[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6262579,"mediaKeyId","3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1","parentId",3114990,"title","Judge briefs committee: H.231 contains technical fix to confirm Judicial Bureau jurisdiction over Fish & Wildlife rules","audioSeconds",196,"startMs",6782000,"endMs",6978000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1&start=6782&end=6978","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1/thumbnail_6782000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6262579/Vermont/Judge-briefs-committee-H231-contains-technical-fix-to-confirm-Judicial-Bureau-jurisdiction-over-Fish-Wildlife-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262579-1c441b71d9cdf3408272202eb6f958fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152665&Signature=f7COfWJZuHekWePH1d8uHdsbKbd643MCld46MEkx195jsq-CznLJW2gfVNsVKKVVNMG9ideNfTzeKVpUz9braGS~Qrn5aT7vKpZM3n9uwS3SUlpHQ7Iosm8qHhF~lo2NB2SNGuXP0tsea0nVlrEISamMEYFpjpBdObPtpo49ZvJsmTdmmq-PufN~FNs1zWYzSExOwTVu8stzpZvPhvEFj0CrC~CDY6x3fsU59PTHULhXgpQnP~5J6LWHjwxyNiaoh2wNGZDBPYsQ3VHhLOe8AkStHQ4ewUWg0a77aPhq-4Q8VKD2RgMGpbLFuGOz~kt2rTID4SY4vJkpPr8A-3rUyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-25T00:00:24.367Z","article","A Superior Court judge told the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee that H.231 contains technical changes meant to clarify where enforcement cases for certain Fish & Wildlife rules should be heard.

Judge Zonais testified that the bill is a narrow technical correction to confirm the Judicial Bureau’s jurisdiction over violations of rules adopted under the cited statutory authority. \"This is a technical correction bill,\" Zonais said, adding that the issue was noticed when the bureau’s chief hearing officer found statutory gaps after changes in 2015.

Zonais told the committee that only a small number of violations (11) would have fallen under the question between 2015 and last year and that none of those matters went to a contested hearing, which is why the issue had not produced operational problems earlier. The judge said the proposed clarification will eliminate doubt about where contested enforcement matters should be filed.

Committee members had no substantive objections and thanked the judge for the clarification; the judge said the correction will make sure the Judicial Bureau can carry out its adjudicative role for the specified Fish & Wildlife rules.

No committee action was taken at the hearing; staff will include the technical fixes as drafted in H.231.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Natural Resources and Energy - 2025-04-24 - 9:05","oneSentenceSummary","A Superior Court judge told the committee that H.231 contains technical, noncontroversial corrections to confirm that violations of Fish & Wildlife rules adopted under certain statutory authority are heard in the Judicial Bureau.","taxTitle","Natural Resources & Energy, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",48480,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6262583,"Agency proposes 'freeze' of federal rules incorporated by reference to protect Vermont programs",688,2002000,2690000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1&start=2002&end=2690","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1/thumbnail_2002000.jpg","/articles/6262583/Vermont/Agency-proposes-freeze-of-federal-rules-incorporated-by-reference-to-protect-Vermont-programs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262583-2c6ff18d6a63e6c63b528fc8a1bf2de7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152665&Signature=Y8-cM2CHEyTIFRRouotIXYq7nuiA-iAX~ufupv3koSVhc-0Kr~L4ZYXdTxW4~N5apN~bW4ZUl3fW9KM~r5hCsMFVhpnLOTR0ThM-7hOUk02c4q8iyuNHIz5G0Vn8O3t6fIyZb6MJTcvOo7lvFPJgECLvOK2noSGO~0s5sZ55glEIqOKleSCQDtuOW1JZ0NjPxfcea7yGJG4Oz4-68CLnX6BPzaf6elcRBmKf-QL75FzwJvrRPvAJYeANnRRY3QPngcad0Dui1DFgV8~gFpTx1ncct~YbXtydrBFdd9EhVQrxn~Cnpi500cgRw8oR~GCnEwgueCJ9G7C4MtlrQElMHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Agency staff told the committee they want statutory language that would preserve the versions of federal rules Vermont has incorporated by reference so state programs do not lapse if the federal government repeals corresponding rules.

An agency representative explained that many Vermont statutes and agency rules \"incorporate by reference\" federal standards—examples include federal drinking water standards—and that if the federal rules were changed or repealed, Vermont's regulatory programs could be left without an operative standard. The agency proposed language that would treat the last‑adopted federal standard as the state standard until the state amends its rule or statute. \"The proposal from the agency... would provide that version of the statute or rule that's incorporated by reference when it was last adopted prior to which repeal would still be good law in Vermont, until it was amended...,\" the representative said.

