Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Bill would let Rutland Fair meet stormwater rules only to the degree feasible, avoiding extra offset fee
Loading...
Summary
ANR offered a compromise in the bill to require fairgrounds to implement what is feasible on-site under the stormwater manual but not to require off‑site offsets or additional stormwater impact fees when site constraints prevent full compliance; Rutland Fair cited as primary example because of rail, highway and nearby development.
The Agency of Natural Resources told the committee the miscellaneous agriculture bill contains a provision aimed at fairgrounds with unique site constraints — most prominently the Rutland Fair — that would require those sites to implement on‑site stormwater measures to the extent feasible but would not force them to pay for off‑site offsets or stormwater impact fees when physical constraints make full compliance impracticable.
ANR staff described site constraints at Rutland — a railroad at one boundary, a state highway at another, and nearby commercial and residential property — that limit options for meeting the full performance measures in the stormwater management manual. As presented, the bill would still require an engineering feasibility analysis and on‑site measures where possible; if the analysis shows limited feasible measures, the site would not be forced to pay an offset or a stormwater impact fee beyond what it can do on site.
The discussion also covered overlapping permitting issues: the fair's property contains a stream designated as impaired under a TMDL (a Rutland MS4 TMDL), which complicates permit requirements and underscores the agency's need to coordinate regulatory programs when a site has multiple constraints.
Key timing and assistance notes Committee members were reminded that H.481 — a related bill — would push the compliance date for certain watersheds until 2028 for Champlain, Memphremagog and some stormwater‑impaired waters; other watersheds would move to later dates tied to when a TMDL is required. ANR staff also noted the agency has money and programs intended to assist subject properties with compliance, including the municipal implementation program and the developed lands implementation program, and that ANR will provide a contact person and a resource guide to assist sites.
What the committee did and what’s next The provision was described as an ANR compromise; it was not presented as an exemption from all requirements, but as an acknowledgement of site constraints that would avoid additional offset/fee obligations when feasibility analyses show limited options. Committee members asked whether a broader, consistent approach to fairs statewide would be appropriate; ANR said that could be explored but was not currently in the bill.
Why it matters Fairgrounds often host large events, parking and impervious surfaces; requiring them to pay or implement offsets where site constraints make on‑site mitigation infeasible could be costly. The proposed approach aims to balance regulatory performance goals with site realities while directing ANR to review feasibility and oversee permit decisions.
Ending If the bill is enacted as described, fairgrounds with constrained sites would still need to complete feasibility analyses and implement on‑site measures where possible but would not necessarily be required to fund off‑site offsets or pay additional stormwater impact fees beyond what their sites can support.
