Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation district warns towns: Act 181 mapping is shifting land-use authority and creating uncertainty
Summary
Michael Fernandez of the Bennington County Conservation District briefed the board on Act 181's place-based mapping, warned that GIS-driven tier designations have produced community confusion (including flood-plain and tier-three concerns), and urged towns to review future land‑use boundaries and file timely public comments.
Michael Fernandez, district manager for the Bennington County Conservation District, told the Select Board on April 23 that Act 181 (2024) represents a fundamental shift from project‑based triggers under Act 250 to place‑based jurisdictional mapping that has significant consequences for towns.
Fernandez said the law’s tier 1A and 1B designations were drawn from future‑land‑use maps (often towns' existing plans) and that regional commissions relied heavily on GIS mapping because of limited funding to ground‑truth every parcel. "Part of it is expense… part of it is the regional commissions rely on towns," he said, adding that some tier and future‑land‑use placements unexpectedly fell in flood‑prone or otherwise sensitive areas.
He described tier‑three designations — intended to protect habitat connectors and other resources — as particularly controversial. Fernandez said those maps were created using modelled habitat and other GIS layers, sometimes without on‑the‑ground confirmation, producing results that landowners found surprising or inequitable. "You have instances… you'll see small lots where it jumps over a property and starts again on the other side," he said, arguing that the current approach can penalize lower‑income landowners while leaving better‑maintained properties unassigned.
Fernandez recommended towns check whether their Tier 1A/1B areas are appropriately sited relative to floodplains, river corridors and municipal sewer service and to use the public‑comment process to request revisions. He announced a series of local listening sessions (including May 19 in Pamel/Panel) and urged the Select Board to consider drafting a letter to legislators supporting repeal or revision of problematic provisions and to affirm support for changes to the road‑rule and tier‑three provisions.
Board members discussed next steps, including a special board meeting to review proposed language and a schedule to submit town comment before the public‑comment deadline. No formal town policy change was adopted at the meeting; board members agreed to draft and circulate a statement for quick approval and to coordinate with the regional commission and state legislators.
Fernandez also detailed related regulatory measures — updates to wetlands maps and proposed river‑corridor rules — and said towns should treat Act 181 as part of a larger, interlocking set of regulatory changes that require proactive local planning, outreach and grant coordination.
