Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rulemaking Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee weighs statutory fixes, LURB authority and timeline for Act 181 implementation
Summary
Committee members and legislative counsel debated whether statutory changes are needed to let the Land Use Review Board apply fewer Act 250 criteria to Tier 3 projects, considered deadlines for rulemaking and reports, and discussed extensions for regional and municipal planning timelines.
The Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee spent substantial time on March 11 debating how S.325 should handle rulemaking authority, statutory changes and timing for implementing Act 181’s tiered jurisdiction.
Helen Jowski of the Office of Legislative Council told members that while the Land Use Review Board (LURB) has broad rulemaking authority, the existing statute does not clearly authorize LURB to apply fewer Act 250 criteria to projects only triggered by a Tier 3 jurisdictional rule. That ambiguity, she said, argues for either a statutory change or a formal report back from LURB explaining how it would proceed.
Committee members discussed asking LURB to report to the legislature by Dec. 15, 2026, with recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes. One committee member summarized a possible drafting outcome: "They shall report back to the legislature to the committees of jurisdiction by December 15 of 2026 with recommendations for statutory and regulatory rule changes necessary to allow for fewer criteria ..." The committee also discussed whether December 31, 2027 was a workable deadline for final proposed rules.
Other procedural topics included: whether municipal permit conditions previously imposed under Act 250 should automatically transfer into municipal permits in Tier 1A areas; how to streamline a municipality’s ability to opt into Tier 1B without a full regional amendment; and whether to extend the expiration dates for regional and municipal plans to provide breathing room for towns updating maps.
Members flagged several implementation tradeoffs — specificity in statute can lock in limits, while leaving too much to rulemaking may create uncertainty for towns. The committee set additional hearings and follow‑up sessions and asked staff and stakeholders to provide drafted statutory language and recommended rule language where possible.
