 Tuesday, June 16th, 1031, Senate natural resources and energy committee is convening. We have today one piece of business to conduct and that is we've been working on an amendment to Senate Bill 237. The current draft amendment is 5.41. Tuesday, June 16th, 1031. Here we go. We're having a round. It's stopped now. Okay. And I'm just waiting for counsel to join us. Yes, I don't think she has a phone number. I've emailed her. And anyway, so the I want to check in with her because the bill has gone through editing overnight. Oh, right. Here she comes. Here she comes to give us a clean copy. Oh, I didn't get that yet. And here's counsel. So good morning, Mr. Kowski. So we are just getting started. So besides having a clean and final copy for us to vote, the other question is because we we're in a slightly unusual position. We've never had possessions. This bill we've all been working to assemble an amendment to it. It will be offered by individual senators. When we got started, I made the drafting request. So my name is on it. But my hope is that we actually by the time we go to the floor, we have many more sponsors and that they include members of this committee, the Economic Development Committee, and maybe senators beyond that. So one order of business is to ask if either Senators Campion or McDonald would like to be added to the bill as added to the amendment as sponsors. Yes, please. Okay. So Mr. Kowski, did you see that those hand raised? So if we could add Senators McDonald and Campion, that would be good. And then in terms of where we are procedurally, we got a draft five one yesterday, which circulated. I know went through editorial and I don't know if you have any updates to us based on editorial review or other that if we need to make any final adjustments before we have a copy to vote. I just posted the draft six point one on the website. She just sent it to me. Okay. Great. So Senator Campion. Let's have a procedural question, Mr. Chair. So you're going to ask for other senators to jump on this amendment after it's voted by the committee. And I just want to make sure that that can be done. That's all. Sure. So all, yeah, again, it is a slightly unusual path we're taking. The bill, all we're doing is responding to a proposal amendment committee. The proposal's not finalized in terms of who's offering it yet. Two things are independent really. So even though we're voting today, you can continue to add names to the amendment. That is my understanding. Great. Thank you. Because we're not making any material change. It's just who signed on as a sponsor. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. So, Mr. Kowski, probably six one includes does six one include changes compared to five one? Okay. So can you show us any change that came up on the final review overnight, please? Sure. I just made you co-host. Thank you. Okay. So yes. Good morning. Last night, there was a draft posted draft 5.1. It was posted before I sent it to the editors. I sent it to the editors. I received it back this morning and there were a few small changes that needed to be made. I wouldn't consider them substantive, substantive that I will highlight them as we go through and they are in yellow. All of the changes from yesterday's committee to today are in yellow. So first, the first instance of amendment on page one is not a change other than in structure. So yesterday's draft said strike section to be in its entirety, but for proper formatting purposes, I needed to include the language of that section. So that's there and we didn't make any changes to it other than to strike subsection B. The second instance of amendment is the same. This is the report on increasing housing density. And so the first change is in the third instance of amendment. We are striking out the underlying section four, which is a report related to section 2B. And we're inserting this language based on yesterday's testimony from BNRC, the recommendation that decisions to be a designated downtown or neighborhood development currently under law, those designation decisions are not appealable. But this language adds the ability to appeal that designation to the natural resources board. So language is amended in title 24, chapter 76A. That's the designation chapter. So this committee hasn't seen this language, although it was in age 926. So a person agreed by a designation decision of the state board under 2793, which is the downtown development district or 2793E, which is the neighborhood development area, maybe appeal to the natural resources board within 30 days of the decision. The natural resources board shall conduct a de novo hearing on the decision under appeal and shall proceed in accordance with the contested case requirements of the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act. The natural resources board shall issue a final decision within 90 days of the filing of the appeal. And the provisions of 6024 regarding assistance to the natural resources board from other departments and agencies of the state shall apply to appeals under this section. In addition, related language is added in section 6089, which is part of Act 250, again giving the natural resources board the authority to hear appeals. So a determination by the downtown development board designating a downtown development district or neighborhood development area pursuant to chapter 76A is appealable to the natural resources board. An appeal under this subsection may be brought by any person aggrieved by the determination of the downtown development board. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days and the board shall conduct all appeals under this section as a contested case pursuant to the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act and procedural rules adopted by the natural resources board. Okay. Any committee questions on that? No, just Ellen's done great work with us. Really appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. All right. The fourth instance of amendment has not changed. This is switching the automatic extinguishment of permits in downtown designated areas and neighborhood development areas to going through a process established in 1690C, which is this language in the fifth instance of amendment. There's a slight change to this language in the fifth instance. So this provides that permits, there can be a release from jurisdiction for permits, either based on broadly things that are no longer considered development, as well as for areas for projects within the downtowns and neighborhood development areas. So there's one change based on yesterday's testimony from Mr. Weiss. It's on page eight. In addition to those required to be notified under 6084, the district can notice at the same time to all other parties to the permits and all current adjacent landowners. Thank you. The sixth instance of amendment has not changed. And the seventh instance of amendment hasn't changed also. This is the wastewater permit connection language. So this is the same from yesterday. And then the eighth instance of amendment is where the rest of the Act 250 amendments are. So first is the criterion 1D amendments. There has not been a change since yesterday. The recreational trails language is next. Again, there has not been a change since yesterday. However, there is a small change related to trails in the forest block section. So in the forest block section, based on yesterday's testimony, we removed the second definition of recreational trail. You may recall that subdivision 44 provided a definition for recreational trail as it was used in relation to fragmentation. That was the definition that included the sort of distinction between paved and unpaved trails. So that separate