Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Welcome

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to the House Environment Committee. This afternoon, we're continuing testimony on S three twenty five. We have with us two members from the Land Use Review for

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: Yeah, welcome.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Thank you. Thank you, Chair Sheldon and members of the committee. I am Janet Hurley, the chair of the Land Use Review Board. As you can hear, my voice is very strained. If I can't finish my portion of the testimony, Sarah will take over. We have some written testimony here. We provided PDF, and we have hard copies of that and FAQs that we published on our website this week that answer frequently asked questions about Act twenty eighty one and its implementation. So, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on S-three 25 and the work of the Land Use Review Board. Last fall, the board asked legislative chairs to push out February deadlines established in Act 181 for Tier two reporting and Tier three and Criterion 8C rulemaking. On 01/08/2026, the board provided testimony to a joint committee of your committee and the Senate Natural Resource Committee reporting on Act 181 implementation with a focus on the appeals studies that we provided to the legislature last fall. We provided testimony to the Senate Natural Resources Committee again in February with the following requests: Extend Act twenty eighty one implementation timelines for Tier three, Criterion 8C, and road construction jurisdiction to allow robust public input. Allow retention of permit enforcement within the Act two fifty program in Tier 1A areas until permits are transferred to the municipality to relieve municipalities of the burden of enforcing all existing Act two fifty permits at once in Tier 1A areas. Ensure flood resilience standards are in place for priority housing projects to prevent lower income Vermonters from being made vulnerable to flood damage. More recently, board member Kirsten Sultan provided testimony to this committee on April 1, outlining the Act two fifty permit process. The next day, Board Member Alex Weinhagen provided testimony on General Act 181 implementation. And today, we will reiterate some of our previous testimony while focusing on the location based jurisdiction implementation aspects of Act 181. We also cite sections of S-three 25 that reflect our requests and recommendations as a board. So, as an implementation update and legislative requests, the new full time five member Board was seated in January and immediately began its work to implement Act 181 and administer the Act two fifty program. Among our foremost priorities from the start was to be a public facing and accessible board. We have held weekly board meetings since then and have provided physical meeting locations throughout the state in an effort to be more accessible to Vermonters outside of Montpelier and in keeping with the Vermont Open Meeting Law requirements. The Board released Act 181 FAQs this week. These can be updated as additional progress is made to reflect any changes coming out of this legislative session and to reflect any changes. We have provided hard copies of these and will pass them out before we leave today. In the last year, the Land Use Review Board has achieved the following. On June, the Board submitted the Wood Products Manufacturers Report to the legislature. In line with the Act 181 charge, the Board recommended changes statutory language and undertook the development of program guidance and an industry specific fact sheet to support the wood products manufacturing sector. H. Nine thirty two, Section one and Section two reflect the Board's recommendations for those statutory language changes. After rigorous stakeholder engagement and subsequent public outreach, the board delivered the Act two fifty Appeals Study to the legislature in November. The study proposes an appeals model for the legislature to consider that would transfer Act two fifty Appeals from the Environmental Court to the board, including municipal appeals consolidation at the request of applicants, as well as municipal appeals from tier one areas. The board suggested a delay of a few years for these changes to allow time for the board to conclude other aspects of the Act 181 rollout before taking on appeals. The model offers the potential to streamline appeals, particularly housing appeals, and to strengthen the policy governance of the Act two fifty program by the Board. The Board developed and adopted Regional Planning Commission application guidelines and began receiving regional plans on a rolling basis starting in September. Act two eighty one established a two step review process involving a sixty day pre application review of draft plans from each RPC, followed by a more formal step to determine statutory compliance of the adopted regional plans after public hearings. This work involves setting up a new digital ACT 181 application database to manage and track both the pre application and final application materials submitted by the state's 11 regional planning commissions and comments from state partner agencies and the public. In addition, the Board set up a future land use and Tier 1A map viewer to assist review of the regional future land use maps and proposed Tier 1A and Tier 1B areas. Board is conducting public pre application site visits and meetings in each of the regions. Public hearings on the adopted regional plans will likewise be held within the regions. The Board is conducting multiple concurrent reviews through December 2026 until all 11 regional plans are determined to be compliant with Act twenty eighty one. And since there are 11 regional planning commissions, that's 22 reviews that we are conducting between last fall and the end of this year. S-three 25 contemplates adding an abridged review process for plan amendments or separate Tier 1B requests, which the Board fully supports. That would be Section 11 of S-three 25, that language. As the Regional Plan pre application process has evolved, Regional Planning Commissions have submitted follow-up information clarifying proposed future land use area boundaries. These conversations have provided additional information to the Board and allowed RPCs to move forward on finalizing their plans in line with Board feedback. I'm going to turn it over to Sarah at this point to finish our written testimony.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Good afternoon. I'm Sarah Hat. I'm the vice chair of the Land Use Review Board.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Based upon the Regional Planning Commission application guidelines, the board

