Stakeholders urge delay in Vermont’s Act 181 implementation, warn of regulatory gaps

Regional planning officials, municipal representatives and conservation groups urged Vermont’s Natural Resources & Energy committee to delay parts of Act 181 implementation, saying rushed rollouts of Tier designations and the so-called road rule could create regulatory gaps that slow housing production.

At a joint hearing, witnesses asked lawmakers to extend interim Act 250 exemptions while rulemaking finishes and communities adapt. "If interim Act 250 extensions expire before these issues are resolved, Vermont risks creating an immediate regulatory gap," an early witness told the committee (opening testimony). That uncertainty, multiple witnesses said, is prompting some towns not to pursue Tier 1A or opt into Tier 1B—decisions that could reinstate Act 250 jurisdiction for projects already counted under exemptions and in turn slow development.

Representative Sebelia, presenting H.730 on behalf of the rural caucus, said the bill would move deadlines and require notice to affected residents in Tier 2 and Tier 3. She warned the law’s transition could impose "a very significant regulatory burden for rural Vermont" and urged attention to outreach and tools to help long-term rural residents stay in place.

Joel Baker of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission said RPCs have led extensive public engagement and are on track to submit regional plans by year’s end, noting early draft growth areas amount to roughly 2.2% of land area in his region. Catherine Dimitryk, an RPC executive director, proposed statutory tweaks to simplify mapping criteria and allow a faster amendment process so regional plans can be updated more nimbly. "The important part is getting it right, not to get it on time," Dimitryk told the committee.

Municipal representatives voiced concerns about the overlap between the new Tier rules and existing Act 250 review. A BLCT representative urged delaying the road rule and Tier 3 jurisdiction and asked that municipalities not be required to enforce legacy Act 250 permits if a town achieves Tier 1A—an obligation that some witnesses said discourages towns from opting into the new program. The BLCT representative summarized draft triggers the Land Use Review Board has proposed, including treating improvements larger than 200 square feet as development and applying an 800-foot (potentially up to 2,000-foot) buffer in some habitat-connector areas.

Conservation testimony largely backed a pause to allow tailoring. John Broomhead of a conservation group said his organization supports extensions and urged that tailoring and public engagement remain central: "We need to get these rules right," he said, adding that protecting forests and habitat can coexist with targeted housing growth.

Committee members pressed for technical clarifications on appeals to the Land Use Review Board, the statutory outreach expectations, and how habitat connectors are defined and mapped. Several senators asked stakeholders to submit proposed extension lengths and offered to roll requests into a legislative package; the committee asked LURB staff to return with a technical briefing at a future session.

The hearing produced no formal votes. Lawmakers asked witnesses to provide suggested timelines and supporting materials ahead of upcoming joint hearings; the committee signaled it plans further sessions to refine statutory language and to hear LURB staff and agency technical briefings.