Regional plan revisions propose quantifiable 'substantial regional impact' tests, telecom and renewables siting rules

Staff reviewed progress on the regional plan and introduced a visualized future land use map and three-tier public-review approach at the April 7 meeting. The map is intended as a public-facing illustration; staff said they hired a cartoonist to create an accessible poster to use at pop-up events and town meetings.

Why it matters: The plan revisions include proposed, measurable tests for when development is ‘‘substantially regionally significant’’ under Act 250 section 2-48. Those tests would let the regional review committee require developers to supply specific impact information earlier in the project process and help the commission decide whether to weigh in on projects that affect multiple towns, infrastructure, or natural resources.

Key proposed criteria staff presented include: a change in level of service from D to E (or E to F) on roads with average annual daily traffic of 5,000 or more; a development contributing 5% or more of peak-hour traffic on a significant highway or within an adjacent planned growth area; contributing 5% or more of annual solid-waste tonnage for the host municipality; projects that require major public capital improvements (widening, signalization, sewer/water expansion, additional safety resources or schools); increasing electric distribution load by 5% or more during peak hours; generating direct employment equal to or greater than 1% of regional employment (291 people as of Dec. 2024); siting in special flood hazard areas, highest-priority forest blocks, class 1 wetlands, or areas with threatened or endangered species; proposals that add housing units exceeding 5% of a host town’s total housing stock; and commercial projects exceeding 10,000 sq ft outside planned growth areas or 20,000 sq ft inside planned growth areas.

On telecommunications, staff proposed a set of standards (section 2-40 draft): prohibit new facilities within 1,500 feet of neighboring structures in some contexts; require a balloon scenic impact test in rural future land use areas; require community outreach meetings for proposed facilities; prioritize facilities that will actually serve permanent residents in unserved or underserved areas; and encourage design measures where towers exceed tree lines so they blend with scenic resources. Staff and commissioners discussed whether tower-design language should be a firm ‘‘must’’ or a recommended ‘‘should,’’ and said wording will be refined.

The draft renewable-energy guidance mirrors the commission’s prior direction but is streamlined. Highlights staff shared: utility-scale biomass proposals are not allowed; geothermal must meet state and federal standards; hydro projects should follow Low Impact Hydropower Institute criteria; natural gas development is ‘‘not in conformance’’ with the plan; solar must avoid forest fragmentation and permit wildlife passage, while rooftop, parking-lot, quarry, and disturbed-site installations are preferred; and wind development is restricted to residential-scale projects only.

Staff emphasized the purpose of the new criteria is to prompt early, quantifiable information from developers, not to preclude development. "We could request this information, and we have in the past," the staff member said, adding earlier review produces more predictable outcomes for towns and developers.

Ending: Staff said they will refine the wording (for example, telecom tower design language) and circulate an updated draft to commissioners, then offer training for the regional committee once the language is finalized.