Good afternoon and welcome to the House Invites and Energy Committee this afternoon. We're going to continue walking through H687 draw four, make one, and we have just been reminded by our legislative council that paid for on 72. 72. Ellen Cheney-Kamsky, Office of Legislative Council. Also today, I have provided you with three timelines. They are posted on your website. They're all in one document. I can separate them if you'd like. But there's timelines. Great. Why are there three? Well, the first is the overall milestones of this bill in entirety. So it not only addresses the board, which does have a lot of tasks. It includes a couple of the other reports back that will interact with the board's work. So that's the first one. The second one is on the process for how a regional plan is adopted and comparing it to how it is in the statute currently. And then the third is all of the dates in the designated area update because they not maybe entirely lined up. So in sorting through that section, I also included that so you could see them all lined up and determine if they line up or not. But on page 72, this is section 33 of the bill. It is the section on the adoption of regional plans. When last we spoke, we were discussing how the adoption, there are going to be new steps for the adoption of the regional plan. And so during the last markup session on page 72, you decided to strike the first section about a recommendation from the real revitalization board. And then it goes into the ERB has to issue their determination on the regional plan within 45 days after it has been submitted. If they have a negative determination, they have to state in writing what that is and what the modifications are. And RPCs are allowed to reapply and get a new determination within 45 days. And so then on to page 73, it restates again what the criteria that the board is looking at when they're reviewing the regional plan. So it's consistency with the planning goals of 4302. Consistency with the elements described in 4348, which is the elements of the regional plan section, except that the requirements of 4352 related to enhanced energy planning shall be under the sole authority of the public service department and shall not be reviewed by the downtown development board. So this is revitalization board. So this is one thing just to check in on the, there is a process for enhanced energy planning. And that is an existing statute in 4352 and right now reviewed of the municipal of the regional enhanced energy plans do go to the department. So it is leaving that authority with them. And then the online 10 that actually should be the ERB. And then finally compatibility with adjacent regional planning areas as described in 4302. So last week also you were discussing whether or not the purpose section for the regional planning commission, the regional plan should be included. And so you could add it to this list, I think, if you'd like it to be something there specifically reviewing you say that again, I was looking to see if we had a plan on you. Yes, so the last week you were discussing the purposes section of a regional plan which is separate from 4348. And so if you want that to be a specific criteria they're reviewing for you may want to add it to this list. Because we actually added it somewhere else didn't we? That right? No, but you did have a lot. So it is being updated as you will recall in section 32 of this bill to add references to climate change and resiliency. And so so far it hasn't been specifically included as something that needs to be reviewed. I think otherwise you know then it is aspirational because it's a purpose section so it is something that the regional planning commissions as they do their work are supposed to look to. But the question is do you want the ERB then also be looking to that section to see if the regional planning, regional plan lines up. Present. Thank you Madam Chair. So we've got line nine. Well actually that section there during the public service department shall not and shall not be reviewed by the downtown developer board. What's the reason for that? So there's already an existing process for the enhanced energy plan to be reviewed by the department. Okay. And that is a feature of the regional plan so it is a segment of the regional plan. And so I think this was included to specify that the department will still have jurisdiction over reviewing that it's not part of the overall review that the ERB is doing. Okay but they could still update. Questions about it? They could still talk about it. Is it being reviewed when the question is at the same? I mean I think they could look at it but they're not supposed to base their decision on the enhanced energy aspect. Which that falls out of the public service. Yes. Thank you. It seems like the way this is written you could just put a period after the public service department. Because it says accept that shall be under the sole authority of, it's pretty clear. Okay. Do you want to add reference to the purpose section here? You don't have to but you were talking about it last week. Does it not agree so we're talking about adding the purpose section for the municipal planning? No. Section 32 of this bill which we talked about on Friday, it would update to the purpose of regional plans specifically regarding climate change. And so if I just was pointing out that it's not specifically addressed as something that ERB is reviewing for conformance with and you don't have to include it. Because it is primarily aspirational of what they're supposed to be doing with the regional plan. But just offering it as an option. Yeah. No, we had a lot of conversation about that. Which is why Ellen's and let's yeah, we can try it on the next. Next is presented civilian. Page 73. 16. So I didn't get there yet. Yeah. So on page 73, there's a language here added regarding objections from interested parties and how they weigh in on the regional plan review. So on page 73 line 14, an interested party who has participated in the regional plan adoption process may object to the approval of the plan. Or approval of future land use maps by the ERB within 15 days of plan adoption. By the regional planning commission, participation is defined as providing written or verbal comments or consideration at a public hearing held by the regional planning commission. Objection shall be submitted using a form provided by the board. It's really, you want to ask them now or do you want to say that? Sure, there is more language on the next page regarding this, but. Page. For application question. The sense means an interested party who has participated in the regional plan adoption process may object to the approval of the plan or approval of the future land use maps by the environmental review board within 15 days of plan adoption by the regional planning. But that was forced in the middle to the ERB. Yeah. They can get the way the sentence reads. So they have to object to adoption, but then what happens if they want to object after the approval of the ERB because that doesn't make sense because the 15 days after adoption by the regional commission would have passed by the time that ERB takes it up. So this is why I think the timeline is helpful. Also, maybe it should, you're right. Sorry. So ledge council this year is really trying to address within days of and we're actually moving towards following. So I think on line 16, it actually should read within 15 days following plan adoption. And then in theory, there will be time for them to appear before the ERB, before they have their hearing. So this is different than an appeal. This is an objection process that you're setting up. And so the regional planning commission is going to go through this process. And then they are, these people have to have provided comments. And then they will bring objections to the ERB, which the ERB will have to consider. So I do think some clarity could put a little bit of additional clarity here because the, it doesn't say, it says that they have to be submitted to the ERB. So I do think there's some, you could be a little more direct about, are they bringing their objections to the regional planning commission? I mean, I think that's implied by them having made comments. Right. And then they bring their objection, I guess, to the adoption of the plan to ERB. So it's the right, is the right word on Y-15 approval or is it delivering to, delivering the plans to, you know. No, so, okay. So you can make a choice here. The way that it's phrased so far in this section, I do think is consistent because the regional plan is adopted by the regional planning commission and then submitted to the ERB for approval. There's a few steps there. And in this, the way it's written, we're saying they're objecting to the local approval of it. Adoption of it, yes. Adoption participated in the adopted process. It may object to the approval of the plan or not. Oh, you mean re-object. Yeah. Okay, I got it. Yeah, yeah, before. Okay. Right. And so there isn't any further appeal described in here. And so there is some additional language on the next page that may help. But there isn't here a further appeal passed to the ERB. Ms. Spelia. Yeah, I apologize. I haven't been able to get to the uploaded files. The approval process, one of the timelines that he said, do you want to look at mine? I have a paper copy. Well, do you want to stop and like dig into that now or ever? Why don't we get copies of the first break and consider that. Let's, I have a question about the 15 days. We took the testimony the other day. And I know that we have worked in statute to be consistent around business days in total. So we've moved, I believe, towards just total days so that people just don't worry about whether it's a business day or not a business day. And so I just wanted to confirm that and say that I should probably leave this just 15 days because it's consistent. Trying to do in statute to be clear if people understand they're not deciding whether Saturday is a business day or whatever. Representative Spelia. And so I appreciate that. That was also a flag that I had. And given that we're leaving it the language about days the same, and I think the concern was about the amount of time, I guess I would propose maybe going to 21 days or 22 days instead. Something to consider. There are thoughts on that. I'm fine considering that. But I do want to continue to place it in the context of the other appeals processes that we've been setting up to try and have consistency on. May or may not relate to this process, but I just want to be aware because I know that we went through this with all the A&R permits and what does appeals look like and what's a reasonable amount of time? A lot of thought about that. Yeah, Madam Chair, if I might. Yeah, I appreciate that perspective. And really I'm looking to a good discussion, really the kind of comprehensive time and making sure that we're all kind of fit together for those of us who are not. And so I will say this as we as we talk about the rest of the language on the next page, the ERB also has to do a 15-day notice before they're hearing on the plan. And so I think it coincides with that. They have to raise their objection before the actual hearing on the plan. So you may just want to keep those two numbers tied together. All right, let's get to the next page. On page 74, as used in this section, interested person means any one of the following. A person owning Title II or occupying property within the region. Any 20 persons by signed petition who own property or reside within the region. The petition must designate one person to serve as the representative of the petitioners regarding all matters related to the appeal. The designated representative must have participated in the regional plan adoption process as described in the section. And then a party entitled to notice under subsection D of this section. So there are, there is already a list of people who by default get notice of a regional plan adoption, which we talked about last week. And so that language is on page 69 and 70 if you want to. The other day representative civilian. What's the difference between A and B?  Yeah. I think this language came from the planners. So I don't remember if we've talked about this at all yet, but no, I think that's a fair point. You kind of make it just so this is somewhat bearing what exists right now for a municipal appeals.  So yeah, you may want to be be a little more specific in subdivision B. Well, it depends on what, sorry, but it just seems more specific than a this, but okay. Well, then maybe specifics the wrong word. You may want to make a distinction. We talked about this. I don't think we talked about this language. I think we talked about it in a different section. The same structure. Yeah. Well, similar structure. So, oh, because I think when you were talking about approval of designations, as opposed to the whole plan. Yeah, so there's a there's an appeal list for those who are appealing the designation of a tier one area. You just don't. So why would you rather get a 20 people in the only one? So there's something funny about this. Yeah, to the extent it's a holdover. It is probably a holdover from when the person would have had to in the show a direct impact, like it's by guess, and then the 20 is more generalized. So you can and because in some ways when you talk about regional plans or adoption of plans, it's probably generalized. So I mean, I guess I'm wondering what a does they make it to know which direction we want to go. I guess another way to put it now, which direction we want to go because there really isn't any reason to get 20 if one will do. So I probably want to either make a mean something more. And so I think it's show it. It's a big impact. We're just going over the 20 persons. Yeah, I guess if it's an either or I would want to go with the and that other thoughts on this post striking a and then would we do it again? It's same on 57. It's a little different on the same. You don't need a seven. Yeah, it is different. On line B, you wouldn't want to just say any 20 person. You need to say anyone up to 20 persons or 20. So one person to be able to address that 20 people. