat? You know, I think that's where we need the definition. What is the wildlife that we're talking about? What is the particular species? And this is where when we were talking about tier three in the NRB steering committee where it said, you know, we really need to understand this better and study this better. So there aren't unintended consequences of saying, we're going to say impacted wildlife corridors, and then that is open to very broad interpretation or plant species. So what does that, what are we protecting there each just so we can yes, 36. You know, then 37 it says necessary wildlife habitat and endangered species, but you know, if I'm trying to understand as a layperson who wants to develop some housing. I mean, I think this is where we really need to help people understand. Yeah. Representative point out the term necessary habitat. Well, that habitat comes from activity that's been there for a long, long time. It's been filled out by and by decisions of. So, I'll just point that out. That's how that that's how it has happened fast. So they have a tech board or what is that also. No, I'm on. Okay. Okay. You're raising. You're raising. Okay, great. These are all things for me to know. We have to think. Thank you. The other question I had in the definition of fragmentation. You know, I think we're clearly here trying to, you know, this is getting at force fragmentation. But if this is going to be you that happens in. As part of that criteria for all tier 2 or tier 3. You know, I have concerns around. Any. The construction conversion relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure. Um, that just, I think important to know if they excuse me. Yeah, thank you. I do really appreciate your questions. I'm not asking back at all, but I appreciate orienting us to the bill. These are used after act 250 would be already triggered. Right. And that is the new criteria. Yes. Yep. No, I understand that. So these are so it's triggered and also where you are. Yep. Page 36 fragmentation. Line, sorry to line it. Um, but. Any change in the use of any building or any other structure. So that's where. You know, I think about, um. Or land. Um, if you have an existing home in what becomes tier 2. Um, does any change in their use of land or their use of building. I mean, they have to get. They have to go through activity. And that's of concern on an existing property. This would apply to existing. Development, but if it's a change in use of any building. But this is so this is not a jurisdictional trigger. That's my point. So this is, if you are already triggering activity, you would be net. Just as an additional criteria under. 10 criteria. Right. So it's the new fragmentation criteria that we've been talking about for a long time. So it's not new. So I guess the. And change of use and building. So someone could change the use in their. Building and not trigger. So when does the change of use and building trigger. That then that would be reviewed under this. Representable perhaps if you're already under active 50 jurisdiction. It would really be only if you're already under change of use. Wouldn't. Okay. You tier 2, there's nothing in tier 2 that suggests anybody would automatically be under. Any kind of jurisdiction. Other than other than now, so it would tend to be a change if you. Your project is under. The way it always works that if your project under active 50, and there's a change, then you have to get that permitted, but this wouldn't change that. Would be only if you're already under. So if you're, if you went through active 50 for your. Development, and now you had a change of use. You have to do that. You would have to. Yeah, right for the existing criteria. You'd have to do it. This would only ensure this would only add a look at fragmentation, which would have been 90. I would guess in both cases that we're talking about. Like a house will. Well, anyway, I won't speculate what it would mean, but this isn't a jurisdictional trigger. Right now, if you're under active 50 jurisdiction, there's a change you have to get an amendment. This doesn't change that. It only says that along with everything else. The commission would look at fragmentation fragmentation. Whether it's an implication of fragmentation. Um, okay. And so I. I think the, um. The question I have then is what, you know, what are the requirements? Something that the steering committee talked about was if, if a development is triggered by the road rule. Do you need to do need to go through all 32 criteria? Um, and I think similarly, if you've got to hire an engineer to say this doesn't fragment. To sign off in your filing that says this isn't a force fragmentation issue. You know, that adds. Cost. Um, and I think that's where. You know, some of these added costs of looking at how we understand. How an applicant looks gets to criteria. Um, you know, I spoke with an engineer prior to the sessions who said, you know, this is, you know, certainly going to. Active 50 is a lot of what he does is providing applicants with studies and said it's, it's great for business, but there are some things that are just. Feels like we're charging them so they can check a box that that shouldn't necessarily need to be checked. And it wasn't in our purview in the steering committee to get into the 32 criteria to see. Um, you know, are all of these necessary for everything that we're talking about. Um, but I think. You know, that's a worthy question to be asking and maybe, you know. Something that a professional board should be looking at if, if something is triggering. If, if the road rule is triggering. Um, and it's for 1 house. Do you need to be looking at traffic impacts and educational impacts. Um, so I guess that's, that sort of comes. Around on my fragmentation question. Do we need all of the criteria for all. Triggers. I was going to ask actually for an example. Rep Mungard stopped himself from speculating. So maybe that's something that we could. An appropriate to say that that's an R. B. or B. C. Or something. So. I worry about the fragmentation here. So I'm moving that. She may be able to speak that later when you change views. I'm a change of views question specifically. If you have subpoena Haskell chair of the board natural resources board, if you have a permit and it's a change of views, there's an amendment that you'll need to do if you're, if you're going from a single residential that didn't have a permit and you decide if you had a permit, a permit, whether you had a permit before or not, it's a change of views that is as impacts. That was, that was, you know, or it could be changing your house into a bed and breakfast, which is probably more likely. And then that would be a change