Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mapping Act 181 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RPCs outline Act 181 mapping, warn of appeals and permitting bottlenecks
Summary
Regional planning commissions told the General & Housing committee that implementing Act 181 will expand mapped growth areas, affect Act 250 exemptions, and create demand for wastewater and other state permits; commissioners asked the Legislature to clarify statute and create an amendment process before final LURB sign‑offs.
Charlie Baker, executive director of the Chittenden Regional Planning Commission, told the Committee on General & Housing on Jan. 8 that regional planning commissions (RPCs) are on a deadline to submit full regional plans and maps under Act 181 and that those maps carry statutory consequences for Act 250 exemptions and designation benefits.
"We have to demonstrate that a substantial majority of housing growth can happen in these growth areas in each of our regions," Baker said, describing the new requirement embedded in the regional plans. He explained the LURB (Land Use Review Board) process includes an initial informal 60‑day review followed by additional steps toward final approval.
Why it matters: maps approved by the Land Use Review Board determine which areas are eligible for designation benefits and which municipalities may obtain partial or full Act 250 exemptions. Baker said Tier 1 eligible areas (downtown centers, village centers, planned growth areas and village areas) will be eligible for Tier 1b and, after additional review, Tier 1a exemptions that can change development review for projects up to 50 units.
Baker told members that preliminary mapping has already expanded the geographic footprint beyond earlier interim exemption radii in several regions, citing one example where an interim exemption area was about 1.8% of a region and the mapped Tier 1b area rose to about 2.1%.
Implementation concerns and requests to the Legislature
Baker flagged several practical issues he said should be addressed before RPCs submit plans for final sign‑off: the lack of a clear amendment pathway for maps (currently an eight‑month review), early LURB feedback that may shrink locally mapped growth areas, and bottlenecks in state permitting. "Wastewater permitting is a very slow process," Baker said, and added that wetlands, stormwater and historic‑preservation reviews could multiply demand on state agencies as communities and developers move to implement mapped growth.
Baker asked the committee to consider statutory clarifications to reduce inconsistent interpretations by reviewers and to authorize a streamlined amendment process so municipalities can adopt changes (for example, new subdivision or zoning text) and have maps amended on a faster timetable.
Additional policy questions raised by members focused on whether mapping obligations require local zoning changes (they do not), how municipal targets account for available infrastructure, and practical constraints in small towns — for example, fire equipment limitations that can influence allowable building heights.
Next steps
Baker said the RPCs expect to be on schedule to complete the initial review cycle and return for final approvals by midyear, but cautioned that individual regions could slip by weeks. He offered to provide proposed statutory language and follow up on outstanding technical questions raised by members.
The committee did not take formal action at the hearing; the Land Use Review Board reviews and final approvals remain the governing procedural milestones.