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And thanks. I mean, I feel like what would make it somewhat corollary to 57 the appeals on 57 for designations would be if somebody from an adjoining region, people from an adjoining region wanted to appeal their approval of the nearby region's plan. That's somewhat what we're saying here. 57 is or like the 20 persons have to be in like either in municipality or in adjoining municipality. So we give some way for people nearby. So to petition just seems like it is unnecessarily necessary to, I don't know. Like we talked about some are really close. Yes. And so that one is different in that it does include the adjoining and 20 people. So the higher threshold for adjoining versus running in title in. And just seeing the list of people who are already included and interested includes the abutting regional planning commission. That's on the appeals. Objections. Objections. I am abutting. Yeah. So the language online nine here someone entitled the notice under subdivision D. So yeah, notice goes to the each abutting regional planning commission in addition to other people in that list. And that abutting regional planning commissions can. Object. Yes. So just want to flag here. The issue around consistency of the RPCs governance and all of those things. I don't think I was studying language. At this point, that's too. So, you know, we're kind of aligned to the individuals at that RPC to implement consistency across the state. With the butters, there's really no rhyme or reason to actually say there's no rhyme or reason, but there's no requirement for consistency. So there is there. Well, okay, I guess consistency in what? Sorry. So application. I've seen some pretty big inconsistencies. Okay, I think I'll the prior page does require consistency with the neighboring regional plans. So that's why I think they're given the ability here to object. I don't think that's what you were speaking about necessary. But so that's one thing. This is all under the section of the environmental review for reviewing these plans and that. So that's who would determine it. There are a number of people with consistency. Yeah. Good question. By property, are we including property? Yes. All right. So on page 74, by 10, any objection under the section shall be limited to the question of whether the regional plan is consistent with the regional plan elements and future land use areas as described in 4348 of this title. The requirements of 4352 of this title related to enhanced energy planning shall be under the sole authority of the Department of Public Service and shall not be reviewed by the environmental review board. The environmental review board shall hear any objections to the regional plan adoption concurrently with regional plan review under 4348H and 6027. How would that is a reference to? Oh, that's their authority. Sorry. That's their authority to hear review. The ERB decision of approval of a regional plan shall expressly evaluate any objections and safety reasons for their decisions in writing. If applicable, the decision to uphold an objection shall suggest modifications to the regional plan. So under on three, I'm wondering about the pull out here of the energy planning specifically because I knew that there are other requirements of the regional plans like the transportation and a whole host of other things. So we already talked about this on the last page. The Public Service Department currently has authority to review specifically this element of a regional plan, the enhanced energy. And so there's interest, at least in this proposal, to keep that specific element of a regional plan with the department. So my question, though, is why? I mean, there are other requirements, so I understand. But I don't statute. So currently no other elements that relate to other things have a separate approval process in statute. Yeah, I guess I'm just asking kind of the broader question of why, why does, why do we have this one as opposed to others? You know, I've heard some transportation folks suggest that they would like. So it's because this comes with some significant benefits, right? So the enhanced regional, the enhanced energy planning is directly tied to the town's ability to weigh in on section 248 cases. And so that comes with substantial difference if they're enhanced regional, if the enhanced energy planning is approved. So I do think that is different. I don't, I off the top of my head can't think of any other elements with the exception of the designation process you're creating in this bill that have a weight to them that the enhanced energy planning. For VNRC, would like to thank you. Thank you. Yeah, right. Right after resources council just to further elaborate a couple of years ago, the legislature passed something called enhanced energy planning. And it allowed them to define areas that were suitable or unsuitable for electric generation facilities, mostly renewable facilities in the municipality. And it gives them preferential treatment effort with the term is substantial difference, substantial difference in the siting process as individual projects go through the review process in those towns. So it's not, it's something that's voluntary, a town doesn't have to seek enhanced energy planning. And what the goal was to make sure that the town was accommodating the state's energy needs and energy goals, while also providing them with the opportunity to have some siting standards in the community. So it's just really a very unique process. And I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should go through this process or not. It already does go, oh, whether to go through the ERB, right, right. Yeah. Yeah, if I could make a judgment from the Pina Gallery to be Gail, Executive Director of Natural Resources Board, I'll just mention too that the energy compliance determinations are appealable to the Natural Resources Board. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. Someone's phone is ringing and maybe it could be silence or something. Oh, did you say that again? Yeah. So I'll just note that the energy elements are already going through the, they're appeal, appealable to the Natural Resources Board, current Natural Resources Board. So if someone seeks approval through the PUC, it's, it's appealable to the Natural Resources Board? Yeah, is it? So it's a layers process? Right. It's the department. Then it would be, then it would go, the appeal would go to the Natural Resources Board. I'm not aware of any appeals it's had since that was enacted these five years ago or more. Do others, is there any other appeals to Natural Resources Board has jurisdiction over right now that we should know about? Any other weird quirks that I don't know? That's a really weird one. Yeah. Yeah, I think. Fee refunds. I think we've captured those. I think they're, they're denoted in here. Yeah. All right. I think we should carry on. Okay, so that's the end of the section on objections. On representative Jordan. Just a quick refer, refer back to line three, delete line A, a person owning title fee or occupy. I'm just wondering if we deleted that if a tenant business owner would then not, because the second, the 20 people are either owners of property or reside. So it did want to flag. I think. So that's an interesting question because is tenancy a residence. You may want to be more clear there. I was also going to point out that last year you amended the municipal statute to also say owns property reside or is a voter. Yeah, I was remembering that when they were talking about it no longer linking it to or being a voter is occupying. Is that a tenant or a renter like a business renter or a residential renter? Well, so it's own or occupying owning title to or the one we're deleting. Yeah. Occupy is occupying. So I was going to suggest that we, if you were to keep that to line it up with the same language that's used in title 24 because it also doesn't match line four. So yeah, if you, and I think that goes to the representative Tori's question of occupying, I think is different than residing, which more suggests commercial than the word reside. Right. Yeah. So a tenant business person that do we think a tenant business person should be able to deal with this regional planning map, regional plans, any thoughts on this currently? Otherwise, we had to keep calling you representative Stevens. Generally, I'll just say this to me seems pretty loud. The a that we were suggesting to strike. Yeah, brought in a way that you think it is overly broad and not you don't support overly broad. I mean, hopefully, they're the process by which, you know, the iterative map making will, you know, we'll get to public process at some point, but it will be something that really connects to people and reflects what municipalities are envisioning for themselves, etc. So I don't know for any one person owning anything or just occupying anywhere in the region. It just, it feels like it could be, I think you would call it a frivolous appeal at one point, but it could be essentially a mechanism to stop something. Right. So hearing for now, we're holding with the leading A and moving on. Thanks. Quick question, though, on B, do we now that you've mentioned that occupying property does have that potential for a tenant business owner? Would we want to add that term into B? Any 20 persons by sign petition property or reside for occupying property? Something like that. I guess I, against that, I'm in favor of the favor of looking at it last year because tenants just didn't have like a lot, but I'm an apartment tenant. Absolutely. And I feel a little less strongly about somebody who does this space. And this language that we have now is pretty broad because it's any 20 people of the ventilation. Yeah. So there's a lot of opportunity to gain your potential, your signatures. So it's, I guess I'm, I kind of, I guess I mean toward that, I feel strongly about it because somebody feels the opposite strongly. I would just, I think B is it's where it looks. So it feels strong when you're in the room. And the region is the RPC region. So in this case, the 22 tenants, 40,000 people that live in the Wyndham region, we would need 20 people to, it's a pretty low bar. Yeah, yeah, it's a low bar. On page 75, you have, look at this language before, but this is minor amendments to the regional plan. But I think we should probably read through it. So a regional planning commission and a municipality may submit a joint request for a minor amendment to boundaries of a future land use area pursuant to this chapter for consideration by the ERB. The joint request may only be submitted after an affirmative vote of the municipal legislative body and the regional planning commission board. The ERB after consultation with the community right revitalization board and the regional planning commission shall provide guidance about what constitute constitute a minor amendment. Minor amendments may include any change to a future land use district consisting of less than 10 acres. A minor amendment to a designated area plan shall not require an amendment to a regional plan as outlined in 4348. The board may adopt rules to implement this section. So I'm not, I'm not totally sure how this would come about, but I guess when a municipality was looking at their designations for tier one A, potentially this would come up if they wanted to adjust the boundaries in a way that weren't addressed to what, to how they're addressed in the regional plan. And so it would be a simplified process. Reminder changes. Yeah. Get the base. There's Sebelia. So maybe this is a bigger question. So the future land use area is the new mapping that we're going to do or we're proposing that we're going to do? Yeah, it includes the new categories. Yeah, the mapping largely has already been done, but organizing under these categories. So, I mean, I have a, I have a broader question I think for us about the term future land use area and what, you know, your average Vermonter might or might not understand that to me. And then future land use district. I don't know what is the definition of that. Is that defined somewhere? No, I mean, I think those, those have to be consistent terms. So it probably should be area because district is a so future is just a term here that we're using. It's not actually about a tough. All right. It's not really like the word future land use maps is not really about something in the future. It's just categorizing where we are now. It's a, it's a name. Yeah. Well, I think it's a somewhat aspirational in the sense that like we're, we're designating land growth areas. Growth hasn't happened yet. No, it's, it's, yeah, it might or might not be happening in that area right now. Yeah. And the regional planning section does, I believe say, present and prospective uses of that area. And so it is current, but also to be used for planning purposes. So does it mean would Vermonters be correct in thinking that it means or understanding the facts? You are using the land now in a certain way. We are proposing legislation that will change the future. So I don't know if the legislation itself obviously is relevant because that's what you're talking about. But this is a process that the regional planning commissions already do that is sort of inherently what the regional plan reflects. They already call it future land use maps. That's helpful. So then it's something that's widely understood already. Yeah. I do think it's a, I do find it to be an odd term, but yes, it does sort of reflect where the, where the uses should be located into the future. So there may be a change as they go through the regional planning process. Yeah. A couple of word suggestions. I think future in line three future land use, maybe you should say future land use map area. And then on line 10, we say future land use district consisting of less than 10 acres. And then I'm wondering on line 11, it's capital designated area. I think that's going back to the more the ACCD world. And it's kind of a different thing. And does it belong here? And if so, yeah. No, I agree. I think this is an awkwardly drafted section. So the designated areas will be tied to how the regional planning commission has mapped them. Hmm. Doesn't there, but designated area plan is, you know, what is that? What it is? Represented civilian? It's confusing. It's for this. Representative Boebert. I think it means that the language open system, this would say a minor amendment to a future land use map area shall not be required. So that's what we're talking about, which is already said, so in a way, this whole sense is maybe redundant. But we're not talking about, we're not talking about the designation program, circumstances to your point. We're talking about that's capital sense. Actually, it's my wrong is that sense that's just redundant to what you said above. So I don't think it is. I do want to seek clarification from people in the room who may have worked on this language, because the other categories on the map may not have to do with the designated areas. That's one thing. And also seeking community revitalization board approval or consultation. So this seems like we might need to just clear it up like separate editing session and then come back with it. Okay, then I'm Smith. Could maybe I missed this sometime along the from January 3rd. I don't know, but does a town have to have or a community revitalization board? That's a state board. That's what that is a state board. It is. Okay. So it doesn't sound like that here. Just I believe that's the proposed new name, right? But that's the answer. It's the new name of the currently existing downtown board. Okay. Thank you. Have in the earlier sections of the bill allowed the community revitalization board to give public. So it's on that one. But they actually shouldn't have to. I'm sorry. So I shouldn't have to consult on that baby beyond their scope, but because what? So you are making changes, right? In the next 40 pages of this bill, you're making changes to the designated area program and how it functions. And so I do think there's, I think here is trying to say that if a minor change that's being made affects the designated area plan that doesn't need that falls under what is a minor amendment. So potentially like a boundary because there's a somewhat automatic designation that happens now with the designated areas under the new language. Stand by what I said. This is trying to do a couple of things at once and we just need to clarify whether they belong together. So let's move on. So how will we do that? We're going to come back to it. Yeah, I'll work on it and we'll get some new language and we'll get it in the next draft. So K is then affirmative determination and regional plan shall remain in effect until the end of the period for the expiration or re-adoption for which it applied. Regional planning commission shall be provided up to 18 months from a negative determination to obtain an affirmative determination. That's if they need to take corrective action to their plan. If they don't, member municipalities shall lose benefits related to designations act 250 or state infrastructure investments. What do you have to say? Yeah, so this is not a current construct because currently the board does not review, right? So this is now. So I feel like this is kind of, this illustrates some questions that I have around. We've heard some testimony about the relationship changing between municipalities and the RPCs and the RPCs and the NRB. And here, are we providing any notice to? We have 18 months. Yeah, maybe. So how would the municipalities do that? So they're going to have to go through an amendment process to the regional plan and that does, I think, default back to the strictures of that process. So which does require at least two public hearings and notice because that would be an amendment. Changes to the regional plan would be an amendment to the regional plan. There's a statutory process for what has to happen for that. And so that's why I don't know if 18 months is the exact amount of time you want to give them, but you need to give them enough time to go through their readoption, their amendment process. So is it possible that the RPC just might not go through the process?  