The Vermont Senate voted on Thursday to delay implementing land-use reforms meant to better protect sensitive natural habitats after rural residents raised fears that proposed new rules could increase housing costs and restrict their property rights.
The vote came two days after hundreds of people crowded the Statehouse steps to demand that lawmakers either postpone the new environmental protections or repeal the legislation, Act 181, that created them. The bill still needs the approval of the House.
Democrats argued that the new protections were necessary to protect headwaters, sensitive species, wildlife corridors and intact forests, but that more time was needed to make sure the new policies were crafted wisely and with broad public input.
The implementation of some of rules meant to protect headwaters, for example, was pushed out to 2028, while those seeking to protect forests from excessive road construction were shelved until 2030.
“We’re extending the amount of time that our constituents can tell us what they want,” Sen. Joe Major (D-Windsor) said.
But Republicans blasted the idea that any new environmental regulations were needed at all. They argued that rural residents were already good stewards of the land and didn’t need more interference from bureaucrats and politicians in Montpelier.
“What I hear from my constituents over and over and over again is, ‘Why don’t they leave us alone? Why do they have to micromanage everything that we do?’” Sen. Randy Brock (R-Franklin) told his colleagues.
The new rules were part of a broader land-use reform package passed in 2024 to spur new housing development by making numerous changes to Act 250, the state’s 56-year-old land-use law. It did so by relaxing rules for housing development in certain cities and towns, while strengthening protections for sensitive natural areas.
There is broad support for loosening Act 250 requirements in already developed areas, but toughening them up in sensitive habitats — which, by definition, are in rural areas — has triggered a forceful backlash.
Lawmakers often pass legislation that takes time to be refined into specific rules. There is particular sensitivity to the pending rules, however, because landowners do not yet know if their properties would be included in “Tier 3” zones requiring greater environmental review before development could occur.
Draft maps depicting how much land in the state could be affected by “Tier 3” regulations have stoked significant concern. A return of the “road rule” 20 years after it was repealed is also raising fears. The rule, which attempts to reduce forest fragmentation, would require Act 250 review for driveways over 800 feet long.
Sen. Russ Ingalls (R-Essex), who helped organize Tuesday’s Statehouse protest, expressed outrage that Democrats would vote for something whose specific parameters had not yet been established.
“It is just unbelievable that we are voting on something impacting people’s lives that we can’t say to them, ‘This is how this bill is going to affect you,'” Ingalls said.
Sen. Anne Watson (D/P-Washington) said that was precisely why more time was needed to get feedback and sort that out.
Thursday’s debate about the time extensions outlined in S.325 turned into one of the most acrimonious and partisan fights of the session so far. Lawmakers accused one another of being out of order, playing politics, spreading misinformation and being disrespectful.
At one point, Sen. Becca White (D-Windsor) urged her Republican colleagues to stop claiming the new rules would be a form of “oppression” for rural property owners, as Sen. Steve Heffernan (R-Addison) had earlier.
At that, Lt. Gov. John Rodgers, a Republican who opposes the new regulations, grinned from the dais.
“I see you’re smirking, and I see you’re rolling your eyes,” White rebuked him from the floor.
“I did smile,” Rodgers retorted. “Thank you very much. Please be in order.”
Ultimately, the bill passed along party lines, with 17 Democrats and Progressives in favor and all 13 Republicans against.
Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth (D/P- Chittenden Central) said he found it odd that after delivering what Republicans had “begged for for years,” namely relaxing Act 250 to allow the more housing, now there were “lamentations from the hills” about people being stripped of their property rights.
“I will go home today feeling proud of the work we have done to loosen Act 250 in a wise way to allow more housing for the people who need it,” Baruth said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!