Regional planners tell lawmakers Act 181 maps will leave most Vermont land rural; H.134 would target small-scale housing on current‑use parcels

Regional planning commissioners told a state legislative committee that maps being prepared under Act 181 will place only a small share of Vermont land in the new Tier 1 growth areas, and they described how H.134(a bill to change current‑use penalties to encourage small residential lots) would interact with that mapping.

Charlie Baker of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission said the RPCs are “heavily engaged in implementing the Act 250 changes that got voted on last session, Act 181,” and presented draft regional land‑use maps to show how village centers, planned growth areas and rural areas may be designated. He cautioned the maps are preliminary: “This is very much a draft. Please don't take anything to the bank here.”

The commissioners and legislators focused on three practical points: how Tier 1a and 1b areas will be defined, how far current‑use parcels lie from those growth areas, and what types of infrastructure or soils will make parcels eligible for development under the tier rules. Baker and other RPC staff said the interim exemptions already in effect expanded designated areas to roughly 2% of the state's land area. With full mapping and designation, they said, the more realistic expectation is that Tier 1 or planned growth areas could rise into the mid single digits of state land area (RPCs mentioned a plausible 5–7 percent range), leaving the vast majority of Vermont (well over 90 percent) as rural in the new maps.

RPC presenters showed a sample town map (Sheldon) to illustrate the categories that statute requires in regional land‑use plans: village center, village area (planned growth area), rural general (often large‑lot residential), rural agriculture and forestry, and rural conservation. Baker and Tom Kennedy (a regional commission director) explained that eligibility for the Act 250 exemptions in village areas is commonly tied to access to public water or sewer or to “suitable soils” (perc tests), and that the Act 250 exemption for Tier 1b is limited to projects of up to 50 housing units.

On H.134, which would alter current‑use penalties to make it easier for a farm or other owner to carve off two acres for residential use, RPC staff said the law as drafted would not create large new development pressure near most villages in Chittenden County because few current‑use parcels lie adjacent to the pink/purple areas on the RPC maps. Baker estimated that, after removing floodplain, unsuitable land and other constraints, the pool of current‑use acreage that could realistically participate in such a program in his region would likely be measured in a few thousand acres (he suggested “3,000 or 4,000 acres” as an order‑of‑magnitude estimate) rather than tens of thousands.

Committee members asked technical and process questions. RPC staff reminded members that: towns must vote locally to accept the Tier 1b exemption even when a region maps a growth area; the State Land Use Review Board must sign off on final designations; and RPCs are working with towns this fall and winter to refine maps and, where requested, help draft or update bylaws and subdivision regulations.

RPCs also noted how geography shapes outcomes: village centers are typically small (RPCs said designated village centers historically covered about 0.3% of the state's land area), and interim half‑mile buffers around existing village centers expanded the area to roughly 2% immediately. In many parts of the state, parcel suitability is constrained by floodplains, steep slopes and lack of sewer, so the number of current‑use parcels that would practically be convertible for small residential lots is limited.

No formal committee vote on H.134 or related mapping was recorded during the session. RPCs offered to return for a longer briefing on Act 181 mapping and to follow up with county‑level overlays of current‑use parcels and draft Tier 1 boundaries for legislators and town officials.

Ending: The RPCs said mapping and town engagement will continue through the coming months; towns retain the local decision to participate, and state review remains part of the designation process. The committee did not take action on H.134 during the meeting.