Just notice in this. Well, their member, the RPC board is are the municipalities. And in some, like in my RPC, we have a part time of forums and making sure that people are attending. So that's one of the issues that I've been highlighting. And so here, you know, I just wonder if that may be written notice for some other appropriate notice, notice in the paper. I don't know. So last week, we talked about the steps that an RPC has to go to, the many steps. This is the last sort of step. So I think it's implicit here that if they're making changes to the regional plan because the ERB gave them feedback that they have to, that they would have to go through the statutory process that does require notice and public hearings. So if you'd like to specifically add that to the reference to that, I think you can. I think my question was more around what if they don't? So the ERB says, you know, does not give them an affirmative determination. You know, let's just assume that potentially there could one day be an RPC that is not high flying. You know, we have municipalities that are dependent upon them. And so it's, I hear you and that's reassuring the plan, the appeal process, all of that. So are you asking if they bring back to the ERB a plan the same for? An appeal. So in this situation, the ERB has said you didn't follow the statute. Your plan does not match the requirements. Go back and work on your plan. Our list, here's our suggested modifications. So I do think that implies that they have to go through the adoption process to adopt new elements of the plan. So are you asking if they ignore the procedural steps but adopt the substance? But this is not appearing where the NRB is. Check. This is under objections, right? No. No. Well, the NRB denying a regional plan. This is under them denying a region. So on page 76, upon approval by the ERB, the plan shall be considered duly adopted, take effect, and is not appealable. The plan shall be immediately submitted to the entities that require notice under subsection D. So not appealable. To the court. Is there any who is potentially harmed by this not being appealable to the court? So you've got a process that's come from the bottom up in theory. The municipality is working with the RPC. RPC working with the NRB. So as long as we have good, as long as people in that RPC region and those municipalities are aware of what's happening and engaged. So is there anywhere in this process that we have contemplated? We have these new maps and new tiers that we're contemplating where we have also contemplated providing notice about jurisdiction to each property owner. So potentially we have property owners whose property will be going into an automatic jurisdiction at 250, providing the notice anywhere on this in this bill.  So the language regarding tier three. Even tier one. I mean, you know, like that we're explaining, but I'm definitely concerned about tier three or the tiers just. Okay. So again, a owns or occupied property within a proposed tier one a is allowed to appeal. The current, so the notice requirements for tier one a are on page 54 into 55. So the municipality has to publish notice days and 15 days in advance of a board of the board's meeting in a newspaper. And then they have to also deliver it to ANR historic preservation agency of ag agency of transportation regional planning commission regional development corporations. And then those providing educational police and fire services. They also it also has to be posted in or near the municipal clerk's office and at least two other designated public places and on the website of the municipality and the regional and then commission. So no, it is not being notice is not being specifically required to land owners or residers. You think of another example where we are passing the law that impacts every potentially impacts every property in the state where we don't give notice like individuals specific notice to this box. I realize that my zoning change on my property in my town didn't give me notice last time planning date and zoning update. It happens a lot. Let's take a five minute break. Right. We're reconvening our meeting on age 687 draft 4.1 and continuing with the conversation that was focused on notice to property owners about patriot land use maps and potential act 250 jurisdiction. Do we happen to have a regional planner in the room? Yeah, may I just actually reorient the origin of this conversation was actually to the plan not being available to the environmental review board. And so I'm just wanting to understand who might be essentially impacted by that and considering the significant proposals we have here around jurisdictional mapping. And we were talking about I asked the question of is there any other proposal? What's that? Is there any other legislation that we have seen where we are impacting every property and not providing notice? And I think we talked about the notices that are inherent in that regional plan process as it is now, which we are changing or posing to change significantly. And I think the chair noted that for zoning change with that. Charlie, can you speak to that? How does notification to landowners happen now? Well, first of all, the first part of the question is we're on page 76 line for approval of a regional plan and it's dual adoption and it's not appealable, which I think is a policy question for us to consider first. And right now, what happens if there's a disgruntled resident in a regional planning area that doesn't like the plan? Apologies, sorry for the record, Charlie Baker on behalf of the law association planning agencies. Apologies for not being able to get it sooner. I think there was an effort to try to address this on page 73 with objections. And so the way I understand this is a phrase now in these couple of sections here, is that anyone who's read of the decision by the regional planning commission would raise an objection, bring it to the ERB. So the plan could be appealed in that way or the objection raised to ERB. And that's where those things will get sorted out at the ERB so that the ERB has eyes wide open. If there are issues, then we're not resolved at the regional planning commission level, the ERB will have to do their best to resolve that. So that is a policy choice as Charlie mentioned. How is that different than the current process for approving plans? Thank you for asking that. Currently, the regional planning adopter plan, and that's the end of the road. There's no appeal and no objection process. It just is approved by the regional planning commission. That's it. You have a majority of towns. There's that 60% of towns and I'm not aware, sorry, you're right, that provision doesn't exist. I'm not aware of that provision ever been used in the state, which is a heavy, that's in lots of ways heavier than an objection or an appeal. That requires a more, a super majority of towns in every region to get together on one position. Which I think in my region, I think 30 years ago, we had like one or two towns object to a regional plan, but they couldn't get the 60%, right? So we're trying to reduce the bar in that way. So any municipality could raise an objection and have considered it ERB. It's our appeal rights that exist today in a regional planning process. And then to the question of changes for zoning, how do towns typically let people know about that? Okay, fine, all of that public service. We used to say we had to put a classified paper, but I think there's still some of that put into the paper advertisement as public hearings. But process. So they don't get seen public notices. If they put, we talked about it last week, one public notice 30 days out and 23 days, people have forgotten about it. You did. Representative civilian. Yeah, I would also note with zoning, I think it's incumbent upon the locally elected bodies to make sure that their constituents are aware of significant zoning changes because there are consequences to not doing so. And I'm not sure that that's the case in this situation. So who would people in region hold accountable? For lack of adequate notice. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I think this in a similar vein that municipalities and those elected leaders have to do the best job they can and having community meetings and notifying the public, I think the RBCs would have that same obligation across their communities as we're particularly, and I don't, sorry, not familiar with whatever you may have talked about in terms of what's going to be a jurisdictional trigger at this point, but certainly, you know, where we're talking about the tier one B and whatever, if there's a tier three in here, there's going to have to be a lot of meetings as they have testified in weeks previous. I think we're going to, you know, tens and tens of meetings, you know, multiple meetings to try to make sure, do our best to make sure there's awareness and involvement. And it's in our self interest to try to bubble up issues, right? Because if there's concerns or issues, we'd rather get it to bubble when we're developing a plan rather than afterwards. So I appreciate that. And particularly talking about tier one A, you may not be surprised to learn that I'm actually thinking about tier three. Tier one B and three is what I said. You said tier one B and three. And three, yes. That only shows the last version I saw. Those are the jurisdictional decisions that are coming out of the regional plan. The tier one A is a municipal process to the ERB. To my question, who can people hold account of that? You know, the chair, I think, raised a very good point. You know, her zoning board changed the rules. But if people in her town, if that was not done with proper notice and with the people's will, there's a remedy for that. What is the remedy in this case? So who can be held accountable and how? I think you have the regional planning commission. You have the towns and all those appointments with the regional planning commission. And then you have the ERB, of course, making the decision. For notice requirements. I think there's a number, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's a number of ways to potentially address the concern that I'm having in this moment, which is something that we've talked with you, Charlie, about in the other RPCs. About thinking more about that kind of overarching accountability and consistency. And I guess the relationship with ERB and or whomever as these relationships are changing. But I think it's really, it's really important that we think about these things. These are pretty significant changes. I guess, Madam Chair, I guess I just, I don't have a suggestion here. But I guess I'll keep thinking about what there might be. I think it's tied to the broader question around accountability with the RPCs and the relationship between the municipalities, the RPCs and the state. Yeah, which I mean, yes, the point of creating the environmental review board in some regards is that accountability that doesn't exist today? Standing up the board to do that. Yeah. So we just went through the objection process and accountability piece of it. Let's keep moving on. So on page 76, subsection N, regional plans may be reviewed, specifically enabled in 4348, minor amendments to the designated areas do not require the amendment of a regional plan. All minor amendments to future land use areas don't become piled and included in the next iteration of the reading plan. And then on to page 77, regional planning commission shall adopt a regional planning conformance by December 31st, 2026. And so I have a question on this around that date. And in particular, I would like to hear from NVDA, which has 55 towns, that their ability to do this by this date, if they have the resources, both human and financial right now, and if they don't, what will be necessary? And I guess I would like to hear that from all the RPCs, but in particular, the largest RPC. So the next section, section 34 is 4348, which is the elements of the regional plan. The changes are being, multiple changes are being made in here to what needs to be on the regional plan. And the new language is on page 79. So you have included a reference to Vermont Conservation Design, as you will recall, on page 77. And then there is already language about some of the things that are already included in the future land use maps. It's adding some more detail to that. And then on page 78, language is being struck and then sort of figure to address some of these other elements. And then on page 79, there's new language. So preservation of rare and irreplaceable natural areas, scenic and historic features and resources, and protection and improvement of the quality of waters of the state to be used in the development and furtherance of the applicable basin plans established by A&R under 1253. I'm just going to leave it as a question. Lines 10 through 14 on page 77. Can you just walk me through how this is a change from current practice? There is already, oh, there's an already land use element required. And it does usually involve maps. And so this is adding specific reference to ecosystem function consistent with Vermont Conservation Design. And it shall support compact centers surrounded by rural