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: adopted tier one a application guidelines in December and continues to develop additional information to assist municipalities concerning applying for tier one a status that would confer act two fifty exemption for new development. We recommend changing statute to allow the board to maintain enforcement of existing act two fifty permits in tier one a areas until these permits are transferred to municipalities through the permit amendment process prescribed in act one a one. This is in section nine of s three twenty five. The board released preliminary road construction jurisdiction guidelines and is collecting public input on them through April, recognizing the lack of adequate time for sufficient public involvement. On guidance around the new road trigger, the board has requested a delay in the effective date to allow for robust public engagement on the development of clear rules and to allow Vermonters to prepare for this jurisdictional change. S three twenty five offers such an extension that allow public process to identify rules that are in line with the public input, and they express legislative intent to prevent fragmentation of working lands and forest blocks. That's in section seven and section two of s three twenty five. The board convened the criterion eight c, forest blocks, and habitat connectors stakeholder group to begin the rulemaking process for this new Act two fifty criterion. The board expressed a need for the extension on this effort to fully incorporate stakeholder and adequate public input. S three twenty five offers an extension to 01/01/2028 that is in section seven of S three twenty five. To ensure mapping and rulemaking is informed by the public at multiple stages of development, the board has requested a delay of the tier three effective dates in section seven of three twenty five, offers an extension to 06/30/2028. However, S-three 25 secondtion five also establishes 06/30/2028 as the deadline for the submission of the proposed tier three rules to LCAR. The effective date should be months after the LCAR submission deadline, not on the same day. We urge that this discrepancy be addressed with a revision to S3 25. In any case, a better extended timeline better allows for multiple rounds of feedback from Vermonters and stakeholders that the board recognizes is essential and begin in October and began in October. Because the extension is not yet guaranteed, the board is proceeding with its iterative development of the map three mapping or the tier three mapping and rules. After rigorous stakeholder guidance, a preliminary draft of the tier three mapping was released in October. Thoughtful and substantive public feedback continues to be received on the draft. Revisions and refinements based on that feedback are underway currently, and a second draft will be released in April

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: late April.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Public engagement sessions across the state are scheduled for May and June. The second round of feedback will be followed by further stakeholder input and refinement in the mapping and rules. A third round of public engagement is planned before rule finalization. The extended timeline contemplated as 03/25 or bear allow these multiple rounds of feedback from Vermonters and stakeholders and lead to better informed and trusted results. The board is engaged with other covered agencies to implement the environmental justice law act one and fifty four of 2022. This includes establishing protocols for EJ compliant reporting, participation, and consultant selection for statewide EJ mapping tool and early work on act two fifty community engagement plan due by 07/01/2027. The board is fully committed to its environmental justice responsibilities and looks forward to employing the EJ Metropolitan to help ensure equitable distribution of environmental benefits that result from the implementation of Act 1A1 and the administration of the Act two fifty program. In line with our EJ responsibilities, the Board recommends adding statutory language to required flood hazard and river corridor standards be met by four priority housing projects within flood hazard and river corridor areas that are exempt from Act two fifty review. S three twenty five secondtion two. This would better prevent potential low income residents of such projects from being subject to flood damage. As drafted, the Mattos Floor Amendment section four of S three twenty five allows developers build affordable housing in locations that would place their occupants in flood zones without meeting flood proofing standards. It serves environmental justice principles to require developers of affordable housing to meet the same requirements for avoiding citing of projects in hazard areas that market rehousing is already required to meet in order to be exempt from Act two fifty. Tier two. Alright. Section 34 of act one a one required the board address act two fifty in jurisdiction in its report specifically addressing one, required statutory changes to address fragmentation of rural and working lands while allowing for development two, address how to apply location based jurisdiction to tier two areas while meeting the statewide planning goals and addressing commercial development. This will also include, a, how to effectively protect primary agricultural soils b, review criterion nine l and jurisdictional triggers on addressing sprawl and strip development and c, necessary revisions over commercial activities on farms, including accessory on farm businesses. Should the road construction or tier three provision of act one a one be repealed, the board's tier two study and report would take on increased significance. The aim of the tier two report is to explore how to best prevent fragmentation of rural working lands and forests, including how to support agricultural enterprises. Now all regional planning commission pre applications are yet submitted. Therefore, a clear understanding of what these areas will be. Tier one is not yet in place. Tier three mapping is iterative and not defined either. Tier two includes those areas not confirmed as tier one or mapped as tier three. However, we know the scope of tier two, the jurisdictional study is not as substantial and as most of the state will be designated as tier two. The tier two study and report is an opportunity to evaluate benefits and burdens of the permitting process. We also look forward to the ability to use GIS environmental justice focused population tool to provide analysis that we have the responsibility to do to fully examine the tier two issues in light of new jurisdictional triggers that will not be fully in place at least until the 2026. The board requires additional time and requests the opportunity to deliver its tier two recommendations based on solid data collection and open public process. S three twenty five does not currently offer such an extension. We request that S three twenty five include an extension.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: have a time that you're asking? I

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: think we just noticed relatively recently that there wasn't there that we had. We haven't discussed it as a board yet, so we didn't come up with date. But I think. You know, right now it's due February that's already passed, so I think probably next fall

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: would be. I think in line with the

