CCRPC presents draft regional future land use map and municipal housing targets; comments due May 19

Taylor (RPC staff) presented the RPC’s draft regional future land use map and draft municipal housing targets under Vermont’s Act 181, reviewed the public engagement completed to date, and invited written comments through May 19.

Nut graf: The regional future land use map and the locally apportioned housing targets are central elements of the state’s Act 181 housing initiative: the RPC must map centers and growth areas, produce municipal housing targets and coordinate with the newly formed Land Use Review Board (LURB). The board’s review and the upcoming public comment period will feed revisions before the maps and targets are advanced toward LURB review and final adoption.

Public engagement and schedule Taylor said the draft map and draft municipal housing targets are posted on the RPC website and the map viewer. Staff will compile comments submitted via email and the map viewer and publish a summary by May 23. Public comments are due Monday, May 19; a regional housing convening was scheduled for April 30 at Kula (start time listed in the presentation as 5:30 p.m.). Staff said they will continue municipal outreach through July and intend to present final ECOS plan materials for LURB review in 2026 and board adoption in the following adoption cycle.

Common themes from outreach Staff summarized recurring themes raised in municipal meetings and targeted focus groups (including non‑English language groups): - Centers: Many municipalities agreed on historic downtown and village center boundaries. There was more debate about “emerging centers” (places without prior state center designation) and how to draw their boundaries and potential future benefits. - Tier 1b opt‑in: Tier 1b, which requires municipal opt‑in and allows limited Act 250 exemptions for projects up to 50 units, drew more interest in larger urban municipalities and less interest in rural towns. Rural towns expressed reluctance to opt in and worried about unintended regulatory changes if state law evolves. - Map categories and smoothing: Rural municipalities asked for smoother boundaries and better alignment between municipal plans and the regional map. The regional guidance will be adjusted to allow cross‑hatching of floodplains/river corridors (rather than mapping them primarily as rural conservation) and to permit more flexibility on how RPCs prioritize rural ag, forestry and conservation categories. - Spaghetti lots and rural development: Staff explained new guidance allowing some long, narrow lots (so‑called “spaghetti lots”) to be classified as rural general where they functionally serve rural residential use; members debated how prevalent that is in different parts of the county.

Housing targets and distribution Taylor reminded the board that the staff‑proposed division of the regional housing target assigns 60% of the regional target to cities, 3.8% to rural towns (reflecting historic growth patterns) and 36.2% to mixed urban/rural municipalities. The targets were developed with municipal planning directors and the Planning Advisory Committee; staff said the mid scenario generally reflects a challenging but achievable target for many communities.

Board members raised implementation concerns including infrastructure constraints (water/sewer availability and road maintenance), workforce and construction cost pressures, and the absence of a municipal affordability breakdown in the targets. Taylor and Charlie said the draft targets do not specify affordability percentages at the municipal level; RPC staff may consider regional affordability targets in the future but had not adopted any at this stage.

Next steps - Public comment deadline: May 19. Staff will summarize and post comments by May 23. - Early May: staff expects the first tier 1b meeting (South Burlington noted as the initial town under discussion). - Summer/fall: staff will continue municipal review and convene the long‑range planning committee; LURB review is expected in 2026, with final adoption to follow.

Ending Taylor asked board members to share municipal contacts for a mobile‑home park survey and noted four additional non‑English community focus groups scheduled in the coming month (Nepalese, Swahili, Arabic and French).