This story, by Report for America corps member Carly Berlin, was produced through a partnership between VTDigger and Vermont Public.
Two years ago, lawmakers set in motion a transformation of Act 250, the half-century-old development-review law that many credit with keeping Vermont looking like Vermont: compact towns and cities surrounded by fields and forests. Now, those reforms are beginning to come into focus.
For this week’s edition of the Capitol Recap, we’re taking a look at debates over amending the two-year-old law. This is the second in a two-part series. Our first story centered on the extensive mapping process the act kicked off.
When Act 181 passed, its supporters framed it as a “grand bargain” between housing proponents and environmentalists that would rebalance Vermont’s land-use regulations for the 21st century.
The act sought to lift Act 250 regulations in areas that are already developed to spur more housing during a crushing home shortage, while bolstering protections for sensitive ecosystems.
As new maps that will dictate development begin to materialize, a growing chorus of critics are questioning whether the promise of the two-year-old reform effort will be realized. Many argue that on balance, current draft maps skew too heavily toward preserving land and will hinder homebuilding. And they are calling on legislators to reopen a thorny land-use debate that some leaders are hesitant to revisit.
“We’re at the point now where we’re grappling with — are we actually going to seize [the] opportunity and actually increase housing opportunity, or are we going to squander it and end up with areas that are much smaller and weaker than they should be?” said Miro Weinberger, executive chair of Let’s Build Homes, a pro-housing advocacy group.
Those who want to amend Act 181 join its loudest and longest-standing detractor, Republican Gov. Phil Scott, who throughout the 2024 legislative session called the legislation “a conservation bill” that didn’t go far enough to promote housing development, especially in rural areas. Scott vetoed the bill but Democrats, who at the time enjoyed a supermajority in the Legislature, overrode the veto.
This year, Scott’s messaging remains largely the same. He is asking lawmakers to make it easier for towns to achieve exemptions to Act 250, including by making that status the default in areas that planners deem eligible rather than requiring that municipalities opt in. In Chittenden County, Vermont’s population center, a third of the towns the regional planning commission designated as potential “Tier 1B” exemption areas have so far chosen not to get the status.
Scott is also calling on legislators to repeal the “road rule,” which would mandate Act 250 review any time a private entity seeks to build a road longer than 800 feet. The rule is expected to apply to most land in the state and is intended to prevent the fragmentation of forests. When asked why he wants to roll back the rule, which is set to kick in this summer, Scott said he doesn’t buy its stated purpose.
“I have a driveway that’s 800 feet,” Scott told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday. “I’ve seen an increase in the number of wildlife … crossing my property, from deer, and bear, and porcupines, and turkey, and snapping turtles, and painted turtles, and osprey. It’s like a nature preserve there.”
Other reform proposals circling around the Statehouse don’t go as far as repealing pieces of the landmark 2024 act. A bill advanced by members of the House’s rural caucus would instead slow down its implementation and launch a public information campaign to impacted landowners.
The bill, H.730, would require the state to send out notices to property owners who might be impacted by beefed-up environmental protections in Act 181. That’s something Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover, the bill’s primary sponsor, views as necessary since the legislation will alter what many landowners will be able to do with their land — and many aren’t aware, she said.
“If you have enough money and enough patience and the ability to get good legal representation, you can build just about wherever you want in this state,” Sibilia said. “If you are my next door neighbor whose family has lived on the land for 100 years … and you want to give your kid a piece of that land and allow them to build a road, you may not be able to afford the engineering that’s necessary, the permitting that’s necessary. You may not even know that it’s necessary.”
In the meantime, rural landowners and municipal officials are registering their concerns about preliminary maps and rules for “Tier 3,” the areas where the Land Use Review Board — the body that oversees Act 250 — has suggested strengthened protections for rare and fragile ecosystems.
“We hear concerns like, ‘We will be frozen in amber,’” said Samantha Sheehan, a lobbyist for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. Land Use Review Board members have said they are taking concerns like these seriously as they prepare the map’s next revision.
Heading into this year’s legislative session, some leaders signalled that they would prefer to watch the reforms of the last few years play out.
“[Act 250] has been, I think, demonized to a certain extent over the last 10 or 15 years,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, in a Vermont This Week round table last month. “What we’ve done in the last three years on Act 250 is more reform than anybody thought possible, and it should be given its time to work.”
Others have shown more willingness to return to the conversation — to a point. Sen. Anne Watson, D/P-Washington, who chairs the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee — a key waystation for any debates over Act 250 — said she would consider lengthening timelines for the road rule and Tier 3 to give the state’s mapping process more time to play out.
Watson would also look at extending temporary exemptions for housing enacted in Act 181, she said. Those carve-outs quickly bore results, and both the Scott administration and rural lawmakers have vied for them to remain in place longer. Fully repealing the road rule, though, would be a deal-breaker, Watson said.
Watson still holds onto the core vision of the Act 250 reform effort. “I strongly believe that we can both build more housing and protect the environment — that these things do not need to be in conflict with each other,” she said.