Committee members discussed the scope of the proposal. Staff suggested limiting the freeze to the agency’s jurisdiction rather than creating an across‑the‑board, executive‑branch rule, because federal law touches many programs (for example SNAP or FEMA programs) and creating a universal freeze could have broad consequences. The committee also discussed practical steps agencies must take, such as keeping paper copies of incorporated federal materials for public access.

Senate staff indicated they would incorporate a version of the freeze proposal into H.231 (or H.319 for a broader approach) tailored to the Natural Resources agencies’ jurisdiction, with the option for a broader, government‑wide approach later if needed.

No formal vote was taken; staff were directed to produce draft language that limits the freeze to the jurisdiction covered by the committee’s bills and to coordinate with other agencies if a wider approach is requested.","The agency proposed language to preserve the version of federal rules that Vermont incorporated by reference so state programs would not immediately lose standards if federal rules are repealed or changed.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6262588,"Committee hears department proposal to narrow H.231 firearm language to air and pneumatic rifles",439,1502000,1941000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1&start=1502&end=1941","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1/thumbnail_1502000.jpg","/articles/6262588/Vermont/Committee-hears-department-proposal-to-narrow-H231-firearm-language-to-air-and-pneumatic-rifles","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262588-9eb412e5b156a516b94713d0278b214f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152665&Signature=hGFBGcg7PRawPcPHVDFJ-mMdDJSe~tdYNIrqsB0g2rqZyRfkxro10716HLqhN3x2iA7WY7RdFI~if7chfT-uR~lmfh6zTT5EW6EGfY9haITDk1qM0nfVitQezYVmPxOH7p9cFKZ6xxsXVHsBbaUaCYksnP2CGO0Lpkg~GADPerBS6DJ6RPY4jqrBX4n7QPlTyU99u8ruw-H3V6iysyCGK1QdIy6KCAz9seDLcpHeR6-v5~5ob4gqBq7EHtlRY2X7ntDKOc3ezTPw7ijTgrlRDRSTAvU6MUYPVWMFaZhPZYCzvoLCxwEPLFHtkKR1qeluLQ4Yvdc4KaxfjBvQVlObjg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members reviewed draft language from the implementing agency that narrows H.231’s reach to certain mechanically propelled rifles and arrows rather than handguns.

An agency representative told the committee the department withdrew a broader provision that had raised Second Amendment concerns and is now proposing language that focuses on \"air rifles, arrow rifles, [and] pre‑charged pneumatic rifles,\" with definitions intended to limit the coverage to devices that propel a projectile solely by compressed gas. \"The department instead is proposing the new language that would focus on the specific types of weapons... air rifles, arrow rifles, pre charged pneumatic rifles,\" the representative said.

The draft would continue to ban possession of specified loaded rifles or shotguns in vehicles and would exclude the handgun language that had provoked opposition in the House. The department also intends to define pre‑charged pneumatic rifles and other terms to avoid overbreadth. The representative said one line in the agency draft incorrectly cited a statutory cross‑reference (47‑05(e)) and the department will correct that citation before formal drafting is completed.

Committee members discussed safety comparisons to muzzleloaders and the practical difficulty of defining when a pneumatic device is ‘‘loaded’’ or ‘‘uncapped.’’ One member noted existing law has long prohibited a loaded rifle or a shotgun in a motor vehicle and that the department’s narrower language returns to that long‑standing rule. The agency representative said that posture was intended to address illegal off‑season hunting enabled by devices that can be kept in a state ready to fire.