of views. Cause you'd be going from residential to commercial. And it might not have had a permit before. So dividing so my kid can build. Would not. If you have a permit now. If you don't. I wouldn't sign my attorneys aren't here. I think that's one where I'm not equipped to answer it, but I understand the question. So I'm really acutely interested in the question of who do we want to live in Rovermont or to allow to live in Rovermont? Cause I know that my good friends from Connecticut, who I meet with every weekend, we'll be able to buy their way through the permit process. So yeah. So I think it would be, we don't have an attorney in the room with us and we can walk through all of the existing criteria and the jurisdiction triggers. And at this conversation when we have an attorney in room. So I welcome hearing your questions. And I would say that if they're legal questions, we'll do that with our attorney. I just want, this is a very small point, but. Recreational purposes, that's the bottom of 36 into 37. Recreational trails, orders that are not paved and used for recreational purposes, including just from other bills I've worked on sometimes putting, including people take that to mean exclusively, including those things. So other options then get questions. Well, can you, is that included? So language like such ass or that makes it clear. This is not all inclusive. What it's including is. I can say that we use that word, including to say exactly what you're saying, which is that it's not. Yeah. That's a, and that's from our editors and our lawyers. So that's how we. I've seen pushback on that before, but if that's has worked here, then. We can. You know, I do those were sort of my, my questions on some of the. Definitions that I saw and how. That then leads to practical implementation. I think, you know, it's, it's critical that we are, we're still allowing our rural communities to participate in becoming part of a vibrant economic future. And so that, how do we engage the communities? And I, you know, I, I found the page, which, you know, I'd mentioned this, the page 51, where it talks about going to every community, the board will go to every community. It'll get posted in lots of places. So, and that that, that'll take a long time. If the board has to go to every municipality. But I think, you know, the, the intention there of engagement is important. And that was a lot of discussion that happened at the, the steering committee. And so whether it's the review board goes, or if it's through the, the planning process that the RPCs, you know, are going to every community and that, you know, it certainly hope for, we're working with me now municipalities to get it right on where everything is posted and recognizing some challenges. Some of that. But, but that public engagement on not only on tier one, but also as tier three is better defined on that tier three, that public engagement understanding and feedback is, is critical. Talk to a community member in Waittsfield who was saying that they were, that kept getting told there was a wildlife corridor corridor. And they said it is that they haven't, bears haven't been on this land for 20 years. So I think that, that level of engagement is important. So I appreciate the committee's commitment to, to thinking about the best way to do that. That's efficient, but also really brings people into the conversation. And, and that tier three, you know, so aligns with our goals that have already been stated around what we're conserving and that we're really looking at not inequitable portion of Vermont turning into tier three, but thinking about these tier ones and tier threes really having similar status in the amount of land we're talking about and the process that we're talking about in public engagement. Questions from I just, I hear you on adding tier three to this. This is currently as it's written, focused on the plan growth areas. Yeah. So not imagining going to every town, but only the towns that were flying further areas. We're hoping it's going to be a lot. I mean, I think that's, you know, important that it's a lot of towns that, especially, you know, if not the tier one A or tier one B that are looking at areas that are talking about where we incentivize growth and housing and really community development that. That I think the outcome needs to be that there are communities in every county of the state and that it's more the exception that a town decides they don't want to participate than they do. Yeah. I guess when we first looked at it outside, just thinking about like if it's every town right out of the gate, right? Realistic, but it won't be every town right out of the eight. It's something that would happen iteratively over time as towns. Pursuit this. Yeah, I just, again, I'm hoping we're in a housing crisis. Um, and it is statewide and we need the whole state to be coming together for it. And, you know, I think that's why yesterday raised concerns about one B being unreachable for a lot of communities that are. That we need to rethink if that if everything that that one B is asking for is really necessary for, you know, the housing development we're talking about. So to this point of every town and, you know, the length of time that that will take, I mean, these, do I understand correctly that we'd be identifying these areas as we're doing this mapping with the communities and the RPCs that will be approved by the NRB? It's not. Currently, as they're after this bill does not contemplate the board working on the mapping in every town. It is a ground up process that currently exists that towns develop their town plans. And this doesn't change that. So towns will still be developing their town plans and then working with the regional commissions to develop their future land use maps. And then those future land use maps would be approved by the board. Right. And this, these planned growth areas now, because we're talking about attaching jurisdiction will be, I think, of much more important to communities to think about. Right. And so that, for me, I wonder how quickly, you know, it may not be as slowly as we're thinking. I think towns. Because there's jurisdiction that's contemplated to be attached to this. If we were to pass such proposals. I think we just have to think about a lot of towns may want to be thinking about that right out of the gate. Yeah. Fair enough. We can. Thank you for your testimony. Right. With that, we're going to shift gears to Charlie Hancock who is joining us via zoom. Hi. Good morning. