The Senate Economic Development Committee and the Senate Natural Resources Committee met jointly on Thursday to review the House changes to the Act 250 bill, H.687. Representative Bongartz was there to help walk them through some of the changes. There were some minor changes to the implementation dates. The first major change is that the Land Use Review Board (formerly the Natural Resources Board) would not hear appeals to Act 250.

The Senate Economic Development Committee and the Senate Natural Resources Committee met jointly on Thursday to review the House changes to the Act 250 bill, H.687. Representative Bongartz was there to help walk them through some of the changes. There were some minor changes to the implementation dates. The first major change is that the Land Use Review Board (formerly the Natural Resources Board) would not hear appeals to Act 250.

NOTE: This had been a hotly debated topic about whether these should move to an independent review process or remain in environmental court.

The House version, and a transition while the mapping is being completed, exempted projects with 50 units or less within a quarter mile of village centers as well as any project within a half mile of a designated center if there is permanent local zoning. Senator Bray was not thrilled about these two exemptions.

Senator Harrison asked what issues were “the most robust and time consuming” during the House debate. Bongartz answered that it was these two provisions.

The Senate Natural Resources and Senate Economic Development Committees met jointly again on Friday morning to review H.687, the bill overhauling the Act 250 process. An amendment from Ram Hinsdale was gaining traction as Senators White and Clarkson signaled their support.

The amendment would create some additional guidelines for the size of projects that are exempt from review, even within designated development areas, based on the number of units, footprint, location, and density. It also introduced a new definition of accessory dwelling units (think in-law apartments), placed new timing requirements for review within 120 after a full application has been submitted, and raised the threshold of appeal to 20 persons instead of 10.

Senators Cummings and Chittenden also had an amendment to offer. They did not like the House version of the property transfer tax (PTT) provision because it would “hurt many owners.” They sought to restore the Senate language which exempted a greater portion of home values from the PTT. The Senate version would tax the first $200k of home value at the lowest rate compared to only $100k in the House version. Additionally, it would add back a 3.4% PTT on second homes. The amendment also restored the tax incentive for property rehabilitations.

Legislative Counsel then walked through the full proposal of amendment from the Senate. Both proposed additions were included in the final amendment to send back to the House.

The Senate took the bill up on the floor later that evening and sent the amendment back to the House, which concurred with the Senate changes.