and working lands. And then it goes into the individual elements that will be needed to address in those maps. And it includes a lot of specific types of natural features. So the reference to Vermont Conservation Design is new. I don't know if the RPCs have done that ever before. But then the reference to compact centers surrounded by rural and working lands is already referenced as part of 4302. So I think the primary change is explicit reference to Vermont Conservation Design. And so when it says consistent with Vermont Conservation, so the map will be consistent with Vermont Conservation Design. So how would you do that by how? It is map. Vermont Conservation Design is a map. So you look at the map. And so then my question is if we're looking at the Vermont Conservation Design map, have we already mapped the state? Well, we've taken testimony about the need for that map. It's kind of a more finer resolution. For some reason, we're rolling on my mouse today. Fine resolution data that's more locally grounded. And I'd be helpful, I think, to hear your, I'm curious, Charlie, how we've asked towns to map forest blocks and habitat connectors a few years ago, and they're doing that work. And how has that, how have regional planning commissions helped with that work? And how has, has that changed how you currently do future land use maps at all? Thanks, Chair. A couple things. Yes, the forest section is now paragraph C under this little subsection. So that's what was added. It was an Act 171, 6 to 11 years ago. Make the forest blocks. That's in the regional plan now, too. Yeah, that got added at the same time. So yeah, so after that law, we started doing more with the forest, with this, I think, particularly paragraph C there. I think not sure if the section was there already or not. And to be clear, what's happening in this section is trying to, this was future land use that kind of has everything within it. So the notion here is splitting, splitting it apart into two parts, so that this is much more focused on natural resources and working lands in this section. And then if a new section just on future land use, because we're getting a more specific paragraph 12 a couple pages later, right? So that's why you see some of the language that is more about where things are developed struck out of this section, because this is intended to be the planning basis in our regional plan for the natural resources and working lands, mapping and policies, analysis. Paul, your testimony has some changes that maybe said several versions back. We're striking this here and putting it somewhere else, but I think that note has not carried over to 4.1 for me. So I appreciate you. Yes. And then, sorry, this section was, there was another little section kind of below, number six that you see is struck out age eight. That language got pulled up here also into this natural resources and working lands because it was about the rare replacement natural areas seen in historic features. And then the quality waters, the quality waters in the state. We're trying to pull all that natural resource direction together so that it kind of hangs together better. Orientation. So E and E are not new. They're just moved. But on two and two to pay, we do have new language. Yes. Is that in Bunger? Do we, I just, I think it's a note to myself, but A, say for us, wetlands, water pools, rare replacement natural areas. Do we also want to add to that list, acting habitat and steep slopes? Habitat connectors is in that paragraph. I'm going to keep going down further. I will say that you could, that later in the section, she was just referencing in 12, it's tier three is supposed to line up with rural conservation area as mapped. And so I do think that we'll have to look at the definition of tier three and include those elements in their mapping of it. So I think it's already covered, but if you, but it does, I guess, depend on where you're landing on the definition of tier three. Yeah. I mean, I think we're moving away from the direct link here. Okay. On these, on the future land use map in the tier three. So I don't want to late that. Representative, yeah, that was, yeah, that's going to be my exact question. When we're thinking about the tiers, just trying to, maybe it's not my exact question, it's definitely the area that I'm trying to understand and grapple with here. These are elements. We're going to have a map, which, a map of tiers, land use. So we have a bunch of maps now. And the tiers are going to be based on definitions. And then we also have these elements. Yeah. The future land use map and the mapping here and the natural resource mapping, that's all like, for me, it's regional plan, the regional planning process supporting the communities, then having better data and using it to integrate into their plans separate from the tiers of statewide jurisdiction of Act 250 informing that, but not direct piece of it. Is there good mapping, good decisions locally, and then feeding into however towns want to pursue one A, one B, and how we as a committee define the tier three process. Representative Smith. Thank you. 115 starts off by indicating areas sufficient natural resource, including proposed for forests. I crossed that on mine actually. I read it over the weekend and I said, like, yeah, thank you. You don't propose a forest. I propose a forest, but maybe the trees grew up since then and we're not. And vernal pools.  So is this an idea of trying to protect vernal pools? Vernal pools are already pretty protected. I mean, they're important for amphibians. They don't always work. No, they don't. But they do often work. So we, yes, they're already an important wetland. I agree with that, but there's a limit to what you can protect over. You can't protect a vernal pool unless it's raining all summer long. It's just a map. It's what? It's just a map of where they are. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I think that I would, but then we need to talk about what that. Okay. Do regions or towns map steep slopes now? I think, you know, there's been enough flexibility that probably are some, but it depends. I don't know the answer to that question directly as possible that they are. I don't think there's anything, you know, that precludes them from bringing in other players. So they think like we're pertaining to natural resource issues. Right. The way this section is kind of structured is there's kind of you look at these elements, you do a lot of analysis about different topics. You know, we're focused here on the natural ones, but there's also ones on community services and where housing should be the energy element. We look at all these elements and then we've kind of purposely put the map last because that should be informed by all the analysis. You get on all those, from all those respectors. But the future land use map. Right. Yeah, that's why it's in that sense. Yeah. We're looking at 11 other things we feel we get there. It's an experience. Yeah. And so then how does that get reconciled with Vermont Conservation Design? That description was helpful, Charlie. Thank you. How does that get reconciled? The way I'm reading this from my conservation design, we're just being asked to specifically look at that work that A&R has done to figure out how that should inform our regional plan. So I don't think there's a clear, I don't have a clear answer. We're just directed to look at it and use it to inform our plan. Right. It says to be consistent with that. We certainly don't want it to be inconsistent with the Vermont Conservation Design. Right. I'm not a lawyer, but the events, there's a little bit of subjectivity and consistency, right? So it's not the same as, but we just adopt those maps. How do we do that? We're supposed to put some thought into it. I say we will probably, you know, plan commissions and all the public process that goes into that. It makes a determination if it's consistent. Oh, the ERB. ERB. ERB. And so you do, so that's, so how do you achieve the goal? How do you meet the need with the ERB? The ERBs, like how is that trickling down to the, I think, just, yes, are we, well, just the consistency. Like, you know, if there's something that you could get turned down for, you know, where is your opportunity ahead of time to know how to mitigate that for, or have a problem highlighted for? There is a process we've already talked about for pre-application review of the regional plan and recommendations from the staff. Great. Yeah, and there will be guidance. The most, the rules, perhaps. You want to add Steve Slopes here? Do, but I think we need to get, we've heard from a couple of our ecology experts with written testimony on their suggestions for what we were kind of defining. I think this is significant natural resources, and so ask them to weigh in on that. And so we'll look at what that would mean. Steve Slopes, yes, I don't know if we will want or need to go to, like, 15% and 20%. Maybe it would be by region, so that's a piece we need to get submitted and think about it. And, you know, we learned that sometimes they're doing it and using different slopes. But I think, anyway, Eric Sorensen will just weigh in with some suggestions on what a Steve Slope might be and how to use it. So we'll look to that. Okay. So as was just mentioned, the language that's highlighted on the bottom of page 80 into 81 is what's been moved to that page on 79. And then on page 81 is where the list of categories starts. So subsection 12 is a future land use element based upon the elements in the section that sets forth the present and prospective location, amount, intensity, and character of such land uses in relation to the provision of necessary community facilities and services that consist of a map delineating future land use area boundaries for the land uses in subdivisions A through J, which follow this as appropriate and any other special land use category, the regional planning commission deems necessary descriptions of intended future land uses and policies intended to support the implementation of the future land use element using the following land use categories. Sound of spilling in 12th. I know I've asked this question before necessary community facilities and services is that a definition is that is that defined anywhere? I don't think so, though I don't know off the top of my head. Mostly in page 80 facility. You're good. We cross reference those two things so that we know what we're defining definition. As out. So like as outlined in subdivision five. Align eight into nine. So provision of necessary community facilities and services. As outlined or not really defined, but. Charlie, can you speak a little bit to like right now the future land use element map? Like these are the preceding numbered sections are all parts of that, right? They're all part of it. So we have to refer back to all of them like transportation. That seems like we just have we're in the same section of the statute. So then the question the answer to the question of what is a necessary community facility and services is not just five. It's report five or. Once we thought I think it's going to be different for different communities and it's based kind of on common sense like what's happening in your town and. Where what's your future? What do you you're mapping your future here? What are the elements that are necessary for your future? Okay, then maybe if we intend to give a lot of flexibility here. So my concern is that we don't maybe being more specific about. They've like as determined by each community. After services necessary community facilities and services. As determined by each community representative longer. I know if this is constructive or not, but this is a general statement trying to proceed the following much more specific descriptors for each of the land use areas on the map. And some of those have very specific. Community facility requirements like you must have sewer must have water. So this was just trying to be, I think. You're right it is general, but it's just trying to generally set up. The fact that there may be some specific facilities you need to have. Or like downtown or village center or the roads area. So I guess overall. And it'll be hard for me to come back with language on this since I'm still not exactly clear on what it means. And I've heard several ideas of what it might mean is I just, I think that it's, it feels like it's kind of open. Like the people that I represent, you know, they may have an idea about what are necessary community facilities and services. We don't actually envision as being something we want in our town plan, or that is acceptable in our town plan. So it just like the language, I think is to be a little clearer and I don't know how to get that's why I've been asking about the definition. So make sure I understand. Yeah, I was trying to be helpful. I think the definition below hopefully gets that more specific description of what each future land use area actually does or should have. There are section titled community facilities and services. I mean, each of the, each of the main use categories below. Yes. It just, it just says that like the village is not like for the village center, you don't have to have municipal water waste waters of it under the plan growth area. You have to have public water, wastewater, multimodal transportation. So that's that specific has gotten so far. This is language that came from the RPCs. Yes. This is largely the product of our summer study with, with some modifications with that's discussed on the committee over the last few weeks. So we'll move on and work with the RPCs on better understanding this and seeing if there's some way to clarify. Be great. Let's get to the definitions for the categories below. All right. So then there are categories A through J. I have read through them with you previously, though there are changes in them. Do you want me to just read through all of them? Could you? Maybe it's a question for person Jacob. I thought Newtown Center was all in a way. They're not part of. What's as previously designated? I'm sorry. Okay. This is for the record. Jacob from the Department of Housing and Community Development and then the infant of the designation legislation. And this is that they're investing of the existing Newtown centers. But that new centers would not be recognized for a designation. I'm sorry. Suggested. Okay. And the reason being, the focus of the revitalization program is historic centers. There's not enough money to serve them. That's always been the priority program. So we want to keep the focus on them and continue to test in places so we can't even take care of what we have. So I think focusing on the changes. Perfect. So I'm 17. I have a note here that of course in a previous version we struck handlets. And I can't remember which study it was in. I think it was in the necessary changes. Study, maybe it was in BAPTA. And I'm wondering why we are striking. Charlie Baker to speak to that. I think that was Hamlet was a bad copy paste thing. You kind of got carried over for something else. But in this downtown village center, we were trying to make a distinction between Hamlets, which are out there in the landscape versus those villages