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Great. Well, thank you so much for the opportunity to join you all today. Good to see committee members and I think I saw Sabina there in the back. So hi to Sabina. So for the record, my name is Charlie Hancock. I'm the chairman of the Montgomery select board. My day job is also as a consulting forester. Although some days I don't know which one of those takes up more of my time. So it's a pleasure to see you and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Hi. I'm just going to say that we have a lot of people in the committee who have already been touched upon many times in the committee. And I believe that this is a solid framework upon which to build our work around act 250 going forward. I also, like others want to echo that the NrB report is a compromise framework, which addresses so many of the challenges that we're facing today. But I want to emphasize compromise because for the vision to actually work all the various components that are I also want to highlight that while the NRB report provides a solid framework, it did not get us fully across the finish line on many specific parts of what reform would look like, acknowledging that this is, you know, no surprise, really complicated and will require both greater data collection and synthesis, specifically when we talk about mapping, as well as greater buy-in from a broad and diverse set of stakeholders. And therefore, as it's been pointed out, you know, I think we need to be really deliberate and thoughtful about our next steps here, and I'll just echo what others have said about it's not just about getting it done, but it's about getting it done right, which I think we all know. So my own community of Montgomery, talked way up here at the northern end of the state, is a rural community like the majority of other towns in Vermont. We have what I would consider really robust zoning, but we're currently working with our RPC to make our bylaws even stronger, addressing many of the challenges that you're all aware of. We're also in the process of developing a municipal wastewater system for our village centers, a principal objective of which is to increase housing availability. As with smaller rural communities, our interaction with Act 250 looks a lot different than in the larger communities around the state, which are addressing a scale of projects, which are at an order of magnitude larger, but it does have a significant impact here. Before I get into a discussion of tiers two and three, I did briefly want to touch on tier one, because as these are all connected, the changes that we make in one area will affect the impact of the changes we make elsewhere. So thinking about Montgomery, you know, changes to this tier one status will make an impact here. I can point to a 16 acre property right in Montgomery center, one of our two designated village areas, where our town plan and zoning really seeks to encourage dense compact development, and which will be served by the municipal wastewater system we're slated to break ground on next spring. We've got a developer looking to create a mixed commercial and residential project there, which will result in 35 units of new housing, specifically targeting workforce and seniors. So the tier one exemptions being put forward or the higher caps on jurisdiction as outlined in the NRP report would help remove one obstacle to making this project a reality as quickly as we're able to. I do have some concerns about the planned growth area designation regulations that are currently in age 687. I think the intent behind them is spot on, but I would need greater specificity around some of the language outlined there specifically around capital budget and municipal staff requirements. Some of the specific use language around how tall buildings have to be and then some of the ancillary regs around like wildlife habitat bylaws and how those would be crafted and implemented in this context. One important point that came up through the NRP process and which was just discussed in the committee before I hopped on is that we really want all communities to have access to this designation status and to have a seat at the big kids table. I'm also not really clear from the bill what would happen if a municipality couldn't hit all the marks as currently in the definition there. You know, the NRP report created this tier 1A and tier 1B framework that you were just talking about the goal of which is to make permanent relief accessible for all communities. Even if we can't meet that highest bar, so I really would support a similar framework which makes this accessible to every community in Vermont that's willing to put the time in. Because as you're aware, you know, different communities, especially rural communities, issues like capacity and budget, they hit a lot different. So shifting gears looking at tier 2 and acknowledging that this will be the majority of the state as presented under the NRP report framework. Your committee has heard a lot about forest fragmentation forest lost already. I've been an advocate in this and other committees for incorporating forest fragmentation criteria and act 250 for years. So this is a little bit like deja vu all over again. So I won't go into the specifics about why all this is important. But I do think in the context that we're talking about today, it's important to highlight what we don't want housing development to look like in communities like ours here in Montgomery. And, you know, they say a picture is worth a thousand words so. Can folks see that okay. Again. Great. So what you're looking at here is a 190 acre parcel in my own community of Montgomery. This parcel. Oops, if I can. Advance to the next picture. There we go. This parts parcel, which was historically managed as a working forest. It sits within both the highest priority forest block and highest priority connectivity area adjacent to root 242 as identified by both state level and local mapping projects and work around identifying these areas. The property serves as headwaters and flood storage for a critical tributary of the trout river, which passes right through Montgomery center. And we all know the impacts of flooding and flood storage in our communities. The property was subdivided into 15 building lots in a manner which managed to leapfrog at 250 jurisdiction and the 10, 5, 5 trigger. Essentially, what happened is the individual bought the property plugged in the road network and then did the subdivisions in a way where the first set took place. Through years 1 and 2 and then they waited until after year 6 to do the second subdivision. Set of subdivisions so. There was no opportunity to review or address any of the design potential that would potentially mitigate the resource impacts that were also concerned about here today. So now we have a road system totaling approximately 3500 feet or about 0.6 miles. 