Senate committee eyes permitting, appeals and lot rules as top housing priorities

Senate members on the Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee opened a post‑crossover session planning hour by identifying permit delays, litigation and local lot‑size limits as the most immediate drivers of high housing costs in Vermont.

“We now have some time, blessed time, before we go on the floor to actually talk about where we are,” the committee chair said, calling for a list of priorities as the legislature moves into the second half of the session.

Why it matters: Senators said litigation and multi‑layer permitting—state, ANR (Agency of Natural Resources)/Act 250, and municipal bylaws—add months or years and materially increase per‑unit construction costs. Committee members repeatedly cited average lot‑size requirements, wetland‑buffer rules, and a three‑acre impervious‑surface threshold as examples that shrink buildable land and raise development costs.

What the committee discussed and asked staff to do - Permit reform and deduplication: Members urged looking for statutory cleanup that would reduce duplicative reviews between municipal processes, ANR/Act 250 and other state permits. Several senators said the administration supports deduplication language already in a pending housing measure. - Appeals and litigation: Senators discussed limiting the ability of appeals to indefinitely suspend projects, even when appeals proceed. One senator proposed allowing a project to move forward once it has cleared a defined percentage of local review to avoid seven‑year stalls that raise costs. - Wetland buffers and ANR processes: The committee noted wetland buffers that expanded in some cases to 50–100 feet and said Natural Resources will take up the buffer question; members wanted the committee to support that work. - Lot sizes and density: Senators cited a chart showing Vermont’s large average lot size (roughly 2 acres or about 78,000 square feet), and said the requirement makes it harder to achieve cost savings through higher density or infill development. - Unfinished housing bill provisions: The group agreed to continue work on a set of measures left off the initial housing bill, including the renter credit‑score conversation, ‘‘Buy Right’’ owner‑occupied housing provisions and other items described in testimony to the committee. - Land banking / eminent domain: Senators discussed giving municipalities tools between tax sale and full purchase—land banking—to return blighted or vacant housing to productive use. Eminent domain was raised for attention value but members framed it as a shock‑value example and asked for testimony on past state‑local efforts (for example, a Waterbury flood‑management episode cited by members).

Evidence and witnesses: Senators cited testimony from developers and organizations including Evernorth and the Pew Charitable Trusts on cost drivers. One member said she will seek testimony from landlords, developers and local officials about barriers to rehabilitating blighted housing and about practical land‑banking tools.

Next steps: The committee agreed to schedule walkthroughs with Natural Resources and to invite witnesses (administration staff, local developers and municipal officials) to present data on permit timeframes, the cost impacts of appeals, and which regulatory changes would yield measurable savings. Members also asked the chief performance officer be invited to help identify consistent outcome metrics for housing efforts.

Discussion vs. decisions: The meeting was a planning session and produced no formal motions or votes. Committee members instructed staff to assemble a list of priority topics and witnesses and to track related bills from the House and other committees.

Ending note: Senators emphasized they will continue the housing conversation after crossover, aiming to pair short‑term reforms (administrative cleanup and permit timing) with longer‑term work on affordability and housing targets.