The committee did not adopt language during the hearing; staff said the department will supply corrected and clarified text and come back to the committee for further review.","Agency staff presented new language for H.231 that would target air rifles, arrow rifles and pre‑charged pneumatic rifles for regulation in certain contexts while avoiding language seen to implicate handguns and Second Amendment concerns.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6262594,"Senate committee reviews H.479 changes to municipal appeals, standing and review standard",5370,813000,6183000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1&start=813&end=6183","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3114990-b3087e39aa62d9cc96900a220f4fb6a1/thumbnail_813000.jpg","/articles/6262594/Vermont/Senate-committee-reviews-H479-changes-to-municipal-appeals-standing-and-review-standard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262594-590370ef31f8c5f5facd49072abb11b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152665&Signature=igMAHBwVbKzkVUE-EjK-uWEkxy5W~jFmlabv~UxYMLhs8zbMvUqZRcMahentCbuCMYFMHFkfXvN0rpeONXJoo6Li6XeqQzQpVlE5c7p4tHSuiXlMD561tJXOl3uCDYSjxykXBzUKI084g8zjfBAWyYbz4g9uH18d2RjfstS1eQ5912yE-F9ZSujerOeYZeM3iV4ouas8kSd16tU0VCHF4apQNyOZ8AbF0Es7GotmG8p7KN5AM0wI6st-oZYipxJxqE6HdjMRuYadWbQcoBf0AvPNodllPlFc3vbbPLyCXgKBmk2WBFvJFs4J5W2cKPk--SHs~ScYFzAkWoFRAKcEow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee examined proposed changes in H.479 on April 24 that would change who can appeal municipal land‑use permits and clarify how those appeals are reviewed by the Environmental Division of the Superior Court.

The changes would add the “person aggrieved” standard used in Act 250 appeals to municipal permit appeals, remove two categories of \"interested person\" standing used for municipal appeals (including the 20‑person petition route for permit appeals), and direct the Environmental Division to prioritize some housing appeals on its docket. Committee staff said the changes aim to reduce after‑the‑fact challenges to development and to bring municipal appeals closer to the injury‑based standard used in other environmental appeals.

Committee counsel Ellen Chikowski of Oxford Legislative Council reviewed the history of Act 250 and municipal appeals, noting that Act 250 appeals moved from an administrative board to the Environmental Division in 2005 and that Act 250’s “person aggrieved” standard requires an allegation of injury to a particularized interest. \"So when Act 250 was passed in 1970, permits approved by district commissions... appeals of those permits... would go to the environmental board,\" Chikowski said, describing the shift to a more formal court process over time.

Under the draft language discussed, municipal appeals would remain available to property owners, municipalities with a plan or bylaw at issue, and state agencies, but would remove the immediate‑neighborhood category and the 20‑person petition as bases to appeal permits (the committee said the 20‑person route would be retained for bylaw or plan adoption in at least one draft). The bill keeps a participation requirement: a person must have made written or oral comments at the municipal proceeding to preserve the right to appeal.

Committee staff warned of potential unintended consequences and flagged several legal and practical points for senators to consider. Removing hearing requirements for certain bylaw updates (a separate provision in the same bill) could create claims of \"manifest injustice\" that would allow a later appeal because participants could not have meaningfully participated if no hearing were held. Chikowski summarized that manifest injustice exceptions are already recognized in Environmental Division practice for defective notice, secret hearings or other defects that make participation impossible.

The draft also includes a restatement of the standard of review for municipal land‑use permit appeals and a docketing priority that would ask the Environmental Division to give precedence to municipal housing appeals “except for cases the court considers of greater importance.” The committee noted similar priority language has been used for public records and campaign finance cases without a constitutional challenge but cautioned wording can raise separation‑of‑powers concerns if made mandatory.

Committee members and staff discussed alternatives and compromise language — including a narrower list of protected interests drawn from the purpose statement of 24 V.S.A. chapter 117 — and flagged the practical difficulty of consolidating municipal standing rules that are currently scattered across multiple statutes. Staff said the House had already moved some of these provisions and that Economic Development would circulate additional draft language to clarify whether the 20‑person petition should remain for plan or bylaw adoption while being removed for permit appeals.

The panel did not take a formal vote on the proposals during the session. Members requested more precise drafting to avoid unintended gaps or overlaps between bylaw/adoption appeals and permit appeals and asked staff to return with clarified language before the committee acts on the bill.

The committee scheduled further review with Senate Economic Development staff and other stakeholders before finalizing changes to standing, the de novo review language, and the docketing priority for housing cases.","Committee staff and legal advisers reviewed proposed changes in H.479 that would alter who can appeal municipal land-use permits, how appeals are reviewed in the Environmental Division and deadlines for a board report on Act 250 appeals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judge briefs committee: H.231 contains technical fix to confirm Judicial Bureau jurisdiction over Fish & Wildlife rules

Agency proposes 'freeze' of federal rules incorporated by reference to protect Vermont programs

Committee hears department proposal to narrow H.231 firearm language to air and pneumatic rifles

Senate committee reviews H.479 changes to municipal appeals, standing and review standard