1512 acre lots all chopped up up there and all done in a manner which managed to eat frog active 50. A framework such as the jurisdictional trigger of a road rule. As well as the added forest fragmentation criteria both described in the NRB report would address this and I highly support, you know, adding those into act 250. I will add that that property through any number of reasons ended up never actually selling any of those lots and the property is currently on the market for $1.8 million. We're working to find a conservation buyer to essentially buy the property and conserve it back into the working landscape. So if any representatives have $1.8 million lying around that they want to contribute. Please give me a call. Further regarding tier 2. I do have some school questions about the specifics and age 687 and how the new jurisdictional criteria would apply. From my reading it looks like the bill outlines what I would understand to be more of a 500 foot road rule in practice. I do think the 2000 foot framework outlined in the NRB report. Was an important compromise in terms of essentially folks saying that's too long. That's too short. And I worry that trying to reduce 2000 down to 500 could blow up the consensus that was reached there. I also do want to flag the new definition of development as it applies to tier 2 areas as I read the bill or I understand it, which would trigger jurisdiction for 4 or more units of housing in rural or working lands areas. And I'm reading role in working lands areas to be what we're talking about is tier 2. And then also the revised definition of subdivision, which would drop the jurisdictional trigger from 4 lots to 2, 4 lots from 10 lots. In this tier 2 area, I worry that the 4 lot trigger and the change to the definition might be too restrictive and it could potentially be in conflict with some of the incentives we're trying to create for compact development. When it comes to the road rule. So, you know, using the road rule as an incentive for developers to create this compact sorts of development. In doing that, they could create a 4 lots of division. Which is is laid out, you know, perfectly fine as we as we want to see them. So, again, I think the concern here is the impact of the lots themselves and that often depends on the design not necessarily the number of them. Lastly, in tier 2, I do wonder the definition of development as being within 25 feet of a critical resource area. And that's what I would understand of the tier 3 areas we're talking about as outlined in the NRB report. The way it's described with the 25 foot distance could be problematic and kind of confusing. So, just a suggestion there would be just make the buffer part of the critical resource area. I couldn't negate some of the issues. Moving on to tier 3. Again, this is my understanding is this is what we're calling critical resource areas in age 687. I love the principle behind it and support the framework. I do have some concerns on how this is defined in the bill. And frankly, I'm not entirely sure and clear how the intersection of this definition will work with the mapping work and the associated process outlined elsewhere. But regarding the definition offered. It looks like this would drop the current jurisdiction trigger elevation wise from 2500 feet to 2000 feet. I need to see a better GIS analysis of exactly how much land that would bring under jurisdiction, but my recollection from past number crunching with folks at NR is that it's frankly a lot. And while there was broad agreement in the NRB study committee that tier 3 areas require special attention under this framework. The expectation from the group that worked on the report was that tier 3 would really only apply to a small area of the state. This seems like there's an importance here and being delivered about what we want to identify. And I do worry that just a straight elevational trigger drops might be a little bit too arbitrary. So I would like to see a little bit more analysis there. I also have a little concern around language included about any amount of prime agricultural soils. Fitting into how we define this area. I think the intent is great and clear, but as defined, it could lead to some huge confusion around how this is applied in practice given how soils are mapped and how a vast diversity of soil soils might show up on any given parcel. And how this would actually be applied in practice. Excuse me, I do think the definition in the bill is a great starting point. But by this definition, we may be bringing in more land into tier 3 than we actually really intended to or intend to. And could also potentially leave out other areas that warrant greater resource protection. As the NRB report said, any designation of specific tier 3 areas will require further analysis based on good science, careful mapping and public engagement. I am really excited to see that you've got Eric Sorensen and Liz Thompson coming in to speak to the committee. When it comes to mapping, I do think Vermont conservation design is a fantastic starting point. But it is just that it's a starting point. We'll need additional mapping support from ANR and the opportunity for RCPs to develop a process to assist in the development and mapping of these areas. And that process be uniform throughout all communities and founded on a principle of public engagement. So, big picture. I am in full agreement that we need to advance a balance like what's proposed in the NRB report. With the exemptions and designated areas and the heightened resource protection and others or really just the simple opportunity to review development in these areas. And H687 is currently drafted as a fantastic starting point. But like most things, the devil's in the details and there's still some details that I think need to be worked out. Lastly, I did just want to quickly comment about the important connection between economic development and housing and the conversations we're having around Act 250 and resource protection. Couched in this is a critical need to address permit relief for working lands businesses such as farm enforced enterprises. Act 250 has been critical in maintaining this land base, but I'd like to highlight that it's the success of these enterprises that themselves is foundational to maintaining the landscape that Act 250 seeks to protect. And rural communities like Montgomery's really depend on these enterprises. I sometimes feel, unfortunately, like we won't be forgetting that a little bit as a state. And so when we pop the hood open on Act 250, if we are looking to make some changes, there's a few additional ones that I would love to be under consideration. One was in