definition has been removed. The next change is not until, oh, into the road rule section 35. There's a small addition, again, based on yesterday's testimony. So the road rule, the 2000 feet length of road, we are exempting road construction in a designated downtown or neighborhood development area from the road rule. And then the next change is in the language regarding the wood products manufacturer conditions. So we had a conversation yesterday about the language here on page 25. So we're talking about permit conditions for wood products manufacturers. We changed, I think it was just one word. I think we just changed minimize to mitigate, but I'll read it to you. If an adverse impact under criterion one, five, or eight of this section would result, a permit with conditions shall allow the manufacturer to operate while mitigating these conditions. A permit with conditions that mitigate these impacts shall allow for deliveries of wood products from forestry operations to the manufacturer outside of permitted hours of operation, including nights, weekends, and holidays for the number of days demonstrated by the manufacturer as necessary to enable business operations not to exceed 90 days per year. I think my editorial comment would be that if you look at the unhighlighted text that you can say imposed to mitigate impact by using what's in yellow, we're introducing another term. It's like, do we mean something different? So now it's mitigate steadily all the way through to avoid any potential conflict or just stick with one word and be more clear. Right. Previously on line 10, it had said minimize impacts. So now it says mitigate to match the above. Okay. And oh, and then finally, there is a change under a small non-substantive change under the the billback authority language. So yesterday we discussed, oh, I'm sorry, there are two small changes. So yesterday we discussed the ability for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to bill back costs associated with major permits. So on the top of page 27, first, I inserted the words. So the department shall have the authority to bill applicants for the costs of participating in any major permit application and testimony before a district commission related to impacts on natural resources under section 6086A of this title, including wildlife, necessary wildlife habitat or connecting habitat. So instead of adding further terms under the including, I added first a general heading of natural resources under the criteria. And that was based on the testimony from yesterday. Sorry. I was a commission reporter while we're passing. Thank you. Thank you. I just would like to make sure that this is inclusive and will cover testimony in preparation for those cases that are appealed to the natural resources board or above as well. And I think it will, but I just wanted to make sure that that was the committee's intent. I think it's the committee's intent and the language needs any adjustment to clarify that. And do you mean, I'm sorry, do you mean to the to the environmental court? So this covers testimony and cases before the district commissions, but when cases go before the NRB or even to the environmental court, I just wondered if that is covered. Thank you. So I don't think in committee yesterday, I don't believe we had a discussion on that potential on that question. So as it reads now, Mr. Kowski, it only applies to recovering costs related to permits going to the district commission, not in not further on into like an appeals process, for instance. Correct. Yeah, it says online 20 participating in a major permit application before a district commission. So I guess I have a question to a commission reporter. You have a similar billback provision now related to your participation around CPGs at the PUC, correct? Correct. And but that's somewhat different processes that's consolidated under the PUC. There isn't a district court commission. Sure. And I guess my question is, do you end up, are you able to, no matter where it is in the process, if there's an appeal to a CPG and you're called in yet again, are you able to build back costs related to any appeal process? I'm sorry to tell you, I don't know the answer to that. I will find out, but I would say that the, I think the NRB is more analogous to the PUC in this case than the district commissions are to it. Okay, if that makes sense. Sure. So even that the bill is going to go to the house and we're adding, would you feel comfortable following up on that question? And if there's a need for additional interpretation to bring that forward then or, or certainly. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Okay. So in addition, farther down that section, this language changed slightly from yesterday. So district commission's decisions, district commission decisions regarding the reasonableness of fees may be appealed by the department or the applicant to the natural resources board according in accordance with rules adopted by the board. So that language is added based on yesterday's testimony. And then I added the language immediately below it further giving it the power to the natural resources board. So in section 6027, the natural resources board may hear appeals of fee refund requests under section 6083A and of allocation of costs under 6094. What's good for the goose is good for the gander adjustment. Okay. So onward. Thank you. And then the effective dates. And the effective dates are July 1, 2020, except for the new criterion eight, which will be September 15th of 2021. Okay. Great. Thank you for that tour. Any committee questions or any of the adjustments we made from yesterday till today or anything else? No. Okay. With that, then I would ask the clerk to call the roll. And the question would be what is the committee's position on supporting the amendment from the named senators to our amendment to S237? So, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the amendment that has been put forward by Senators Bray, McDonald and Campion. Okay. Any further discussion before we vote? Okay. With that, I'd ask the clerk to call the roll, please. Senator McDonald. Yes. Senator Rogers. Senator Parent. Senator Campion. Yes. Senator Bray. Yes. Okay. Three, zero, two. Okay. And I'd be happy to report the amendment or the committee's position on the amendment. Okay. With that, thank you, everyone. I know that this has been a demanding way of working. End of session always is. And then we've layered on top of that, having to do things remotely. But... Mr. Chair, what do we do in economic development to report this? As soon as we adjourn. Okay. Do we have an invite? We do. I'm sorry. I need to interrupt. Senator Rogers would like me to call him. I don't think... He can't call him, but if he looks on the Zoom invite that I sent him, he can call that number. But I'm not sure how long that... I believe rules has determined, correct me if I'm wrong, that you have to be visually present. Right. Yeah. So unless he's going to be visually present. I've emailed him twice this morning to make sure he knew. And I checked with the Senate Secretary and forwarded the Senate Secretary to apply to him. Our rules require audio and video link in order to cast a vote remotely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So thank you, committee. So Senator Campion and I are going to be going... We are going to adjourn. We're going to economic development to discuss the... Senator McConnell, you're welcome to join us. Yes. This is not a... This could be a party of three. I'm good at taking that. All right. Good. Well, it was a good hand. I thought we're not going to. Thank you to everyone. Thank you, everybody. We are adjourned for the day. Thank you.