that meet the criteria and qualify for village center designation. So there's another language category specifically for Hamlets. But those Hamlets at the moment may not meet the village center criteria. Great. Thank you. So just to be clear then, this downtown or village center's definition is built specifically with the designation programs in mind. And it says that. Okay. New languages at the bottom of 81 into 82 village centers are not required on just for water wastewater zoning or subdivision by laws. Realizing the existing standards. Plan both areas. Language. So there's new language on starting online eight into nine. It adds reference to the other designated areas. And these areas should generally meet the smart growth principles in chapter 139. Why are we taking on historic? Because we're Chris or Jacob. Well, I think it's a little, I think it's a little awkward to say historic or new town center. When the other areas capture what may be considered historic. Okay, but yeah, I mean, it's they're defined as historic centers elsewhere. What is defined as historic centers elsewhere? The downtowns and village centers are traditional centers. So we're going to have historic features. Sure. I don't think the adding or leading the board story helps change something. Both area is not part of the designation programs. So I have a little longer answer to that. The plan growth area is intended the way this is read to be the area that we've also been calling one B in the designation program that become the neighborhood area. I think this would call it by four. So there is a designation. And then this is also the area that municipality might come forward with a one A application. So this this is tied into the designation players also. There are criteria for becoming receiving a one A or one B. We call it designation that fields. And this is about the future land use maps, right? Where we are. Yeah. And so would you possibly be mapping perspective one B or one A or are to these areas already all exist? These areas already exist. We tried to add you can see the some freight area one, two, three, however many that is through seven of the next page was born of the conversations that happened here to be more specific so that when this map gets this area gets approved by the ERB, it would be the one B area. And so that's that's I think you probably already covered that under the ERB section. This is the one B area mapping. Okay. So it would not be perspective like this could be it would be this is a one B area. And if you wanted, if there was a new one B area that came in after the maps, that's where we'd be looking at a potential. Yeah, because towns can move up the scale here, right? They can go from a village and have more infrastructure, more zoning or whatever and move up the scale here. But that was intention and it is perspective. Sorry, I don't know if I'm answering the question you didn't really ask, but it is perspective for one A designations. This is we're basically indicating this area of the town is probably meets or could be if the town does all the work, the criteria for one A if the town chooses to go through that process with the ERB. So it would be within these mapped areas. Why would we do that for one A and one B? And if that's a policy choice, then to do why would we do perspective for one A but not for one B? Because it was a it's a higher level of activity exemption. One B was intended to be, I think is the way I'm understanding it, some modest level of exemption from I-250 that you could get, I'm going to say automatically, knowing it's not automatic because there's a lot of process that happens before that. In a simpler fashion that we could do also that kind of have designations for the village centers, downtown and neighborhoods kind of happen all at once in a region to get to those base levels of designations. Again, if they want to get more I-250 exemption, there's more process for the town to go through. If they want to get higher designation benefits, there's more process for them to go through. So we're just kind of setting the stage. There's potentially a lot more one Bs than one A's. Yeah, one B is intended to be more inclusive than one A. Yeah, good job. What would Chris say? Your section. So then in light of that information, we may want to check if, so last week you did have a conversation about tier one B and I think, so the language it's highlighted on 17 and 18 says serve by municipal water and wastewater infrastructure. I guess I'm wondering, I think you landed on or, okay. I don't remember if you landed on soil. No, we leave that out. And the other piece we did one in, if this is the place to have it is the towns need to confirm they want to be a one B with the regional planning process. Yeah, the option. I will go to the village area was intended to be the lowest level of one B. And that's where there was language out. Just take the next. Sorry catching up to where you are. Well, that's where the soil was was in the bill here. Sorry. All right, I'm just, I want to make, so I did not know that this was inherently one B, just so you know. So I do think, well, and what you just said, Madam Chair, about making sure that the town has indicated, I guess I'm wondering, because I'm wondering where that information should live. And we talked about it last week and we put it somewhere in the previous. This is the ERB section. It is. Okay. The ability to opt out of these. All right. Okay. When that happens and where. Okay, I think that, yeah. Okay, that makes sense. Well, we just need to make sure that we don't need to also say it here. Like, but yes, that. Yeah. And because this is the actual map, I'm not 100% sure. I mean, I think, wouldn't it? Well, I guess just to maybe clarify further, for me, these are the, these are potentially the 1B areas, but a town could still have a plan growth area that they didn't want an active 50 exemption for. And so for me, they're not, they're not 100% lined up. That's why the town needs to say, yeah, we want to do this or not. And that's fine. You could still say this is a village that we have water in. It's a plan growth area, but we would like to keep the jurisdiction the way it is. But that's great. Fine. They can do that. But that's the my intent. I'm seeing a lot of nods. I so I would ask you in particular, but all of us to look for that to make sure that's happening. Yeah. I mean, I think to me, it does make sense to have that be part of. That section in the active 50 statute about that designation. And looking back in my notes, it does seem, we did talk about that. So, yeah. Yeah. So I think that is where you put language about how the towns opt out of that for 1B. Okay. So see, it says to find it 43 at 3, which I'm not seeing here. I bet you know what that is. So my question is I have a very specifically, I have a town that has written to us that's struggling to deal with water that has the need to either have a public water system or a public sewer system because they're built up on top of each other. And they've really struggled with that question. And there they've resolved this issue with a commercial. Um, sized tank, basically, in their village. So what is the definition of this sewer? Well, so actually, it's an interesting question because as I had drafted it here, it's this area is super municipal water and wastewater infrastructure as defined in 4303. So you may recall that last year you passed this definition of area served by municipal water and sewer. It's in 4303 and it is a kind of a subjective definition where the municipality gets to define areas that they believe are included in their area served by municipal water and sewer. And that's because that definition is primarily used for requiring density under zoning. So you may want to sever this language from that definition. So that's one thing. Well, because it's those are defined areas that the municipality has sort of outlined. It may it may actually be tied to direct and indirect discharge wastewater systems. You just that definition again. Very long. It's an entire page. So I mean that that we did last year. Yes. I mean, it was drafted by a Senate economic development, but it came to your committee last year as part of the whole act. And so it sort of sets up this construct where it either means the area where actual connections are available to existing systems or where the municipality has the ability to adopt an ordinance or bylaws that establishes what those areas are and can exclude things from them. I think we added that flexibility in our committee. We did that because there are places that perhaps never should have been served by water and sewer where the town is not encouraging growth currently. So that that's where that came from. I remember that now. So think about how that relates. I think that's fine. I think it's fine because it's the same thing towns have a right to their their these are their growth areas. They're deciding so they can decide. So I guess it's are they are their standards of like for for the sewer system or water system. I guess is a more technical answer. Well, that's what standards for that. So sorry. So I sort of mean that it's because the term is defined as serve by municipal water and sewer infrastructure. But if you change that to or that no longer makes it a defined term. So I guess I can think about that a little bit more because I hadn't thought through that.  Yeah, I would need to think about that a little bit. But that's okay. You can think about it and we again representative Logan. Yeah, I guess along those same lines. It just seems like the land growth areas planning process here is more is defining land growth areas more narrowly than what we do in the designation section. Like the part is higher for identifying the plant growth areas in this planning process than it is in the designation section for 1B. Right. So that's because sorry, you're focused on the plant growth area, which is supposed to set the stage for 1A. It's inclusive of 1B though. The village area was intended to be the lowest future land use area for 1B. I think that if you look at that section, maybe a little applicable to this or question, we're trying to have a lower bar for 1B areas in the village areas. I thought that the planning process was where the designation for 1B was going to. Yeah. And so in another section, I came reference in the designation section or the activity section, maybe in the designation section, but it says the 1B designation is the village area plus the plant growth area plus the centers. So we're trying to be inclusive in the 1B and you're right. The plant growth area is a higher bar for those towns that might be eligible if they want to to get 1A and that's why the bar is higher. Yes, I'm sorry. That's okay. Welcome to our six month conversation. Yeah. Just to try this out, Minister, I think of 1B as being the areas where the people who've been saying about 1B is they have a plant, they have bylaws and have sub-division bylaws and they have water or sewer. Yeah. And that's really not the terminology for the designation program. Right? Because that what I just described are the requirements to get the exemption for the 50 units of housing and that's what it does. So that's what that does. The designation program goes to villages. The first level is something other than 1B or more inclusive than 1B. The village centers. So I'm sure we're not confusing our terminology here because it is confusing. The designation over my confused makes this a little confusing. But this is what we're doing here is the part that goes to the ERB and deals with the exemptions and then the other program is an overlay on this that it turns out that it's more inclusive because it doesn't always have to have sewer and water or water. That's what we had in the sentence in there about the village center. You know, that's really the lowest nation, right? The spare then. If we want to have one notch to neighborhood in the designation program, that's where we're talking about. They got the bylaws in place and so sewer or water, that's like the next year 1B. That could include areas outside village centers. It could be a plant growth area or it could be the downtown. Just 1B and then the highest level would be the 1A. Sorry. I mean, I guess I was thinking of the 1Bs as like an area around an existing village center that you just said it could be outside of that. Not outside of it. It could be also the plant growth areas which are bigger than villages, right? Or it may be a large village or a city. It has those attributes. That's right. That's why it has also in some times. In some towns there will be a 1B could be much bigger than it would be in other areas because it has sewer or water in a large area. There's a layering we're trying to get to. Let's just establish all the 1B areas which would be inclusive of the village areas and plant growth areas. And then the plant growth area was intended to be who might be eligible for 1A exception. That's why the bar is starting. You're conflating and they really are separate. They're the designation programs. Assessment saying it's an overlay, but either way they're over here. They're providing access to community development opportunities. Then within like separate from that, if you have towns that want to be a 1B and meet the criteria that Seth just laid out or a town that wants to take on a little more and get a commercial exemption for their developments and that's the 1A plant growth area. Village is without 1A so we're not 1B. There's a chart that we put together that kind of lays all these out. There's that a stone so you can see how the different sections integrate, but combination of language at some point would I think maybe minimize the but it doesn't need to have yeah. Intending this draft to have the language be consistent, we're having our time getting there, but we will the hard time is really because on the in the reality, there's some towns that may want to move up and some that may not want to. And so we're trying to provide a system that has that flexibility within it and not get too rigid, right? We could make it. Once we do 1 thing, you add the exemption and you get the designation, but we knew the reality wasn't like that. So that's why and I apologize. We're trying to in the interest of trying to be flexible for the reality with our communities, trying to have some flexibility in the system so they could go up or down, depending on where they were and what they wanted to do. This is helpful. Representative, thank you. I'm just going to I'm going to try 1 more time to get some clarity here. And I think I'm almost there. I think what's partially confusing about this is that we have 2 separate designation processes going on. So we have the designation program under a CCD and then we have the tiered designation program. And I'm still having a difficult and our tiered designation regional, you know, like our future land use map designation process says what needs to be in place in order for an area to be mapped as tier 1 B. And it is less. Say what page you're on 49. Line up with the village area definition, which the 12 C page 84. Village definition area, the village area definition. Is a little bit or less actually than this definition. So I guess I'm. So this chart that Chris just referred to is a really good visual on helping you get the big blocks of the parts. I'm slightly confused only because the word villages used so many times and it has slightly different meanings. So we're also like this chart also shows, for example, that parts of village areas could end up in tier 1 B, but parts of those areas could also end up in tier 2. And here in my imagination, you're made that this was working to your team. Right. Where's your part of this. Yeah. And what we just heard was that villages would end up in tier 1 B. Yeah. Then it says here. That's areas. I think this is trying to get at the notion that a town village area may ask not to have that activity extension and want to have that 250 fully applicable. So they wouldn't want the 1D benefit. I think that the graphic doesn't line up with the village area 1B. Can be the same, but up to the panel again, if we're about to opt out. I think for consistency, we should decide. You know, like a village is maybe doesn't have to have water or sort, which is how you've set it in the designation program in terms of feeding into it.  