the NRB report. It's a recommendation that we lower the eggs, soils mitigation criteria for forced processing enterprises to a one to one ratio. That's the same ratio we currently give industrial parks. That's one small point that I think can make a big difference. And it's one place we could start another area that I think we could find some consensus on which was developing in the study committee, but we didn't have time to fully get there. And was how timber harvesting at an elevation above 2500 feet is considered currently that requires an active 50 permit. I do think there's an opportunity to perhaps move this out of jurisdiction and into a framework where it's handled more similarly to how we handle the ecologically significant treatment areas or estas in UVA. I think housing it there might be a better opportunity for review through a process, which would better take into account the concerns we're addressing. So, again, if we're going to pop the hood on active 50, I would also love to see some some things being included around issues that are facing these working land businesses because again, their success really is critical to conserving this landscape that we care so much about. So with that, I will end my testimony. Thanks so much. Thank you for your testimony. I hope that you can submit in writing because you were talking very quickly for keep up. Mostly just we're listening to be really helpful to get in writing and I do. We always appreciate your perspective, which comes from a number of views. But roles that you hold in your life. So thank you for that. I like to follow up with your thoughts on the tier 2 area and your concerns and the visual that you provided us. I guess for me, you know, we're trying on this 500 foot kind of buffer from existing town roads for a couple of reasons. One of which is that there's already a lot of private roads that have been built and to tie protection of our rural and working lands to the trigger of new roads. And we're going to look more closely at that GIS of that in the next probably tomorrow, I think. So we'll stay tuned for more actual data on that. But that that's the thinking behind it. And then also, you know, you're in an RV proposal, leaving the vast majority of the state under the same jurisdictional triggers that we have today. We saw an E 911 map of what has been built in just the last, like, I don't know, since 2016 to 2023, I think, or yesterday, it's significant. And so to leave us there isn't really, I don't think going to kind of pump the brakes on our loss of continuous forest areas and are that matter are working farmlands as well. So I have concerns about that. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Yeah, no, I share your concerns. And I think my, my, my concerns kind of fall into two areas. One is how we can protect these resources through something like a road rule and how that's applied in the landscape and the impact of it. And then from a little bit more of a pessimistic side, I've seen this happen, as you guys have to over a number of sessions in the legislature where we weren't able to get something across the finish line. And there's a part of me that worries that worries that we got to find a number that works for everybody. And I don't want that number to be so small that it takes a significant segment of the folks that are needed to pass this. And, and pushes them out of the conversation or the room. And I mean, I would leave that to you guys to figure out because you're much smarter and better at that than me and you're in the rooms. But I think my, my main concern is, at the end of the day, a road rule is going to be a compromise and I want to make sure that whatever we put forward as a compromise that we can get a consensus around so that we can finally get forced fragmentation criteria and a jurisdictional trigger in place to address the things that we're seeing. So that's kind of a long-winded way of saying, I totally agree with what you're saying. And I think we need a framework which addresses all the concerns that you raised. I also just want to make sure that we can actually do it. The members have another question. Thanks again for your testimony. Great. Thank you. And I will submit a written copy of it. And I apologize for speaking quickly. I just wanted to make sure that Eric had plenty of time because I think Eric's great. So it's great to see you all. Thank you. Thank you for that. And with that, welcome Eric Sorensen. We get set up here. Am I supposed to have my computer on mute or not on mute? Yes, I'm mute. You can mute your computer and you don't need to have your camera on and have screen sharing permissions now. Great. Thank you. Hello. It's great to be back here again. I'm Eric Sorensen. I'm an ecologist. I've retired for two and a half years enjoying it. I recommend it highly. I worked in the state wetlands office for oh, six, seven years in the 1990s. And after that, I worked for 25 to 30 years, 27 years in the wildlife division of the Fish and Wildlife Department as an ecologist. Working as an ecologist, my work was primarily conducting inventories of natural communities and rare species, plants and animals around the states, which was really fun. I kind of missed that part. And, but also doing work, including regulatory review wetland rules, but also, but primarily act 250 and section 248. And for those I worked mostly on rare and irreplaceable natural areas criteria and eight. But then in section 248, there's the ability to review under. No undue adverse impact on the natural environment. We were able to also review landscape connectivity and forest fragmentation, which is not an available. Criteria in active. So, let me see. And then the other part of my background is I was one of the. Authors for the mount conservation design, which I think is an important tool for there are a lot of a lot of the work that we're working. I wanted to offer my congratulations to the chair and to the committee for passage of act 59. So, I know a lot of the leadership for that came from here. And I just wanted to say, I think that's a landmark piece of legislation for conservation in Vermont. As is the work on act 250. I listened to Peg Elmer yesterday who I've known for a long time. And I thought her testimony was both persuasive, but heartfelt and a really good retrospective on. Not in our history and to some extent are green image that is. I'm worried about not just the image, but what that means in terms of land perfection in the state. That's it. So, what I wanted to cover is habitat loss and fragmentation just a very quick review. I've heard a lot about it. Another very quick review about Vermont conservation design since that's a framework I