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: other requests that we made last year, like the fall, September 30. The 2030? For the report? I think '27.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, we can finish, but I and one thing I noticed is you you didn't include dates on a number of these, and it would be helpful to get your requested dates separate from what the Senate put in.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Oh, we requested 2028, I think.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: For most of them. Yeah. I'll just wrap up very quickly. Thank you. In conclusion, adjustments to the Act 1A1 rollout are necessary to ensure that the board can complete its work in a manner that is comprehensive and informed by meaningful public input. While significant progress has been made, including extensive stakeholder engagement, GIS analysis of critical resource areas and development of the preliminary draft tier three map, the breadth of other Act 1A1 responsibilities has demanded significant work assay and will continue to do so through 2026. By extending the timelines for act one a one implementation, the legislature will enable the board to provide recommendations and rules that reflect thorough research, robust stakeholder and public engagement, and strong alignment with the goals of Act 1A1. We believe this additional time will produce inclusive, effective households that protect Vermont's natural resources and working landscapes while addressing the state's need for housing and economic development. Thank you.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: So, I think we can put that on our next agenda to discuss, Representative Sheldon, as to when we would like time for the tier two reporting, how far out we would like that

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: to go.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for your testimony. While we're talking about dates, the 11 regional plans being due this December, I know you've already done a lot of that work, and thank you. I realize you've done it. We really appreciate everything. We know, like, from whole cloth, and now you're full in. And I guess I'm wondering about the merits of extending that deadline.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I think at this point, I would ask that of VAPTA because they've been working for over a year now to meet that deadline. And they have mapped out their strategies and they are on target. I think all but two of them intend to get their plans to us in time for us to render a decision before the end of the year. And those other two are reading the statute and seeing that it says that they have to have a plan adopted. It doesn't say that the board has to approve it by the end of the year. So, I think there's gonna be a little bit of bleed over into 2027 with a couple of them. But if they stick to their planned engagement timelines and adoption timelines, They are planning on almost all of them getting both the pre application and final adopted plan to us in time for us to make a decision before the end of the year. Each of those processes takes about two months, the pre application, sixty days at least, and the final determination of compliance will probably be at least a sixty day process.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you share? Mean, I'm curious, like you've done a how many have

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: you done so far of those? We have done. Six pre applications. Well, we've done Rutland, Addison, Chittenden, Northwest, Moyle. We are in the middle of Mark right now. Mount Anthony, I'm sorry, Mount Escutney Regional Commission And Northwest has just submitted its final adopted plan to us. So we are about to undertake the first quasi judicial review of an adopted plan.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So tell us the process you've gotten to and maybe things you've learned, things that might have surprised you. Share a little about how that's gone.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. You know, we see the pre application process as an informal opportunity for the RPCs, for the board, and for everybody that's interested, including other state agencies and interested public, to have an early conversation on that draft plan so that that regional planning commission can address any concerns before they go through the final adoption process. So we see our role in that pre application phase as coordinating a conversation, trying to get as much input as possible at that early stage so that by the time they're ready to adopt, we've addressed people's concerns, or they have addressed people's concerns. And we see them as partners. We saw the RPCs as partners in developing this process out of whole cloth, right? Like, this is a completely new aspect of this program. This board was never involved in regional plan review or whatnot before. And so we developed those guidelines in close collaboration with the regional planning commissions. And after our first few pre application written responses, we learned as we went along, well, maybe this pre application review shouldn't be saying whether or not it meets statutory standards. It should be saying it appears to, or we don't know whether we have enough information, So we need you to give us more information so that when you come in with your final plan, we have enough information to make that determination. Or There were a few things that we saw right away that were being used incorrectly, for instance, on the Rutland plan. Their first map showed centers with planned growth areas around them. And then around the planned growth areas, they were putting village areas. And we said, I don't think you can. The statute doesn't describe village areas as surrounding planned growth areas. It surrounds a center. And so you either need to use one or the other, planned growth area or village area. And we suggested to Rutland that they do a lot of expanding of their planned growth areas and their centers. Their centers were generally constricted to following along a main artery or roadway, and we thought that they should add more depth. So, yeah, go ahead. Okay.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: So after we got several of the folks through the pre application process, we invited them back for some informal discussions. They went and they talked with some of their municipalities and came back and proposed some different things, some different expansions. There were several things that it's tough trying to standardize across the state. All of the varied and for those I used to serve on my regional planning commission and planning commission, there are so many different categories of future land use that are now trying to fit into these For instance, Rutland had their roadways all depicted as They were looking at a special use district for their roadways because they had some outdoor junk panels. Channington County was doing it differently. What hazard areas? So a lot of this has been reiterative and coming back for conversations. I think most of the people that have gone through the pre application process have come back to us for clarifications and mapping and possible remapping of different areas based upon some additional information. I think it's been positively received by the board as well as by the RPC. So it's trying to get through this, I think, more on a global scale. We're having some very good productive conversations, and I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: think they've been positive. Help us understand the pre application. When does that it it sounds like it included MAPS. So where is that in the RPC process? They've put it out to some public comment, but they're bringing you a draft.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: They're bringing us a draft, but it's a, it's a complete draft. It has a draft future land use map, and they've worked with their municipalities. Those maps are sort of bottom up from the municipality to the RPC. And then we looked at it and did that kind of analysis according to statute. Like, I don't think you're using village areas right here. Try expanding your plant growth area instead. And so, they submit the pre application according to the Act 181 process, they have to submit it to us before they hold their first public hearing, at least thirty days before they hold their first public hearing. So some of them are already scheduling their public hearing and submitting to us, And they intend to hold that first public hearing and get feedback from their public and from the board and make changes and then hold another public hearing after they've made changes in response to the first round of public feedback, as well as the board feedback. And others are waiting until they get the board feedback. Then they're going to make some changes. Then they're going to hold their first public hearing. It's sort of up to them what they do. As long as they come to the board with that pre application before their first public hearing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And how are you I guess maybe I can't remember if you told me this, Janet, but are you giving each board member a lead role on a particular? How is everyone else's understanding of that pre app or the actual final brought up to speed?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: So, we are designating a board member to coordinate the review process. And that board member will work with the RPC to set up meeting times and site visit itineraries and just coordinate the process. The rest of the board will read those pre applications and look at, study the pre application map and attend that public meeting. There have been a few instances where maybe one board member was really busy with something else and may not have participated fully in a certain pre application. But the intention is certainly by the time we go through that quasi judicial final adopted plan process where we have to provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law that the full board will have probably been engaged in it. But again, a quorum of the board is three. We can consider, depending on the board's capacity with other work, we can make these determinations with three board members. At this juncture, I think we want the full board involved because this is a new aspect of this program and this board's work that we want the full board to have facility with

