Ashley LaRoche traveled on Tuesday from her home in rural Concord to the Statehouse steps to give lawmakers a piece of her mind.
The registered nurse, her combat veteran husband, Alex, and their three children live on “29 acres of rocks” deep in the Northeast Kingdom near the border with New Hampshire. She described a difficult but idyllic life where her son can build a tree house with his dad, her 14-year-old daughter can ride her quarter horse in a pasture, and her youngest daughter can grow basil to make pesto.
Now, proposed changes to the state’s land-use and development law, Act 250, have her feeling “frozen in place” and worried about whether they can put up a new building on their property. LaRoche and other rural residents descended on the Statehouse to urge lawmakers to either postpone the implementation of new Act 250 rules covering sensitive wildlife habitat or to entirely repeal the law, Act 181, that required them.
“Because we are not rich and we work, this designation means that our property is effectively barred from further development, preventing us from building, growing or creating based on our dreams,” LaRoche told a large crowd that was angry about the new proposed rules.
The law, passed in 2024 over the objection of Gov. Phil Scott, sought to make it easier for housing to be built in already developed areas, such as cities and village centers, but tougher to build in environmentally sensitive areas, such as headwaters, steep slopes, wildlife habitat and increasingly fragmented forests.
Projects in such areas, even a single home, could trigger review under Act 250, according to draft rules land-use officials are considering.
But the blowback to such rules has been fierce. Residents who rallied on Tuesday carried signs that read “Repeal Act 181: Let Vermonters Pass Down Their Land” and “Property Rights Are Not Up for Negotiation” and “Leave Our Land Alone.”
Not all was doom and gloom: Protesters chuckled when Lucy the goat from Wheelock peed on the Statehouse steps.
But the vibe was mostly barely restrained anger. When lawmakers talked about a bill to delay implementation of the rules, people shouted “REPEAL!” When the crowd heard from Sen. Anne Watson, a Democrat from Montpelier and chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee, people booed. One man carried a large “We Stand With ICE” flag.
Lawmakers have been hearing concerns about the new rules for weeks. Watson’s committee crafted S.325 in response to them. The bill would delay many of the dates for the new rules and extend Act 250 exemptions for most new housing.
For example, the designation of sensitive ecological areas known as Tier 3, which were supposed to be adopted this year, would be pushed off until June 2028. And the creation of the controversial “road rule,” which would require new roads longer than 800 feet to undergo Act 250 review, would not go into effect until 2030. The bill would also form a study committee.
“We supported extensions because we were hearing from people who were raising concerns about how 181 would play out in communities of different sizes,” said Lauren Hierl, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council.
Her group is open to finding ways to narrow the Tier 3 zones to more closely cover actual sensitive habitats and is listening to other feedback from people.
“This is a big policy change, and, inevitably, it’s going to take some changes to get it right,” Hierl said.
A number of groups have pushed for changes to the law. The Vermont Farm Bureau gave forceful testimony against Act 181 in committee. Advocacy group Let’s Build Homes weighed in as well.
“We have much work to do still to revise and improve rules that drive up housing construction costs and cannot afford to make this shortage worse,” Miro Weinberger, the group’s executive chair, said in a letter to lawmakers.
And Lt. Gov. John Rodgers released a video decrying Act 181.
“This is basically taking people’s land rights away with no compensation,” he said.
Rodgers was invited to speak at the Statehouse event but opted at the last minute to speak instead to a group of mortgage bankers, he said.
There has been a lot of misinformation about the possible impact of Act 181 in recent weeks, Hierl said.
“Unfortunately, we’re seeing people sowing divisiveness, anger and fear and not offering proactive, positive solutions,” Hierl said.
She labeled Rodgers’ video “deceptive” for suggesting home construction costs could soar due to Act 250 review. In the video, Rodgers cited a business in Orleans that wanted to expand but would need to pay $150,000 for Act 250 review. He then implied that a $400,000 single-family home might face similar Act 250 review costs.
“Wealthy people from other places, I think, they are going to come up here and build multimillion dollar houses,” Rodgers said. “They will still be able to build, but where are our kids going to go?”
But Watson said Act 181 has had some positive impacts. Provisions that exempt housing projects in certain areas have contributed to a 39 percent increase in housing starts since the bill went into effect, she said.
“Act 181 has made a difference in turning around our housing crisis,” Watson said.
While she doesn’t support its repeal, she said she supports “tweaks that we can make that will hopefully make a difference.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!