Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee hears concerns that repeated appeals and de novo review delay housing projects
Loading...
Summary
Committee members and the Vermont Housing Conservation Board discussed how repeated appeals and de novo judicial review under Act 250 and related procedures can add years and millions of dollars to housing projects, and explored statutory changes to limit duplicative appeals after local, regional and state approvals.
Members of the House Appropriations Committee spent a substantial portion of the Jan. 7 hearing on the effects of litigation and appeals on housing development.
Gus Selig of the Vermont Housing Conservation Board described multiple projects that were delayed by repeated legal challenges. "Under our laws, all it takes is one person to object who went to court, took it to the Supreme Court twice," Selig said, describing a Putney project that required two Supreme Court trips and significant delay.
Committee members and VHCB staff discussed Act 250, de novo review, and proposals to limit the number or scope of appeals when a project has cleared local, regional and state review. Selig said there may be a place for statutory change "once a community and then the regional commission and the state all say, this is where we wanna grow, we shouldn't have as much appeals rights as we have." He cautioned, however, that any reform must preserve legitimate avenues for redress.
Lawmakers described trade-offs. One member said the judiciary warned that curbing appeals risks "justice denied," and several members said the goal is to find a "sweet spot" that preserves access while reducing abusive delay. Members also cited the Woodstock example, where protracted appeals raised construction costs by roughly 35% and added years to project timelines.
Why it matters: Committee members said appeals and court delays increase costs and uncertainty for housing projects, potentially reducing the number of projects that proceed. The exchange focused on how changes to Act 250 or related procedures might speed housing delivery while balancing legal protections.
Members agreed to continue the conversation in appropriate committees; no statutory change was voted on or adopted in this session.