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: until it's a routine part of this program. So the board leads have been synthesizing everything into a pre application response, and that we have been doing all that delivering publicly. We have done all that. We sometimes have multiple meetings during those weeks to try and have that conversation as openly as we can. Finalize that response. And then we as a board on the pre application will sort of vote to approve that application response. That's coming from the entire board. And we have tried to establish now that we have our first application that that lead from the pre application is also lead for the final application to make sure there's continuity, and it happens as smoothly as possible.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have questions on the the RPC process. Great. Representative John.

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: Thank you, madam chair. I was able privileged to to attend the Yeah. The review of the Addison RPCs, and that appeared to be a combined where where Alec and Alert were both there for the review. What was your assessment of the public in that activity?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: You mean specifically the Addison or in general?

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: Specifically in Addison.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Oh, in Addison?

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: As an example, any others operate that way? I

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: think generally they've all operated that way in various different places. You expand your

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: answer then to all of those. Some engagement been good?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: It's been pretty good, and it's been increasing as we go. Mark, the Mount, I keep saying Mount Anthony because I'm from Bennington County, but it's Mount Eskutney Regional Commission. There were a lot of people there, and we took a lot of testimony from individual citizens of the region. A lot of them were there because there was a controversial aspect of their future land use map that they were concerned about and expressed their feelings about. And the board hasn't yet written up its response on that, but it will certainly take into account what we heard there.

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: And was that concern within the tier one areas? Well,

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: it was an area that

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: would be eligible for tier 1B potentially. And I think that what we've tried to do is It was a former correctional facility site in Windsor. So I think to sort of frame up for people that haven't had the benefit of attending one of these yet is we usually try and meet and then go on-site visits to specifically some of the areas. We can't get to all of them during that day where there might be more questions, the areas that are proposing possibly tier one benefits and looking at those. I think there were a few people that joined us along for those site visits or met up. There were a lot more around Mt. Musketany area that came to the site visits and then joined us back for the meeting afterwards. Was sort of nice to see, trying to explain to people how to become involved in that. And a lot of people will show up. We're happy to have them just talk and share their thoughts with us, not trying to keep it as informal as possible to involve that public participation. And we've also had requests to extend the timeframes. And so we came up with a process for that to extend the time frames for people to be able to submit. I think the one thing that as we've evolved too is we've tried to have that pre application site visit earlier on in the process, so there's more public comment period after that. So after people have that chance to see the process, hear some of what other people are thinking, then submit their comments. So that's been evolving process as well. Richard, just to add

[Pete Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: a quick quick, too. In accordance with open meeting, we've been For the record. Sorry, for the record, Pete Gill, executive director for the Land Use Review Board. But in accordance with the open meeting, we'll have those hybrid hearings as well. So some people are attending

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Meetings, not hearings at that point, but Class meetings. Yeah, the formal hearings won't come until the final adopted plan. And that's a quasi judicial process.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: There's a question.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Tagliavia. I think it was

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: regarding the Rutland plan. You said there was planned growth areas, and then on the periphery, there were?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: They're putting village areas.

[Rep. Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: What was the reasoning for Rutland doing that, and why was it not allowed or discouraged?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I think we discourage it. I I'm not sure I can answer why they did it, but I think maybe they felt like they didn't have infrastructure there yet, maybe, and they felt somehow that the village area description fit it better. I'm not sure why. Think you would have to ask Devin Neary.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I think they were the first ones through. Just to recognize, Rutland was our first one through.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: They were the guinea pigs.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: So they were sort the first ones to have a go at it, right? And try and make their best. And so I think that was worthwhile. They came back to us recently. We ironed it out. Some of those areas got expanded as something else. They're still growth categories, just a different category.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. Yeah. And so the reason that if I mean, we looked at statute and the village area description suggests that the village area surrounds a center, not plant growth area. So it just didn't make sense. And we and everybody else, the RPCs and us are the first, this is from whole cloth, right? This is new. And so I think this kind of iterative understanding of it all is part of the process and expected.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm gonna ask for

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a little point of clarification. You've been doing regional planning for decades. This particular engagement with the Land Use Review Board

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: is new. Yeah, exactly. And using those 10 particular future land use areas that are described in Act 181 as they're described in Act 181. Yes. So. Questions on this topic and then we can open it up

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to everything. Just thought it'd be good if we focus. Representative Norton.

