Senator reviews S.133 housing bill, urging density, permitting fixes and clarifications

Senator Ron Hinsdale, presenting to the Natural Resources & Energy Committee on Friday, April 25, said S.133 aims to increase housing density where infrastructure exists and to reduce permitting barriers that raise per‑unit costs.

Hinsdale said, “I figured that we are not going to be able to advance a lot of new housing and land use policy at this late time in the session. So I thought I would spend majority of my time on a primer that gets, hopefully, our 2 committees on the same page about why we share this jurisdiction and why I will come knocking on your door often, this biennium to talk about advancing denser housing and more housing as climate action and as something that's good for the economy of the state.”

The bill includes multiple land‑use provisions: a change to zoning language so related occupants could construct additional dwelling units on the same parcel; a requirement that areas formerly zoned industrial and later allowed for residential development permit at least five units per acre; and tightened definitions of areas “served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure.” Committee members and staff repeatedly flagged vagueness in key terms such as “related occupants,” “area adjacent to a road with water and sewer lines,” and how to determine whether capacity is being added “imminently” to accommodate housing.

A staff walkthrough by a bill drafter identified Section 1 as an amendment to “24 BSA 40 four‑twelve,” described in the meeting as the statute governing zoning requirements and prohibitions. The transcript record shows the drafter recommending clearer guardrails for the family/related‑occupant provision because “there’s no process for determining whether something is related.”

Presenters and committee members discussed measures intended to reduce per‑unit costs and speed project timelines. Hinsdale pointed to data saying Vermont’s projects are delivering “about 50% less value per unit than New Hampshire” because of lower average project density, and argued that denser projects can lower per‑unit costs. The bill also contains a sawmill exemption from Act 250 for small primary processors (thresholds described in the bill text), a provision to allow development soils to be disposed of closer to projects rather than transported long distances, and proposed limits on constructed‑wetland buffers in certain built corridors.

S.133 would also direct the Commissioner of Housing and Community Development to report on development of a density algorithm for calculating inclusionary zoning amounts and to report on whether the state should adopt design blueprints (model building standards) to speed permitting. The bill would change the default status of a tiered municipal designation (tier 1B) from opt‑in to opt‑out, clarify municipal staffing expectations for higher‑density areas, and add language to allow construction to proceed in certain circumstances even when an appeal is filed (subject to lender, court and liability risks discussed by staff).

Committee members asked for more precise statutory definitions, examples and guardrails before moving language forward. Staff noted practical constraints — 250 municipalities with non‑uniform infrastructure systems — and flagged that some provisions could be tailored to situations where capacity is being added specifically to serve housing. The presenters said the bill was intended as a menu of options and that the intent for the session was to identify pieces that could be folded into the housing bill moving through the Senate rather than to move S.133 wholesale this year.

At the meeting’s close on the item, the committee’s staffer summarized that the intent was to use the discussion to “see what pieces resonate” and possibly incorporate them into other pending housing legislation.