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
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.
Get email alerts on the Rutland Fair Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
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.