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: Yeah, I was just linked to what representative Tagliavia asked and What I also see in in s three twenty five is some some attempted harmonization of some of these terms. Yeah. And and it is primarily for maintaining I think, my understanding was to be able to maintain some of the incentive programs that relate to these specific terms. And I'm wondering if we're asking or if maybe the Rutland, for example, picked some of those terms specifically so they could get some of the incentives and changing them or reducing them might have

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: think this

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: disabled people. The community investment program steps, is that what you're probably referring to?

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: No, the CIP, right. So

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: that, I I don't think that the future land use map areas aren't the future, the planned growth areas, the village areas, and the downtown and village centers, all four of those categories are eligible for the CIB program benefits and for Act two fifty tier 1A, tier 1B and tier 1A. Well, actually, tier one B. Status. The village areas are not. Available for tier one a status, correct? Correct. Yes. So there are two different areas. There's the CIB steps, and that's not our jurisdiction. And then there's the tier one A, tier one B status, which is under the Act two fifty program jurisdiction.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I think it was proportionality too with Rutland, is there were some very small centers and very large areas. And so some of it was I have a specific municipality in mind. Don't know if I want to say it, but that had It was, well, why don't you give some depth to it? If you are really looking at this being a village area, why don't you actually increase the size of your village center and decrease your amount of village areas? So in that case, there'll actually be more benefits coming to that community because those village centers are eligible for more benefits. So some of this gets into conversations with the RPCs and their municipalities about what are you trying to accomplish? That was interesting that they had something different for their roads because they weren't sure how to categorize their roads. So you don't necessarily have to do that. So some of this has been in learning as we go and trying to make those clarifications as we get through that so that in the future it's an easier time for all and we can have that sort of established too.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you talk a little bit about the interaction with the community investment? I can't remember if it's a board now program, what we're just talking about? Does it interface with your work?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: So we have encouraged DHCDE, which staffs the community investment board, to provide us feedback through that pre application process during that comment period. I think you'd have to ask the HCD a little bit more about this, But it's difficult for them to convene that board within that thirty day time period by which we are expecting comments. So, we are getting staff comments from DHCD, but I'm not sure.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: They have been sharing it with their board.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: They have been sharing it, but have we gotten actual comments from the board?

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Board's staff. I do not believe, but I would anticipate that perhaps with our first application, we will get that more from the board. That's worth following up with them on. Yeah.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: That's been a little bit of a disconnect, I think. And I have encouraged DHCD to try to engage with us a little bit more. They've taken less. They haven't been as involved as anticipated they would be, I would say. Yeah, in our process.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I think that's some of the comments that we've had had sort of reinforced some of what we we've seen, too. So I think that's been a positive. I don't necessarily see that as a negative. And that was prior to me coming to this board. I was on the downtown board, so I'll have some insight there. It's to the It's a much larger board than what we have in terms of scheduling.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: have a couple of questions more specifically on the bill, and I'm sorry if you covered any of this in your testimony. Just let me know. But my first question is on page three. Do you have a

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I don't have it. It's a

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: change to the definition of priority housing project. And it expands priority housing projects. We were told this came from here. So,

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: On page three. Page thought you said 30, sorry.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Page three, section three just changes the definition of priority housing project and expands it to include within areas mapped and approved by the board is eligible for tier 1B, but not currently tier 1B. And I'm actually not sure what that means under section sixty-thirty three since it's not included here. But I'm curious if this came from the LERB as we were

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: So that was a discussion at SAT Natural Resources where I think

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: they were trying to recognize.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Well, what came from the LERB was this exemption was the top of that page. This exemption shall not apply to areas within mapped river

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: boundaries. Not that, just this information change.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I don't remember this coming from the board as, you know, they may have discussed it with us in testimony.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: But I think that was a specific request from site natural resources.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, not

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: us. I think the question was

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: it didn't come from you. Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Great. And then can you comment on it?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Excuse me. Sarah, can you comment?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm sorry. Sorry. Just want

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: to ask you the unintended consequences that could come from this change. So, I think what this attempts to

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: do is recognizing that you have communities that are approved in a future land use map as downtown village center, planned growth or village area that might not yet have that tier 1B status yet. And trying to make sure that just because those communities haven't made it through that process yet to get tier 1B, although they're eligible, that they're eligible for some of the benefits of priority housing.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Do you see any unintended consequences from doing that compared to right now, which is they wouldn't have that extension come back to 50 unless Sure.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: In order to be tier 1B, beyond just having the future land use areas, you have to have your select board have a resolution saying that we want to have tier 1B. You also have to have soils capable of sustaining on-site wastewater or municipal water wastewater, so the infrastructure necessary. And you also have to have zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and a town plan to sort of guide. So in other words, you as a community are well suited to be able to help facilitate where this development is going to go in the manner that you want to see it. And so it's possible that there's a community that's eligible for tier 1B because they have the future land use, but they haven't taken those additional steps for the municipality to help guide that development. And we've listened to, I think it was Regens, for instance, that was in the middle of a regulatory change. Towns are really working to try and also stand up their regulations and make them align with things that might not be there yet. So in that case, they're doing the good planning work. They just haven't crossed the finish line. But there might be some communities that just haven't gotten to doing that planning work yet that might then be availing themselves of this. I think that's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a task to follow on. I think you might have more. But I would hope that you wouldn't be on a future land use map as eligible for one b without those things already being in place.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: They're not eligible for 1B, in fact, unless those things are