can come with and just to remind you, I think I've presented that to you before. And then I wanted to discuss issues relating to tier 2 and tier 3 in act 250 review. Unaffiliated with any organization now so I haven't had the benefit of reviewing comments I have with say with the agency of natural resources or, or others, just with a few close colleagues. So, what I say is my opinion and maybe blunt. But I, I hope it's helpful and I would sure help be happy to be proved wrong if any of my comments aren't spot on. So. Vermont's really still amazing place in terms of the amount of features, natural features that we have. And the opportunity we have to conserve biological diversity in the state. We have lots of forests. I heard a new number the other day, 76% and in testimony yesterday. Lots of limey bedrock calcium rich bedrock that's important for rare species. Topography. Relatively low human population, which is good for environmental reasons. And a culture that's interested in wildlife and, and sort of the space that we have here, the culture. But we also have a lot of roads and this is what I want to show you this map is it's an old, it's old data, but the point is clear on the map green is forests. Yellow is agriculture. Red is cities and blue is lakes and ponds. And if you add in roads, you get that image. And if you add in houses, you get that image. And again, this isn't new, but it's looking at images like this that led us to think that we need to think about forest blocks. Because the areas that are still green in this and don't show red are the places that are relatively intact forest blocks. They are a feature that's disappearing and becoming fragmented. So that's really what Vermont conservation design was for. It was to come up with a way to maintain this intact connected in diverse landscape into the future. A way to conserve both common species, rare species and natural communities and provide a landscape that allows for climate adaptation and change over time. There have been some really important recent changes to Vermont conservation design, especially in terms of mapping forest blocks. Using new data from. I'm sure that. I understand we lost recently worked on. At UVM, and I'd really encourage you to get Bob Zano in from the first in all life. He's, he's sort of leading that effort. The Vermont conservation design is there. I just wanted to review what the some of the elements are because they're, they're very relevant to tier 2 and 3s. Interior forest blocks, the big forest blocks, connectivity blocks that connect all those blocks. Surface waters and repairing areas, especially the repairing areas that are wider than the river itself that encompass the habitat near the river. The landscape, which is a bedrock and other features like that wildlife road crossings that are part of the habitat connectors that connect both between blocks, but also we should think of those as places associated with repairing areas. And all of those features are pretty well mapped. We can always improve the mapping on those. These other features, terrestrial natural communities. The feature on the left. Those are on state lands on private lands. I forget how many thousands of records there are in the state now, but those are fairly detailed mapping. Special aquatic features like high elevation streams or lower sections of rivers that go into Lake Champlain. And then wetlands. Those also are all well mapped. The features that aren't really mapped, but that are important targets, young and old forests. The old forest targets are ones that are addressed also in act 59 and grasslands. These are important for species for ecological processes and and many other features. So that's my review of from our conservation design. I wanted to go into some more detailed comments about the N. R. B. report and age 687. I first wanted to say I haven't read all the reports in detail, the three reports from the N. R. B. But I my sense is it is an amazing piece of work and a huge amount of collaboration. And it makes me really proud of Vermont that we pull something up like that off in a time like this to collaborate across across disciplines to come up with with plants. So, first of all, I just want to say I really support the habitat block or forest block and connecting habitat criteria. And since I work today in our we've been working on those since 2013 with drafts of some things that are very similar to this. And it's very good to see them in a form that it sounds like there's a lot of buying for. I don't have any specific concerns about the definitions I always wish they weren't quite so full of exemptions for forestry and agriculture but I understand that's, that's important. I have concerns about the rulemaking process associated with those criteria and implementing those. I think some of the rulemaking can get into the weeds too much and make them too, too defined. The idea of necessary wildlife habitat as an example is something that the agency and fish and wildlife have implemented without rulemaking and have developed based on case law and similarly for rare and irreplaceable natural areas. So, I'm, I'm, I'm worried about that process, and especially about the idea of compensating for forest blocks. We can't continue to lose force blocks and compensate for them elsewhere. Another concern and this isn't my business anymore since I don't work there, but I'm worried about from official wildlife department staff with these new criteria and how they will staff up to be able to review all these projects that may come in and need a thorough review of these criteria. And currently there are only two people working on that. And then aside from that, and this is kind of like Charlie having some other Charlie Hancock having some other ideas. One thing that's worried me about active 50 for a long time is that under criterion a day that is addressing necessary wildlife habitat and endangered species. That does not address endangered species threatened species or rare species habitat. And that is something that is a very important part of biological diversity. We can't solve that issue and active 50, but it's a glaring miss in our review projects or review projects that we can't review active can't review rare And I just add that it's not wetland rules does include a provision that addresses threatened endangered and rare species habitat. So it's, it's not something that's unseen in state regulations. It's there in those rules. So, sort of going into the tiers. I think the tier two concept is great. And that provides an important balance for the for tier one. I haven't reviewed the tier one ideas, but I sure understand why we need that kind of relaxed standards for places