Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land Use Review Board outlines Act 181 appeals study, flags consolidation and open‑meeting limits
Summary
The newly formed Land Use Review Board told the House General & Housing Committee it is conducting the appeals study required by Act 181 and is exploring consolidation of zoning, ANR and Act 250 appeals to speed decisions; board members and staff raised data gaps, conflict‑of‑interest concerns and limits imposed by open‑meeting rules.
The Land Use Review Board told the House General & Housing Committee on Feb. 20 that it is conducting the appeals study required under Act 181 and is examining whether appeals now heard in the Environmental Division (often called the Environmental Court) should be routed to the Land Use Review Board instead.
The study will evaluate timelines, case volumes and whether consolidation of municipal zoning appeals, Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) appeals and Act 250 appeals could shorten review. "We have to look at, shall that stay with the Environmental Division, or should it come to the Land Use Review Board?" Brooke Dingledeen, a newly seated LURB member and environmental land‑use lawyer, said during her presentation.
Why it matters: Committee members said the pace and predictability of land‑use appeals affects housing and development. The board emphasized that litigation‑style de novo reviews in the Environmental Division can be lengthy and costly and said consolidation and on‑the‑record review processes may speed outcomes for many projects.
Board members described the new board's mix of expertise — engineering, forestry, wildlife, regional and municipal planning — and said that mix was intended to make appeal reviews more efficient and more informed by varied technical backgrounds.
Discussion and data: Brooke Dingledeen and Pete (Peter) Gill, LURB executive director, told the committee they are assembling data and stakeholder feedback. Dingledeen said the 2024 Vermont judiciary statistics show far more municipal de novo appeals (53 incoming cases in the snapshot cited) than Act 250/ANR de novo appeals (17 in the same snapshot) and that on‑the‑record appeals were far fewer (8 in the snapshot). She also said denial rates at the district commission level are very low (she cited "point 2%" as a reference to a denial rate figure discussed in the meeting).
Several committee members asked the board to break down appeals by whether they were taken by project proponents (applicants) or opponents (neighbors), and Dingledeen said her team would seek that detail.
Process options discussed: Board members and committee members discussed three approaches: (1) encouraging on‑the‑record review where possible, which limits new evidence on appeal; (2) creating abbreviated procedures and firm deadlines to avoid typical civil‑litigation discovery; and (3) coordinated or consolidated hearings so zoning, ANR and Act 250 issues are heard together. "Even though you have two sets of legal standards, the evidence is the evidence. There's no reason to go through that process two times," Dingledeen said of coordinated cases.
Limits set by open‑meeting requirements: Board members said complying strictly with open‑meeting statutes constrains the new board's ability to conduct day‑to‑day collaborative work outside formal meetings. Peter Gill and Janet Curley, LURB chair, said the current requirement to post meetings and follow public‑meeting procedures when multiple members coordinate has led to operational inefficiencies. Gill said the board has discussed seeking relief similar to what other professional regulatory bodies receive so members can work together more often without triggering full open‑meeting formalities, then report decisions in public sessions.
Next steps and deliverables: Members asked the board to produce a study that includes proposed procedural changes, draft statutory language if changes require legislative action, and cost/appropriation estimates if additional staff or resources are necessary. Dingledeen said the board is engaging stakeholders and will include proposed implementation language and appropriation estimates in its report.
Administrative follow‑ups: The board offered to send the committee the handout used in the presentation and its annual report; staff asked that the documents be delivered digitally to the committee staff email list.
Ending: Committee members thanked LURB representatives for the testimony and said they will revisit the appeals report as language and recommendations are developed.