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: in place.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: This isn't our language. I would want to talk with counsel about exactly what they mean by this because, know, do they mean if it's one of those growth area future land use map categories that could be eligible. You know, we didn't propose that language.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I think there are other portions of the bill that attempts to get at some of the concerns here too in terms of more streamlined process for revisions so that we can consider tier 1Bs without a larger process. I think FAFTA had proposed that in terms of sort of an ease of amendment process because those would come through possibly with a regional plan amendment. So, a lot of moving parts all here at once, and there might be other portions of the bill that also address that to try and get them through the tier one B process quicker. But we can

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: if you want the board to have an opinion about that, we can discuss it at a board meeting.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, I guess on the face of it, I read it as that they've been declared eligible through the future land use mapping process, but the town hasn't bought hasn't agreed. So if that's what it means, to me, like, I think you need the towns to agree to doing these things.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: But we don't declare anything eligible for tier 1B unless they've opted to ask us for it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How does the Regional Planning Commission map those areas?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Well, they have to be mapped as one of those growth categories, right? First of all.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's my understanding that they would have an overlay of eligible.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: No. What they're providing is a proposed tier one B layer. And so, they're providing the opt ins. And then we are only doing the tier 1B analysis for those that

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: are opting in. So, they haven't done the analysis.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: I don't know if they've done the analysis.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Seems like we should know.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: We do the analysis. I mean, they do. But what I'm saying is, there could be village areas, planned growth areas, and centers that they're not proposing to be tier one B. It could be because those towns don't want it, or it could be because those towns aren't eligible. We're not going through and determining whether that's the case each time. We are just looking at those that they are proposing for tier 1B and doing the analysis to see if those are eligible to be tier 1B areas based on whether the municipality meets the minimum requirements.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, appreciate that, but I think we will follow-up with the regional planning commission. It's my expectation they would be doing that before they mapped it.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Right, but they're not mapping it as tier 1B. They're mapping it under those other the future land use map categories.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But they're giving you that overlay, whatever you want to call it. They are identifying those areas.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: They're identifying two things, future land use map areas and separately, proposed tier 1B areas.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's what I'm saying. Yes. They shouldn't be proposing them because they've done their due diligence. Correct.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: They're not. No, yeah, they're not doing that. I'm just saying there could be areas that are eligible that we're not analyzing for eligibility because they're not being proposed for Tier 1B.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: have more questions?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes. I guess I was just going to ask you to weigh in on the two floor amendments, and I can point to where they are in the bill on pages six and seven. Understanding against the floor amendment from the senate, they didn't put any testimony. So I'd love to hear your

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: comments on those also. We had Did you You said page six? Page six and seven.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: The very top of page six is just that strikeout of constructed or maintained on tract of tracts of land of 10 acres or less. It's being was removed on the senate side and a firming

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: And mixed units developed.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: That's the interim exemption. Is it? No. Oh, yeah. It is an interim exemption for subdivision. Well, they added subdivision. The construction of housing projects.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, you strike out King

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: on the house floor. Okay. So taking away the 10 acre tract. I understand it just really widens to any size of parcel. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: So that's the other one's on page seven.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: The one's on page seven.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: So the one on page seven is the one that we did comment on here. And that was for environmental justice considerations. We feel that you shouldn't allow or you shouldn't be encouraging the development of priority or mixed income or priority housing in flood hazard areas if you don't have flood hazard regulations. So, that's why we suggested not adopting that floor amendment. Again, you would have to bring this to the board and have an actual conversation to give you an actual board, you know, an opinion on the other one. Yeah, we can do that. But we haven't had that conversation. I'm sorry. It's okay. I was away for much of the last two months and Sarah was in charge in my absence. And I don't know if that's a conversation you had.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So sorry, to clarify on the Page Seven Amendment, you did comment on that.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, and it'll be in our written testimony that we've had to you earlier. And basically, that we don't think it's a good idea because it's putting lower income Vermonters potentially at risk of flood damages.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I don't think I'm asking you for a response or consideration on sixth amendment at this point. Think it's just helpful for us to know your initial thoughts.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Think the last amendment was a floor amendment that didn't get consideration. Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: Cool. Thought there was another one at the end, not next credits.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Maybe not soon. I think that's it, but all.

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: Okay, never mind. That was it.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Further questions? Represent Boston? Hi. I wanna talk about the process a little bit. I know in Colchester, the regional board came probably three, if not four times, you know, and with the public there, they showed the maps, we discussed the maps, they, you know, the public and planning board talked about where we would consider areas and stuff like that. You know, plenty of public engagement, plenty of notice of public engagement, not a lot of public showing up, but the opportunity. And I feel like some of the emails that we've received, the testimony we've heard, people are feeling the perception is that this is a top down, that the public was never given an opportunity to participate and to have their voices heard. And I assume Polkus that it was going, this was happening across the state by the regional planning

