MONTPELIER — House lawmakers passed a series of changes Friday to Vermont’s decades-old land use law after two days of contentious floor debate and last-minute bill amendments.
In a vote of 88-52, representatives gave preliminary approval to HB 926 almost three years after lawmakers started formally reviewing how to “modernize” Act 250 in advance of its 50th anniversary.
Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, chairwoman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said on the floor Thursday night that the bill “strikes a balance” between increasing Act 250 jurisdiction to protect certain natural resources while “releasing” certain town and village centers from review.
House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, said the bill is a “significant part of our climate change agenda and also promotes our shared goal of protecting our natural resources.”
The bill now heads to the Senate. Gov. Phil Scott has expressed reservations about it.
Two of the more controversial provisions of the bill — creating a statewide project review board and lowering the elevation trigger for Act 250 review from 2,500 to 2,000 feet — were removed before the final House floor vote.
One major change in HB 926 was to exempt state-designated downtowns and neighborhood development areas from Act 250 review, with the aim of promoting compact development. Village centers also have a “path forward” for exemption, provided they have certain zoning regulations and other requirements in place, Dolan said.
The Act 250 revamp effort has come under fire from some environmentalists and former district commissioners after the Scott administration and the Vermont Natural Resources Council put forward a joint reform package toward the start of the session. One of the cornerstones of that package was to have a new three-member board instead of district commissions review major projects.
Some lawmakers, especially Republicans, expressed serious concerns during floor debate about what some of the proposed changes to Act 250 review criteria would mean for their districts.
For example, the bill adds “climate adaptation” to the criteria developers must show their project meets. Rep. Mark Higley, R-Lowell, interrogated Rep. Kari Dolan, D-Waitsfield, Thursday evening about how Act 250 applicants would do that.
Dolan responded that “what this criteria does is recognize that when we build smarter, when we build with greater resilience to the impacts of extreme weather … that we are doing so to make our people and our communities safer.”
Higley said that while this “sounds good” in theory, he could not believe the bill did not spell out more specific requirements for applicants to comply with some of the new criteria.
“The individual might put in a three-foot culvert … but is that going to be enough or is that going to be requiring a bridge” to address future climate conditions, he asked. Dolan added that the Natural Resources Board, the Act 250 program manager, generally provides guidance for how developers should comply with any new criteria.
One of the least controversial amendments was a proposal to clarify that trails on private land are not under Act 250 jurisdiction while the Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation moves ahead over the next couple of years with a new trail management program
Rep. Paul Lefebvre, R-Newark, vice chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, had voted against the bill when it left his committee. But he said on Friday that the trails provision and lack of changes to the district commissions convinced him to vote for the bill on the House floor.
“I find a much stronger bill today, one I can easily support,” he said.
Rep. Kevin Christie, D-Hartford, commended committee members for adding “environmental justice” to the project criteria and for requiring a review of Act 250’s impact on racial equity and diversity.
Environmental firebrand James Ehlers, president of Lake Champlain International, took to Twitter to call exempting development in certain floodplains from Act 250 review “Irene amnesia.”
“Our real need is to prevent further declines in water quality,” he wrote.
Rep. Thomas Bock, D-Chester, failed, 96-45, in his attempt on Friday to postpone the vote until after Town Meeting Day week to explain the changes to his constituents.
Whether or not the governor will support the bill now that the statewide review board has been removed remains an open question. At a press conference Friday, he said that while that was not a “deal breaker,” he finds other parts of the bill to be “problematic.” Scott cited the lower elevation trigger as an example, although that was removed from the final bill.