Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rutland Fair Stormwater topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bill would ease off-site mitigation fee for Rutland County State Fair stormwater permit

3614574 · May 30, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

H.44 includes a provision that would require the Rutland County State Fair to obtain a three-acre stormwater permit but waive the usual off-site impact fee when on-site constraints prevent meeting performance goals, a change supported by the Agency of Agriculture and ANR deputy commissioner.

The committee discussed a change in H.44 that preserves the requirement for the Rutland County State Fair to obtain a three-acre stormwater permit but waives the additional off-site mitigation or impact fee that normally covers remaining performance goals when unique site constraints prevent full on-site compliance.

Legislative counsel Mike O'Grady summarized the rationale: Rutland's fairgrounds are constrained by a railroad, a highway and nearby development, leaving less room for on-site stormwater measures. "The agency... acknowledged that there are unique site constraints," O'Grady said, and the provision reduces the fair's overall cost of complying with the three-acre requirements.

Why it matters: most ag fairs that trigger the three-acre threshold must prepare a plan and either meet performance goals on-site or pay an impact fee or complete an off-site mitigation project in the same watershed. Committee discussion noted that finding acceptable off-site projects in the same watershed can be difficult, and the Department of Environmental Conservation (within ANR) and Agency of Agriculture were reported as supporting the Rutland-specific accommodation.

Committee context and next steps: members said they had heard the ANR deputy commissioner earlier in the day and that the fair supports the change; some members indicated lingering irritation among local stakeholders but did not oppose the accommodation in committee testimony. The language was part of a group of sections passed in a reported straw poll covering sections 2–4.