If you're 1B and then possibly 1A. That makes sense. Yeah, I guess the real question is why we would have different requirements in one section than in the other. I think we're trying to line them up. So we're trying not to. That's why I'm saying like, maybe we choose the village center nomenclature for smaller area on Hamlin. Anyway, that's eligible for certain benefits, but doesn't meet the criteria for 1B yet. It might, it'll be eligible for help to get a water or source system. And so representative Sebelius problem for her down there. Oh yeah, I see it. Brian shoot. Did you have something to add? Right. I'm a little confused. Also, the designation of the village center does not require the water and sewer, but the designated 1B does. And it doesn't seem like it's that it says that. Maybe I just needed more authority, but it seems to be some inconsistencies between the designation section. Well, that's what we're talking to right now. So looking for nods. The villages to me don't have that infrastructure yet. You want to speak to this? So where are you guys weighing in on this? Lowest tier, right? Just access to benefits and supports. Except your old store buildings access to the tax office. And there's a larger pathway that that community wants to achieve. But that is the startup level. So village area could be a village that had a water or source system. And zoning bylaws and things we've talked about for the criteria to meet. A 1B. So I just little things out here. Okay. It's important to note that the village center, which is paragraph A, doesn't need to have water issue to your point. There's some villages that are quite normal and don't have one that was community facility. And so the definition and so although the definition of page 49 of 1B, so that it would be the centers and wouldn't build centers that don't meet the requirements below the requirements below are those that are in village area. And I'm confused by the question because I think it's on page 49. It's on page 84 to 85 part of the same definition, which is the area. Let's see where representative room is here for a second. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, if it's timely, I have a question about on page 49. Well, line nine, the base, the tier 1B base group area designation. Did we decide we were going to get rid of that terminology because it's not anywhere else? Yeah, I had that circled. Base, yeah, I think I circled it thinking we'd get through the bill like we're doing right now and just like kind of figure out that. That was a reason that was there. I guess I raised it for the first time. It's just saying that. Trying to note that what the ERB is approving is some level of a growth area, either this kind of base growth area. It's a 1B or the 1A higher level growth area. Sorry, which we thought planned growth area. So, but again, the reason I'm not that marketing. Representative Sebelia, is there a benefit with this changing concept? So we have this changing concept of location based jurisdiction and the tier system. And it just seems really confusing to me to have these two designations processes, you know, like trying to make them fit this once for land use. And one is really about economic benefits, economic and community development benefits. And I'm not sure that we are either designation. I mean, certainly it's possible, but I'm not sure that we're doing either favor by trying to favor by trying to make them meld together here. Representative Boulders. I actually, there's a lot of what you're saying. I think what we've been trying to do here is I'll just, this is not the right, these aren't the right numbers, but let's make the first 100 pages only about the former. And then the designation program actually starts on page 101. It's not the real number. It is an overlay. But the overlay to what we've done for solely for the purposes of the first one, which is the ERB process, the mapping, the designating villages, that's the one is in the one is. That's what we're doing now, and then the other is an overlay. And that's the way that I'm thinking about it for all the reasons you're talking about. And I guess I would say the reason we got here is because we started using the designation program for all these decisions. And what we're trying to do is kind of straighten that out a little bit, but have it be complimentary because they do go together. They relate. We weren't actually totally crazy as a legislative body to start doing that. And yet we want to, we want to line it up. We're doing that just adjustment right now. So as we go through this along the lines of what Cecilia had to say, I almost tried to tune out the designation program and this should just focus on. Which designation program. But the second one over here and focus on this and then think about that. It's an overlay that comes in on time. But if, I mean, I would also add that many of the concerns that I hear you voicing are related to supporting small towns and economic development and helping them get into this. And that's why they're woven together. In my mind, that's what we're intending to do is to say, how do we get you access to the infrastructure assistance that you need? And it's through the designation program that that happens. I'm not sure that that was the assistance that I'm looking for. Oh, she's fine. So I just briefly, Chris, talking for the part, linking the designation process to the RBC map process is something they're already doing. We're trying to, on that, recognize this community. So right now I have to come to this one at a time to see this designation. They do a large majority of our communities have gone through this process. But the idea is to move the barrier and make the access to benefits easier. So I do think it's an improvement. It's more inclusive. We're trying to help you more to achieve broader goals. But to an extent, they need to choose their own adventure. And they have to decide that they want to take a different step there. We didn't really have a coherent roadmap or steps for community. So I think once you see how all these things do stack together, I think you'll see if it's a package that these allies like and support, they see where they are in it and they see where they could go if they want to with state health assistance. Yeah, I mean, I certainly can see the benefit of trying to make benefit together and be consistent. And, you know, that will be helpful when we tell our municipalities what we're doing here, which we haven't done yet, and help them understand the processes that we can, that maybe will be beneficial to them going forward. I think I'm worried about just making sure we get it right. Any amount of time that we have to spend on details of that. We're working on getting it right. Representative Stone. Thanks, Madam Chair. So what would help me personally, and I know we're working on this, but so like page 49, line 9, I guess it's a proposal that we try to be a lot more disciplined. And I don't mean that my RPC lead behind me isn't being disciplined, but to obtain a Tier 1B, do we want to use the word designation? I mean, I, it seems to me easier if we just keep it Tier 1A law. We tried to say tiers and designations. And then, right. What if we said status and designation? Status would be great. But also we could get rid of growth area, like that is what a Tier 1B is. Tier 1A, 1B status. Can we get rid of tier while we're at it, because it makes me think of RES. We're bringing tiers in that label 1A label. We're definitely doing tier. Everybody's full of tiers. To obtain a Tier 1B status, but if we maybe just as a committee, like if every single time we see that, let's just. Yes, I think we brought that up earlier and we can double down. But it will say in the following language that the municipalities with tier 1B areas, I think in line 11, not same paragraph, but. Tier 1B, they are areas. Areas status. Maped areas. Tier 1B status. I think it's okay to say area. All right. Yeah, representable. So picking up on what represents, I think was suggested. On page 8, 2, go back and forth in 47, here's 2. If you get rid of a tier 1B, go up there and say 1B. No, no, no. Because that translating them. This is mapping and designations. Right. Okay. This is a step. This is an activity. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Yep. Yep. A good test of us. I representable. Thank you. So now I think I can narrow down on my real question for this section. Which is my understanding is that part of this regional planning process, the result of this regional planning process will be a recommendation to the ERB on the maps. It will be providing maps to the ERB for their approval for 1B status. Correct? As mapped. As mapped. So I don't see a reference to that in the elements of the plan. Thank you. Oh, Charlie, did you want to? Yeah, it's not part of the elements, it's part of the process and the proceeding section of 4348. Sorry, flipping back through those pages affecting the 70s. I guess that's just confusing to me for some reason. Then I think it's in the activity section of statute where it says like ERB here, I don't know if it's a request or an application from the RPCB to approve their map to approve. Approve 1B status. We just talked about, and you gave us the page reference, we talked about it in the active 50 process. H40, something. 9. Yeah, that's the 1B. Where's the section that the town opts in? I haven't gotten it yet. So we're adding that. Great. That's very good. Is that work for you? I mean, it seems strange that it's not an element of our regional plan. The request to the ERB. No, just the. So I think it's partially because the Regional Planning Commission is mapping a variety of different areas. Yes. And then that's a different step is the 1B. So multiple, a couple of different areas could qualify as 1B, depending on the layout of that town. I understand. So I'm just wondering. So it's, but that's not included in the regional plan. The areas that they've identified as 1B. No. We have to get approval. They're calling it other, there's other terms. So these areas meet the criteria for 1B status. So what point in the process are the 1B maps created? You're asking a very specific question. Like, how long are we going to get 1B status approval? Then I think it's part of our request to the ERB would be to describe what is on the maps that we're asking for to be completely 1B. There's already some statutory definition language here that would say it has to be the centers to plan both areas and the village areas. So those are the three areas could be 1B. Plus any area that has these characteristics. They should be one of those three land use areas that are positional plan. I think I'm not quite sure where you're going, but where you're making me think is where does someone find out that there are 1B? Where does someone find out that there are 1B? Where's that map going to be? Where it seems like an overlay on town plan map to me? And do we need to spell that out in statute? Because the town has to meet the criteria get approved and then, you know, and we want to do it and then it would be on their map as a this village is a 1B area. So you didn't there is already language in this bill that they have to include the Tier 1A on their town map. So Tier 1B probably also should be added. I think we may have talked about that. Also, there's language in at the end of the bill about the department maintaining information on the various statuses. Those are the designation. But I'm wondering if you wanted to also add that. That's more of the function of the planning. And though that's the whole point of separating them. And that if we have a place where we've said the 1A's are mapped in a town map, we should have the 1B's there too. So if we could add that, that would be. Again, just, I don't know, this is kind of where another region planning and the designation studies. We talked into each other a little bit last summer. One of the intents was to reduce the administrative burden on the smallest in this panel of having to do these kind of specific applications or specific town plan amendments and ask the RPC to just include it in the regional plan map. So you can go that way. I just, I don't know, my sense and President Jacob, I'd like to speak better to the designation conversation, but there was some intent to try to reduce the administrative burden to get that base layer benefits. Well, I mean, it could happen when they update their town plan, but it seems to me you want people to know about these places. That's like the point of them. So if they're not publicly available on a map, that seems pretty basic in this day and age and to have a map of them. And get to review them and then appeal. Well, I'm thinking after the fact, the review and appeal happens in this planning process. We've already been through that part of the statute, but I thought, I mean, you seems like something NRB would maintain for sure. ERB would maintain. Yes, Natural Resources Board, Environmental Review Board. You would maintain that. I mean, if we were reviewing them and approving them, we would have a database of the approved maps and plans. And then you're saying that then the town map should be updated. I'm pretty sure a town that does this is going to be excited to have it on their map, but we couldn't make it clear. Okay, let's take a five minute break. All right, we're going to reconvene our hearing and continue to walk through age 67. Yeah, I think we're on age 84, maybe. Um, well, no, we haven't done any three yet. Sorry. Thanks. So over 41. So there's, um, I was just discussing the element criteria of a planned growth area. So there's new language on page 83. Um, that's, uh, plans, transportation, infrastructure includes those investments included in the municipality's capital improvement plan program. Um, There was this struck language in the summer, or is it just gone? Yes, we're, we are wondering what is going on with this language at 83. If you, um, because there's struck language about the transportation. I, yeah, I don't, because