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: board. That part of our task is when we review these is we have obligations under the environmental justice law to ensure that, and Act 21 to ensure that these plans are being developed by the regional planning commissions with the consultation of their municipalities and the communities within those municipalities, and in particular, that they are engaging formerly disadvantaged or underrepresented communities within their regions. And we are looking at that, and we are asking them to show us what their engagement plan was and how they implemented it. In addition, they have to now provide, as part of a regional plan for the first time, an environmental benefits and burdens analysis. And some of them initially hadn't really done that, and we've had to tell them, You need to do that. And they have gone back and worked on that before they come back to us with an adopted plan. Having come from this job from a regional planning commission, I know that at least at the Bennington County Regional Commission, the level of engagement that we were preparing to do for this next plan was more than any plan, probably the regional planning commission had undergone before. And it's not going to pass muster to just go to select board and planning commission meetings a few times. You have to bring it out to the community in various ways. We are looking at that as we review these plans.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I think one of the things, too, being familiar with Colchester, is you've had a robust town plan process since the 1950s. And so you, as municipality have had those conversations with the municipality about what you want your plans to be. That then gets confirmed by the regional plan. The regional plans are sort of baked in what Colchester wants to see. It has two reps on their board. There are many towns in Vermont that have not adopted municipal plans. So they have not done that robust planning process and told the regional planning commissions over the last fifty years what they want to see. They're now having these conversations more robustly than they ever have had before. And so that's, I think, where some of the disparities might be in this process in terms of those towns that have municipal plans, have undertaken that process, are communicating quite frequently with their RPCs of what they wanna see and what they don't wanna see in other areas that have not undertaken that municipal planning process. I'm just I'm just wondering because, you know, there definitely is a feeling that people didn't have any opportunity to provide input. That's the perception. I don't know if, you know, and I'm just wondering how to rectify that because I think there's been trust lost in the government and- Well, the regional planning commissions are responsible to do that. And

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: we are responsible to make sure that they've done that. So when we are doing these pre application reviews, we are saying, you know, it looks like you need to do a little better here in some instances. So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: To build on, do you know how many towns don't have plans? I mean, I know you maybe don't know exactly. We've heard the updated number for who doesn't have zoning and subdivision bylaws, but and that's 109 is what we've heard. We haven't heard the number for actual plans, but how does, say, Lemoyle, I think it's where they have 40 or 50 towns up in the Northeast Kingdom anyway, don't have zoning or subdivision bylaws. I don't know if that means they don't have plans or not, but how does them how do they do they build

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: that ground up into their future land? Memorial County is about half. And so about half of their communities don't have the requisite town plan subdivision and zoning to be eligible for tier ones. And some of them are working on them. The corner of Vermont that I come from, Franklin Grand Isle, we actually had Isle Lamont adopt its first town plan for the first time within the last two years. So it was a long time in coming for them. And so there are continuing to be towns that are progressing through some of these dialogues and saying, we want to be more self determinant of where we go and advocate for ourselves. But definitely, memorial, being more rural, being smaller, fewer people on that municipal level to be able to support, They're about only half, and that was definitely impacting their abilities to look at tier ones. Well, I'm just curious how they even build

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a future land use map.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Luckily, I think they've had a robust regional plan for many years now, and they've had these conversations. Lemoyle was one of the ones, the pre application process, that we found that they did need to do more involvement in that process. They weren't as robust as, for instance, Chinon County. There's different staffing levels too between these regional planning commissions. You take a look at the public involvement and the environmental There are dedicated staff people in Shannon County to that. There are not those resources in the water. So again, this is part of what we're working through statewide and looking at trying to apply this equitably and fairly, but recognizing different resources. So will the regional ministry be taking more testimony from the public I'm sorry, more public input on tier three? So, representative Austin, that you're kind of getting wires crossed. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're talking about the future land use mapping process. Okay. And the tier three in the road rule were their responsibility. The board has been taking a look on that. Do you wanna ask questions about that?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, the regional planning commissions is not involved in

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: the tier three process. Will you be taking can I ask, will they be taking? Sure. Yeah. Will you be taking further public?