where we want growth to occur. As others, I think it said, and is clear from the report and act. 687. I don't think the tier two concept works unless we have new triggers and jurisdiction for forest blocks and habitat connectivity. Like that part is really critical to make the tier two. Effective without those sort of business as usual. I think for what happens in that 250. So the road rule and lot numbers to me are the are what I focused on for the road rule. As my image at the bottom is probably similar to what Charlie Hancock showed you and I've seen many of these one of my jobs for doing statewide inventories was flying around the state with. Ian Worley ecologist and professor from UVM to look at potential sites to visit. And it's amazing how many places you see where there is a ridge top development with a road. 1000 2000 5000 feet getting to it. And. I worry that as the month again and again looks like a wonderful place to live and properties are. Expensive, but still much cheaper than Colorado or New York. Those places are at risk. If we don't have a way to address them, even for single family houses. So I. And I worry even with the 2000 foot. Road rule that that allows single roads. 1999 feet to punch into the middle of the forest block. And all the examples of those is how we lose habitat. Interior forest habitat. So. I have no knowledge about what what can be successful. In terms of consensus, I'm not involved in any of that. Just as a biologist and ecologist, I worry about that, that long of a road. My suggestion would be to go back and look again at what was a very successful 800 foot combined, not wasn't combined then, but a combined road and driveway rule. Or something similar to the 500 or maybe 800 foot setback that's proposed in 687. Another thing I'm worried about is, is partly just what Charlie brought up about what happens in Montgomery, where you have multiple. Sort of ways of skirting this. So you do a 1900 foot road and. Relax or nine lots. And then do another one in a few years. And that kind of development. Really eats up land quickly. And it does not get the review that I think it needs. I have. Pretty simplistic images to show you for examples, but I just wanted to give you a couple. This is over in the Benson. Orwell area. It's part of a important landscape connectivity between the Adirondacks and the Green Mountains. And the forest block. Does that show. This forest block here is about 1855 acres. It's identified as the highest priority interior forest block and highest priority connectivity block in Vermont conservation design. You can't see the orange color that's purple and orange or purple is. Here forest and oranges connectivity. Here's a much smaller block that's identified as highest priority connectivity. This green lining between indicates an area identified as an important wildlife road crossing. And what I wanted to point out here is this orange line is a hypothetical 2000 foot road. And that 2000 foot road goes pretty much into the center of this. This is a 2000 acre block. And you could picture several of those around that block and functions of that block are pretty much lost. Relating to lot numbers. And all I looked at, I didn't look at the other triggers that were there just the number of lots. And again, I really support a reduced number of lots. I think the 10 lot. Number is, is pretty high and just wanted, I'll give you a quick example of that. But I would suggest something like before that's proposed. If you in that same location. Again, the forest blocks and the two colors, the green line along the road indicating wildlife road crossings. Those kind of light blue, light blue dots are existing houses. And this is sort of the existing condition. You can see there are a couple of houses probably with long driveways up into this block, but there's still a good connection across this block here and across this block here. And it's those kind of connections that allow for habitat connectivity to occur on the right hand image here. I stuck in. Not very nicely but 10 little circles to represent 10 houses, it probably should have been nine to not trigger actually 50 with a 10 lot minimum. But what that would do, if these were all five less than 500 feet from the road is effectively cut off activity between that larger forest block, the purple one, and the, and the orange one. So, a 10 lot subdivision like that, that was roadside could be very significant adverse impact on landscape activity. I think this is a really good concept. I really, I really like it, whether it's two or three or the critical resource areas. I think it's really important for helping to protect ecologically significant areas. I have a couple concerns both with what is presented in the report and in age 67, 687. First of all, I think there are very few features that have high ecological significance, and that can be mapped in, in fairly permanent locations. And that represent a small area of the state. A lot of the areas that have high ecological significance, things like forest blocks and landscape connectivity are large areas. And it'd be very difficult, I think to pull out subsections of those and say these are even more important. Because, like, like with that connectivity example I showed you, you can't just identify the road. You have to identify the whole blocks that make up the sequence. Otherwise, the whole system falls apart. Ecological features of statewide significance, I think should be mapped at the statewide level for consistency with active 50 jurisdiction. I think work by RPCs and municipalities are critical for identifying sort of more locally important areas. But one of the things I've seen with Act 171 is that there's been a quite a bit of variation in how features were identified for town planning. And for active 50 jurisdiction, especially something that pulls everything in like tier 3 would, I think it's really important for these statewide critical features that they're mapped based on statewide features. I haven't followed up a lot on the tier 1, but that seems like one where it's the opposite is true. Municipalities know what's happening in their, their areas probably more than the state does. Even though state review of those seems very important. We have a question from Representative Sebelia. So, thanks for your testimony. It's really important to me to understand kind of the decision making process here and communication process around the proposed change here with tier 3. And so what I think you're suggesting is this would best be down at the state level. And then reviewed by the RPC and the town's salary. I think so, but again, I don't, I don't feel like I know enough about all the process that's been