I don't know. Can you speak to that? I would ask the same question. Once, why is that sense of program line 12? Line 15 on is struck. Why is it struck? The system. Okay. I do not, um, I'm good. Okay. I've seen that language somewhere else. 34. I think it was in previous iterations. Is it, was it, it was new language that now is being struck. So it's not in statute now. It was all underlined and now it's being struck. Okay. So it's being replaced by planned transportation infrastructure includes those investments. Okay. What does that mean? You don't know the answer to that question. Who will? Well, someone proposes the language originally and now they have so come on team. How did you get the guidance to take it out? There may have been conversations with NRC, but I thought I can't remember if that language is shit. Yeah. This is the kind of again back to the question. How high have already been confined to other areas? That's okay. I think what occurred was there was some discussion that that that negative language wasn't needed that we should say more focus on the positive idea of smart growth, which was mentioned on page 82 lines, 11, 12, the kind of proceeding all these criteria. Yeah. So I think it was a discussion like that. But obviously up to you. It's on page 100. What do you think? It's on page 100. The struck language on page 83 is now page 100. Oh, yeah. So that's the definition of smart growth. Still using negative language. Oh, yeah. Thank you. So that's just. Here's the smart growth. Pleasure. Then that brings us to page 84. So then in the in the category of village areas, it's adding a village area shall have one of the following. Municipal water, wastewater, land development regulations. If no municipal wastewater is available, the area must have soils that are adequate for wastewater disposal. Is that contrary to what we're just talking about? So I was trying to say. And so there's that piece where in the rapid of village could be one. It could also be not two. Let's think if I have this right. Village areas are the areas that are not going to be one. They are not necessarily one. They're the areas that are not one being there for. But are is very low. Taking the part of the benefits from the. Chris's program, but they also could be. Could be, but they don't have to have the only thing we're saying about. What? Because village areas are areas that could theoretically be one bees, but they don't have the one. The. Haven't met the one be no. Now, this is the same criteria as the one be criteria. 40, whatever that is right now. So we have to figure out if we are intending. Well, this is less. This is more lax than page 49. Yeah. So some parts of some parts of a village area may. End up in a 1B now. Some may not. Or some village areas. Old villager. I don't know. That's. So it's him. We hear from either either Chris or Jacob on like. The purpose of the village centers. Village areas in your designation program. And who, who are they intended for and what's the next? If they're the lowest, if they're the entry point, then what's the next one up? Yeah, so the concept of the village area is really an area. That is surrounding and village center. So it's anchored by a historic civic and commercial core, but this is a slightly broader geography. And so the track into on on the on the revitalization, designation side, the neighborhoods on the active activity, jurisdiction designation side would track into the 1B. And so it's unlocking for a broader geography than just a village center. A little bit more area around the village center. As I'm walking those neighborhood benefits, they could work on water or super or tax credits. To be clear, you village area neighborhood and core. In your chain in this. Okay. Just because it doesn't carry the word over in the chart you gave us. You can update the chart. That was a chart from a month ago and conversations with a lot more. The chart would be very helpful. And agreement 1st, before we update the chart, would be even more helpful. The chart will drive agreement. The intention is for the village areas. I think they could just be a historic village. Crossroads to have a low bar to entry. And they could then come land growth area 1B. And on your chart, I would say the distinction would be then it's a neighborhood. I mean, I don't know if that's the right word, but that's what we have now. Okay. So I think we should really be careful to not conflate the terms so that they're clear in our heads and in the folks who are going to be administering all representatory. Just to clarify, McCauley, we already had Catherine in here, and she showed them that term with the village area that had all this infrastructure. She called it a village area, but it's really 1A in terms of what it is. So would that be a plan growth area instead of a village area? Is that what she used? You guys remember? I don't. I do remember. I remember. Oh, that was West. Yeah. Richard.  Yeah. And it was. I think she was showing us. So I think it wasn't intended to be a plan growth area. Yes, but she used the term village area. So that's why in my mind, which is why we need to be controlled. We need to be more. Yeah. Oh, well, yeah. If you look at the regional future land use map section of the chart, it's got village center, village center and village area. That's confusing. Yes. See, we can't get away from the realities that village centers are at poor, but then we have some village centers with no infrastructure. So again, we're trying to deal with multiple situations in the real world. What did happen to Hamlet? It's kind of its own definition. I don't know. I don't know. Are they? What am I? Maybe it's not a lot of area. I don't believe. It's a high foot. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. It didn't. I love Hamlet. I think Hamlet might be a village. Hamlet implies a lack of infrastructure to me, to be honest. And a village center sounds like I got something going on underground with water and sewer. I live in an old, both center area, which is probably him, which has no infrastructure. It's a great border. I don't know what my picture is. Mars or Trion. This needs to be a different word. Okay. Representative? Thanks, Senator. I'm looking up what the definition of a Hamlet is. Page 84, lines 13 and 14. Please feel free to tell me. I'm just confused. But is this an area that we would prep the soil language? So that's what we're talking about right now. I mean, I think we should really try on a new word like Hamlet and just say there's traditional settlement area. And, you know. Child's portion of the approach. Which center neighborhood? That's what we risked. So Hamlet technically means a small settlement. Settlement. Generally, one smaller than a village. There you go. So that's two roads. I'm not bad. We, you know, we had other Hamlet's scripture mentioned. Okay. I needed to drag. Okay. I think we're going to try on a new word and we will get back to you in the next iteration. Move me on. So at the bottom of page 84 into 85, village areas must be Hamlet's. It must be the following criteria. Duly adopted town plan planning process is confirmed. Bylaws adopted in accordance with the statutes. And then the river corridor bylaw language, which is similar to language you've seen that before. So unless the municipality has adopted flood hazard and river corridor bylaws, typical to the entire municipality that are consistent with the stablet this standards established by A and R. The area excludes identified flood hazard area and fluvial erosion areas. Except those areas containing pre-existing development. And areas suitable for infill development as defined in the rules. Yeah, so we have B and C are crossed and we need to uncross them in the next draft. So if the plan growth area is intended to going to be a 1B. I don't like, I guess, you know, Charlie, you've said a 1A or 1B, but so we should decide like, we shouldn't conflate them. Plan growth area to be was the 1A. Eligible for 1A, but I think we were just trying to acknowledge that for maybe some kinds of don't want to vote 1A, even though they have all of most of the criteria. So they'd be 1B that that's why I'm saying that. Recognizing that the town has to make a choice to get to 1A. So the end growth area is inclusive of 1B areas, but the village areas was also below the 1B area. So we kind of see stuff in the 1B. Well, in the, in the, in the municipal application process to the environmental review board, 1A is pre-rigorous and outlined in the other section of this bill. Yeah. And so I don't know how that relates to what you just described, but it's there. Yeah, representively. Thank you. Yeah, that is an area of clarification. I think could be helpful on page 50, where plan growth area designate starts. Maybe we just call it tier 1A status. That's, and you can keep plan growth area because it actually is kind of raining. Okay, thank you very much. That's 50. Great suggestion. What do we do with that one? 1A status. And my brain's not. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Collin. That was on point in time. 50, 1B. I know. In destination, we changed the status, 1B status. 16, 1B is on 49 and then 1A is on page 50. You up a 1A application through this plan growth area planning process. Commissions be sent to NVDA to David Sannaker and my zoning administrator. This draft. Yeah, I'm sure you could not try. However, we are also making a lot of clarifications and I would suggest perhaps the next one. So that's it lines up. Well, I have time to wait once we get this adjusted to where we think it's going to be okay, so that I can have them look at it before we vote. I'm sure what's their decision on pages 84 and 85 to swap C with B? Swap it. You were saying they were cross. Well, I think they are. I mean, they have a lot of the same requirements. I thought the concept of Hamlet, I thought the concept of C was a lower bar. Yeah. But that's yeah. We don't need to talk to them as soon as we can. No, there is a hamlet. There is. One page for page 86. I said enclave. Oh, is that a good word? Quick. That's weird. Community. District. So. But just moved. The source shot. It doesn't say Shire because Shire is like a big town. Shire town is like a big town. Shire town has. Yeah, Shire town has. And definitely water and sweet. It's our base. I'm sure. That's Milbury to Shire town. You go on to every county has a charter town. So it's working. It's a privilege for us. For sure. All right. Maybe you have to talk to them. These are not helpful. No. Okay. Let's focus team. Moving on. The word online 13 on page 85. And then the rest of the categories are on page 86 into 87. But as was just noted, hamlet already does exist. So that's something. I don't think the definition of the hamlet here that it is actually consistent with what we were talking about. Think with the exception of, I guess, towns. She seemed to have it. Yeah. And I would move up. Yeah. Representing violence. I have a question on page 85. I don't think there's going to be anybody on line 13. And position areas. It says planned for municipal water or wastewater. Sometimes they're planned for 30 years and it never happens. So the fact that it's planned for doesn't necessarily bring a lot of meaning to what happens on the ground. And yet we're saying just because it's planned for these areas will be transformed to higher density mixed use. We're saying that's what the town is expressing their intent to want to do that area. But the reason it's not, this is kind of an area that may grow up to move up into a higher category, but they're not there yet. So potentially aspirational or aspirational, but can they go ahead with doing all of this dense development before the sewer will handle the water? No, the cloud, likely. Okay. Yeah. So from D down, they're now in tier two, that 250 is good. Okay, I got it. Representative Sequowitz. I have a question about E on the top of page 86. We're talking about the social space for those areas. And it seems like one, including housing at the end of the paragraph there that would be excluded in this category. Ski areas that didn't have housing. And I'm wondering if that's something that makes sense, even the concepts or all these categories always including housing, no matter what is the kind of the base part of the definition is there are places where people live and do, but they're constructed in various ways. So we want to keep that in. Well, no, I don't know the answer. I'm waiting for Ellen. Sorry, I understand the question is all I meant. Does it exclude a ski area that doesn't have all of those elements? For example, it says include. Yeah, I think that means it's more flexible. I think so. I mean, again, a lot of, I think a lot of these categories are objective. Charlie, do you want to fix that question? Can you think the intent was definitely to maybe to read that if an award, like, I think, yeah, some of them have housing and you may be right. Some may not have housing. So I don't know if it needs to be an or or provide all or some of the following. Maybe it should just be an or. Yeah. Or they put a new one. Yeah. Sorry, that may provide. Right. Thanks for catching that. Yeah, what's that? Yeah, I think we changed that to an or online form. Great. So the rest of the categories are enterprise areas. Hamlet, rural, general, rural, agricultural and forestry, and rural conservation. So I do want to flag quickly. Again, I put this out initially. I don't know if you will. This is all for maps, but the term rural, general, rural, agricultural, rural, and then rural conservation specifically. I think you've had different conversations about what that again, that title should be. So I would like to hear from Charlie about the your conversations, like how, how much depth there were to this decision to make these 3 rural categories. Yeah. There's really I think just the reality of what the regional planning commissions have been doing where it seemed like there was some split of areas. I have rural, general is kind of rural. Could be rural was residential, except that we also know like there's different, there's some retail things and some employers that are in that rural area. So we're trying not to just be too tight to keep it just residential. But there are things in the rural landscape. So that's where the general then, you know, there's in the elements, we're supposed to focus in on ag and forestry. So calling that out as a specific one. And then also, you know, important natural resources to protect and conserve. That was where the conservation came from. So just as we were looking across the state at the different regional plans, this is kind of where we landed as something that seemed like a workable construct. You know, it could also be much more general, you know, just a rural area that we could go back to some of the element language that has ag, forestry and natural resources and all that and leave it up to the mapping. Are towns doing like a conservation? I think that's, or if he, somewhere, somewhere. That's really a question on the correlation for tiers here, just making sure I understand. And tier three is Jay, it would be if you keep that tier three concept because it was. And H and I are two. So I has critical