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Absolutely, on tier three?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yes. Rule making? Yes. So, as we tried to describe here, the tier three rulemaking process, the board saw right away to have multiple rounds of public engagement. And we also saw early on that we needed more time to do that. That's why we asked for more time. And so we wanted to see at least three iterations of the tier three mapping and rulemaking that could go out to the public and we could get public input on before revising it, refining it, bringing it back to the stakeholders, and then back to the board and then putting out a second iteration. And then a third before submitting it to LCAR. So, we are in only that first iteration. And we've been there since October, and we are working on, Alex Weinhagen in particular, working on refinements to the tier three rules and mapping. These are still preliminary. And the second iteration should be coming out in a couple of weeks by the end of the month. And Alex has established, Pete, do you have the timeframes that he has for? He has a schedule of public engagement that he's going to be implementing in May and June on that second iteration. And I should say that right now, he has continued to interact with landowners and farmers and people across the state on that first iteration and getting information from people, getting ideas from people about how best to go about this. And we are listening to that. Sorry. But yeah, we were in the beginning of And we had no intention of producing a map with 25 stakeholders and then presenting it to Vermonters and saying, Here's the map. So that was never the intention. And maybe we should have been more clear about a draft. This is a preliminary draft of multiple, and maybe we needed to be really more upfront about that. But that's been what has been communicated from Alex Weinhagen and back and forth to the stakeholders this entire time, is that we wanted that iterative process to be happening. And it is happening. And we feel like we need more time, but at the same time, we have to move forward with the deadlines that we have. So he is coming out with that second iteration this month and taking it on the road through May and June. And if we get an extension, we can rethink that really aggressive second iteration of public feedback. Thank you. Representative Chittenden.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I have a couple of questions just looking at your testimony on tier first, my first question is just a clarifying question where you mentioned it's about environmental justice. You say we also look forward to the ability to, I think he's been used GIS environmental justice focused population tool to provide analysis that we have a responsibility to do. Can you just explain to me if you haven't had access to that tool or?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Because it hasn't been created yet. So ANR, I was actually on the selection committee for the contractor that ANR selected to do the DIS work to develop an environmental focused population mapping tool that would be available as a web based tool for anybody to use, butand maybe ANR could, you know, have more backdoor functionality than the public, but it would be a tool that would help us fulfill our responsibilities as a board to make sure that we are doing that benefits and burdens analysis with respect to mapped environmental justice focused populations in the state. So with respect to our tier three work, for instance, and tier one work perhaps too. So that tool isn't available yet. And the way that environmental justice populations are currently defined in statute covers too much of the state. And it's not because there are three levels of what kind of census block would identify it as an environmental justice focused population. And it was recognized by the ANR civil rights and environmental justice team that it needed to be more Vermont specific, basically. And so that's something that just is being accomplished now. And I'm not sure when it's due to be finished, but they hired Stone Environmental to do the GIS work. And then they also hired a public engagement consultant to work with Stone Environmental and to do public engagement on the development of that tool. And so, think it's still probably at least a year out. I'm not sure. I would have to check with the team at AR to see what that schedule is like, but it would be an important tool for us to utilize so that we could do the analysis in terms of the work that we're doing to make sure that providing we as equitable environmental benefits and burden and benefits, I guess, is what we want to provide and avoid environmental burdens.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: So I'm really curious about the Tier two report. And you state that should the road construction or Tier three provisions be repealed, the board's Tier two study and report would take on increased significance. But you didn't really explain what you know, Ela, could you talk about that?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Well, because Tier three and the road construction jurisdiction, the intention of those was to protect significant natural resources in areas around the state. And most of those areas were going to be in Tier two because Tier two was going be most of the state. The road construction jurisdiction wouldn't apply to Tier one areas. So, the intention of the road construction jurisdiction was to help avoid fragmentation of forest lands and working lands, agricultural lands, and that was the tool, if that's not there, then the tier two work that you asked us to report to you on takes on greater significance because that tool is no longer available to us. So, what's

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: written in statute is that we are supposed to use that report to get back to you about fragmentation and what have you, and the idea is after you have tier one and tier three sort of set aside, and you sort of know a little bit more about what those areas are going to be. So obviously, if you aren't going to have tier three, then you have a lot more area to consider. And also, are some benefits that are supposed to be within tier two in terms of accessory on the farm businesses and what we can do in terms of helping to incentivize agriculture. Rural commercial areas, there's the 9L study. And so obviously we want if we didn't have tier three or road construction jurisdiction, it places all that much more importance on those conversations.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Right. And you don't have that tool to protect against fragmentation. So part of what the tier two report, what we interpret it to be is us recommending to you what tools could be employed that we haven't employed yet that would help achieve those goals.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Just one really quickly. In that, do you envision that report to include regulatory tools, voluntary tools and incentive tools?

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Do you feel like you have the expertise to build those recommendations? Yeah. Do you?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Some of us do. Is there a stakeholder group that's working with you in the other

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, you didn't require a stakeholder group in this case.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: What we were doing is we were going to tap all the other stakeholder groups. We have a lot of overlap going between our different stakeholder groups now. I apologize if people have us on their spam list by now because they're getting multiple emails. We were anticipating that, of course, because Tier two is meant to be the remainder, that it would be inclusive of the other stakeholder groups.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's great. And can you tell us what level of GIS support you're getting from the state?

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, so we're working with ANR's ADS team, and you gave us money to employ them to help us set up the database for taking in applications from the RPCs and from municipalities eventually when they made tier one applications, and to develop the map viewers for both the 8c work, the rulemaking work, the tier three work, and for the map viewer for the regional plan and municipal applications for tier 1a and b.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: So, that being said, Alex Weinhagen is sitting with We purchased our own license of ArcGIS so that he could actually undertake. He's editing himself over 800 polygons with ArcGIS himself just because that's something that we didn't have the resources otherwise to be able to do that, so he's taken that on himself. So we wouldn't oppose additional resources on that front because you recognize that that has created a little bit of a bottleneck.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Not only would we not oppose, we would welcome additional resources.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, it seems like that would be helpful.

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: And it would help. I think people are wondering why is it taking so long to get a second iteration of the maps out? Well, because it's just Alex working on his computer to make polygons smaller all over the state.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. He's searching for scripts that might do that, so he was looking into other GIX expertise. But we are taking some of this mapping to where no mapping has gone before. So, it's been a new exploration

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: for GIS mapping. Those are state employees, if anyone's feeling like they want to know who's up

[Unidentified Committee Member (multiple; see time-bounded entries)]: on the hill above us.

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: Alright. Further questions? Bumping right up against our next question.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This was really helpful. I'm sure we'll have you back. It's, good to see

[Janet Hurley (Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: you. Thank you for

[Sarah Hat (Vice Chair, Land Use Review Board)]: having us. Thanks for all your work. Alright, members. Let's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: take a five minute break.