gone through and suggested. I think there are some features that are best mapped at the state level. Like Vermont conservation design features if we do that. Or, or others that I'll mention in a minute. And there are others that. State agencies don't know about and municipalities do. And like they may identify. I don't know, I'll make something up a waterfall or something like that as. This is a really important feature in the town, or an area of working for us that that means so much to the town. So, I think it should be both ways. And, but I worry about statewide features being mapped at the regional or town level. And in many ways that makes sense to me, but I worry about conflict. How that's resolved and how there is community engagement. At the local level, I don't know if you have any thoughts about that. And it's not if you fit something you're willing to think about. I don't have more now other than what I've read in the reports is that contemplation of. Of strong interaction to come up with plans and maps that are reviewed and understood both from the state and municipal. And put a finer point on it. I worry about conflict, particularly in communities, they're likely to be most impacted. And it probably have the least amount of capacity for engagement or technical assistance. So, I'm acutely interested in how that works. Right. I mean, I know it's not your proposal, but to that point. And what I'm worried about with two or three is, if we want this to be a small area of the state. That's what I think that's what the NRV report suggests that is it will be a smaller mistake. We have to figure out how to refine it. So it really is a small area or something that is of such critical importance that a larger area is okay. Representative Stevens. Thanks. Thanks for coming in. I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but I guess I was somewhat dismayed at your highlighting of the 10 but could have been nine houses along the side of the road because I feel like the goal of the road rule is to try and like quite development closer to roads that already exist. But when you brought that up, it's like, ah, so really we shouldn't be developing anything for anyone. Am I interpreting that correctly? No. And a suggestion here for those nine lots is make a cluster. Make a cluster. I think point make a cluster of 10 lots right there. And you can still maintain connectivity. You can still build the lots. Maybe they're not single family houses. Maybe they're duplexes or quadruplexes or something like that. But there are ways to design this so that you avoid either interior forest fragmentation or linear fragmentation by building more right next to the road. That's helpful. Thank you. I mean, I'm glad I asked. Representative. That question and that slide also brings up that the other way to get at that. I agree with what you said, but the other is that as we're thinking more carefully about maps and identifying. There are areas that we want to be paying attention to with future and use maps. That could also show up there and we should look. Here at the help the towns. Make sure they weren't allowing this and be thinking differently. So there's my point is that. If we do this right, it also is happening at the local level and regional level, not just through active 50 to accomplish what you two are both just talking about at this moment. My last point on here was just that I think I might have already said that connecting habitat and Vermont conservation design features are suggested in in the report in particular. But these features typically occupy large areas and they're also like that area of connectivity. They really require. On the ground evaluation to see if they are really functional to see how they're working. So. It makes it makes identifying some of those features. As automatic inclusion difficult, I think. Sort of in the positive side of recommendations for 2, 3. I. I think riparian areas or river corridors that concept of 2 or 3 or critical resource areas really well. They're accurately mapped. They are in fairly stable locations. And they have very high ecological significance. I think. Maybe more than any other feature I can think of now. Repairing areas, you know, especially given what's happened recently with flooding, but that side of it, that sort of human side of it apart. Water process, water quality, aquatic biota, flood attenuation, the floodplain, natural communities and all the rare species that are associated with that. Necessary wildlife habitat. It's not 1 that. Not fish and wildlife addresses a lot now, but. Mink otter and wood turtle are prime. Species that are completely tied to this repairing habitat. As well as landscaping wildlife connectivity. Repairing areas are a landscape connectivity feature that is different than those road crossings and block to block because they are linear features already and provide this pathway across the landscape. I think there's been some discussion about. Repairing areas being addressed under Senate bill 213. I think very highly of the reverse program. And all the work they do, but to incorporate all these functions that I've listed here under a reverse program bill. Under a reverse program would mean rewriting the reverse program. So it operates like the whatnot wetland rules where you have a whole set of functions that have to be addressed. Or you figure out how to get wildlife. And. Landscape connectivity and those features built into a reverse program. That's all I wanted to just mention how. Many tools we have for conserving an ecological functional landscape. From landowner stewardship, which I still think is the most important thing we have. Landowner incentives like current use that help landowners. Financially in a way that they can make decisions. Both state and federal and land trust. Conservation of lands in fee and in easement. Municipal zoning and planning. And like. I don't picture active 50 as being a panacea in any sense. But I think it has. It's done a huge amount in terms of what landscape we have now. And the status that Vermont has or the status that our landscape has is being so intact. And I think these changes that are. Undeclated in 687 and in the report will go a long way to really improve that. That's all I've got. Thank you for your testimony. And for taking the time to look at it closely and give us that input. Do members have questions. Representative bongar question. I want to say that I find a lot of us to be really helpful. It's, it's. Some things that have been rolling around in my head, you put your finger on. So thank you. Thanks again for your testimony. Thanks. Great to see you in the building. All right, members, we will take a break for lunch.