Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statutory Alignment Served By topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LCT representative urges technical fix to S328 to align 'served by' definitions for Act 250 relief
Summary
Samantha, speaking for the LCT, told the House General and Housing Committee that S328 should cross‑reference the Title 24 definition of 'served by municipal water and sewer' into Title 10 to avoid inconsistent LURB/Act 250 interpretations and to prevent a 'flywheel' of unintended upzoning when infrastructure changes occur.
Samantha, representing the LCT, told the House General and Housing Committee that S328 is broadly supportive of municipal housing authority changes but should include a technical conforming change to align definitions used across state law.
"This would allow every time the state law changes what is in one of those Title 24 preemptions, the municipality must comply..." Samantha said, explaining that Title 24 contains the statutory definition of areas "served by municipal water and sewer" and that Title 10 uses a related but separately interpreted test for Act 250/tier relief.
She told members the mismatch leads to inconsistency in how the Land Use and Development Review Board (LURB) and regional planning commissions determine whether an area qualifies for tiered Act 250 relief. Municipal planners and applicants sometimes characterize planned growth areas as "served" because a sewer main exists or capacity is available, while LURB may find that individual parcels are not connected and therefore not "served." That difference matters when determining eligibility for tier‑one exemptions and activity relief.
Samantha asked the committee to add a cross‑reference in S328 so that the Title 24 definition of "served by" is explicitly used where Title 10 and Act 250 employ the same concept. She described this as a technical, conforming change intended to harmonize statutory language and reduce dispute during LURB review.
Committee members asked about prior committee language that would have defined a sidewalk distance (2,000 feet) for the served‑by test. Samantha and municipal planners said 2,000 feet was broadly seen as too long; testimony in earlier committee rounds favored a much shorter distance (200–300 feet) or leaving the precise line‑drawing to municipal regulations so communities can define what "served" means for enforcement and capital planning.
Samantha framed the change as protecting communities that have planned growth areas and public infrastructure but where private parcels are not yet physically connected to service lines. She said the cross‑reference would be simple—"as defined in Title 24"—and would reduce litigation and inconsistent agency interpretations.
The committee thanked Samantha for the technical recommendations and continued with other testimony. No formal action on the proposed amendment to S328 was taken during the session; the committee recessed for lunch and scheduled markup of S328 and S89 after the break.