wildlife habitat, flood storage, horse blocks. Representative second. In that same section, right, right. After flood, critical wildlife habitat. And I'm not sure. That just seems like a line three. It seems awkward. I'm not quite sure exactly what that's trying to say. The word movement. That's fine. Maybe it was maybe it was meant to include the corridor, but habitat and corridors. So there's clearly the potential for overlap right between I and what might be in Jay. So there's going to be some judgment there that happens through the process about what's primarily ag or forestry like working lands versus habitat connecting. Yeah. Obviously pieces of property have all of all these things happening at once. And force blocks. How do we differentiate? Sorry. Sorry for everybody knows the answer to this question. Between force blocks and actively kind of means is it current use versus not current use? So do we have so we have force blocks? Do we only mean force blocks that are not in current use? No, no, no. No, wait, where are you? Well, I'm just wondering about so we have force blocks here. I'm just this is working lands. Force blocks are primarily managed and are many most are in current use. So I don't those are not all those are not exclusive. Different. Those aren't differences to me. Force blocks are many of those enrolled in current use and actively managed. Most of them. I think it's fair to say most. I'm just I'm trying to kind of understand where we are at with this definition and I and and it's conclusion right now with force blocks. That's potential for tier three, which potentially would be automatic jurisdiction. And I don't understand that would be a change for for three operations or or not a potential change. And if it if it was going to be a potential change, I would want. Yeah, so it's not envisioned to be right now. We're still working on a definition of critical resource area. In this mapping process, there was that list of things to include on the maps. And I think we're leaning towards you know, a limited definition of tier three that is maybe bounded by this definition in this bill and then goes to rulemaking. Right. So like what is that that should be a critical resource that triggers activity. That's where we're headed. And I don't know how it relates to this rule conservation. I think I'm hearing you say that we need to do some more work on that. I understand some needs here. Right. So and that's why so we're in thinking it through and getting assistance from separating. So it was a challenge because it was a challenge to get to like, what are those critical resource areas when they were assumed to be a large area of the state, which wasn't really the intention. It was intended to be like, are those resources that we aren't like a statewide review before development happens in America? Right. So we'll be leaning on the ecological community to figure that out. Representative Bonner. So we're pulling this apart and thinking that loud here a little bit, but I think I don't think that that's the conservation area is like as it relates to the maps. Forget about the critical natural resources in the statewide significance perfect. That'll go through the process and characters talking about it. We still want the maps to identify important natural resources because the one above it is truly the working landscape and which is great. That's fine. And then I think we also want to have the maps and the mapping done at the regions also identify important natural resources worthy of showing up on the map and being understood. And then what comes later would be an overlay for those other statewide significance that would be pretty limited and truly critical statewide significance. But I think we don't want to not in this tier two level, we still want the regions to map the important natural resources. And so the elements of the regional plan under a I just think we need to make sure that and did you cross reference those Charlie when you drafted this that page 77 lines of pain, the list of resources that are map. That are elements of a regional plan that indicates those areas. Let me just make make sure that you're mapping categories and feed those. So that's a good description of what I was trying to say. Maybe it's in a way it's carrying this from 77 over to globalization. So showing up on your maps, the regional, the local and neutral maps. And they does that make sense and blanching. Well, and they become maybe these are the significant resources, but I don't think. Yeah, tier three. Yeah, I mean we could. I mean that is some of the work that would typically happen in like a natural resource element the way we're talking about, you know, I think so there are maps in these elements too. And then we're talking about a future land use map of like, okay, and then what is what do we want to see happen? Well, it's given all these other mapping of information that fed it, right? So I think the other intent for that last one was to whatever and use the word the state decides, you know, whatever that happens through this process to rulemaking or through some other process. We wanted to make sure I think this is back to the communication to the public. If there is going to be jurisdictional layer here that would do map that. So I don't know, maybe there's, you know, different sets of mapping. They're going on here, but. Well, it is, you know, I includes a lot of those significant natural resources. And so maybe Jay is like, wait a second now. So I think to, well, so. I, the change on line eight and nine to specifically reference critical resource areas is new to this draft. There was different language in the prior drafts for the rural conservation area had some other language in it. And so prior to our recent conversations regarding this, I actually thought tier three could include either I or Jay areas because I does encompass a lot. I think it represents ability was hitting on that. So you could either tease those things to be a bit more separate if you want them to line up with the tiers, but it does seem like you're actually leaning away from that right now with where you're going. So I'm sorry if I just missed this, but I think you want to change what's in Jay to be more descriptive now to something. I don't know if it's the prior language you want to look at, or if it's a mix of things from I, you know, we need to look at the, um, it's seen, it's a civilian step. Let's see if it left my head. Oh, no, it didn't. Okay. So can you remind me a lot of agriculture is exempt from Act 250? Is that right? Agriculture, yes. Farming is exempt from Act 250. And are parts of forestry also exempt from Act 250? Logging is exempt from Act 250. Yes. Logging entails cutting down trees. Does it entail getting to the trees? Roads, I think it does because in ancillary, yes. It does include some processing as well. There's a, and then the farther you get out of the forest, Act 250 jurisdiction attaches. It seems backwards, but also, but also not. So, yes. Ever since then. Thanks. I'm just throwing out an idea. To me, if I were to try and, you know, once we wrap up in May, be all of these people interpreting this, I personally would find it more helpful if I was not as expansive. And Jay, we could put a little bit more detail into. And then we could have, I don't know if it's a K, but, you know, a sentence that says there may be overlap or something like, but so that it's, it's clearer, like, I mean, right now, I is pretty expansive. So, and Jay is referencing, but I mean, throwing out that. Yeah. I think that's kind of to the idea of making it more of a significant lineup with this inventory of this significant natural. Whatever the word is in here. Yeah. Natural resources. Are you kind of planning a little bit of a process, like are we developing some maps that then get considered in rulemaking as a figure out what tier 3 is? I just, that's an idea. But so for me, I think I'm thinking of this as regional planning commissions are using their power, their whatever their where with all to support the towns in getting the best natural resource data they can to do their mapping and their planning as they see fit. And then we're going to be asking the state and stakeholders to tell us like, what are the statewide, the resources of statewide significance that should be potentially be regulated under activity. So they're, they're, again, they're staying separate. So it's the supporting role and refining role in the mapping as the map iterations progress that the regional planning commissions can provide to the towns to help them do their planning. And then, you know, guidance on like, and I personally feel like we're leaning towards recorders, headwater streams kind of thing more for like state, resources of statewide significance that essentially should figure out more review in certain towns or locations. The reason I was asking that question, because whatever that state level conversation ends, we're probably going to want to update our, you know, the next time we update our map, include that specific layer because that is going to mean something different for property owners. In the same way you might the 1A. Right. E. Do you have one more? Representative Bonz. Just to be clear, so with the new, what we were, what we're now talking about for J, it's not two or three, it's not a jurisdictional tracker. Just talking about, because we've done in the one above it, we've talked about the working, what's all about the working landscape. It's about, you know, tractors and forestry, after forestry and logging, which is all fine, but then we need to get this category that goes with it that identifies important natural resources on our maps and become part of the base. But without that here, we're missing actually a key element too, because even though those important natural resources are not necessarily going to get elevated to tier three, they're still important to bear the maps. So that's what we're talking about here. But, so I'm confused. It's really no different than what above we're saying. We've got the working landscape, then we've got the important natural resources that need to be thought about and thought about for, by the regions as there is that we need to be very, very careful with because of their importance to the ecosystem. And the list starts to be fleshed out on page 77, under significant natural resources. But you're saying use these categories for jurisdiction, right? Yep. They're not a jurisdictional trigger. These are the pieces, yeah. Representative Logan? Well, I'm thinking about that. Where is the jurisdiction work? The skeleton of where the jurisdictional trigger is located? Oh, right, it's in the 40s. 40, 48, 45. Well, that's the definition of government, excuse me. So, no, where are the 48, 48 pages and most are visiting. We need to work on that. We will. So, we're going to keep, we'll come back to it. Filling in the paintings here by finishing this walk through, and then we're keeping a list of the policy choices we need to make. And that's for the long. And then we're going to do an extra. But I'm sure it's, so I have like a long list of policy items that I think we all have somewhere in our head.  And I know we have some funding. That's why I say we got to get through this walk through. Or we can get to like seeing if some of these other, you know, how they get addressed. But did you have a question about like that one? I don't need that much. It's just, you know, I don't want to go through my list. It's just as you were talking about the RPCs helping the towns, I just going back to, you know, obviously my RPC is capable. But, wow, if I was a town with an RPC that really just was not able to provide that, I think we're going to, I'll just be interested to figure out whether or not we've put enough funding in and whether or not there are other pieces we need to do as well. That's why we brought it in. Yeah. And we need to get through it. Yeah. Talk about it. Representative Logan. Yeah, we'll get to it. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Because, sorry. So I, sorry. So are you going to make, are you requesting inclusion of new language in Jay? Yes. I'd like to line up with these comments of the regional plan. Yeah. It's interesting about Jay. So if I may, is that right now that language lines up with the language on critical resource areas on page 49? Yeah. I noticed that too. Yeah. That was good. Yeah. So we're changing it. That's okay. We're, I mean, we're moving away from those being a jurisdictional trigger in their totality and trying to figure out which ones really should be. Right. There isn't any highlighting for quite a few pages. But the next, but section 35 does look at this new concept regarding substantial regional impact. And so it might be a good idea since Charlie is here. Well, so because last week they asked me a lot of questions about substantial regional impact, how it's used right now because it is in the existing statute. Can you, can you say a little bit about how it currently works? So it's a requirement statute right now and it has some implication under criteria 10 or actually 50, particularly if there's a conflict between a municipal and regional plan. So that's, maybe, maybe the other, that are being folks who can better explain that part. Could we have a really use it in my region a long time cover? So that, that was there. And I think most, almost all the regions have a list of project sizes. You know, maybe it's a hundred long units and 200,000 square foot, you know, factory, you know, but it's a long list of table. And they basically say anything that's this size with all these, it makes use categories triggers a substantial regional impact. And so the RPC will basically is saying, and letting everyone know we're going to engage more if you trigger that SRI definition. And a lot of these sections here kind of came from discussions, particularly with VTrans about in the absence of active 50, how do RPCs engage on larger projects or VTrans engage on larger projects? I was like, my peers are not as concerned about this now because we're going to spend so much time with our towns getting here. So this is does not feel like a need from the RPC side. Obviously you have a choice about keeping it or not. And I think VTrans may have communicated with you. I wasn't part of that, but I think they want to think about this some more in terms of how they might engage in an alternative way. So anyway, there's a lot of language here. I'm not from my seat. I'm not sure it's needed anymore. But that's to you to discuss. That's helpful. Charlie, I heard from, I don't even know what to call them, whoever does our transportation or busing the federally state funded busing in our region about wanting to make sure that there was some box to check during. Well, this is about the plan. This is about the plan. Right. This is some of it is for you. This is about how these sections that follow here from 35 on or about how RPCs and or VTrans might engage in the municipal permit process. Okay. And so they're wanting, you know, like, hey, we would like to know if there's going to be a big project, but just to make sure that, you know, they've planned for us to drive our bus up there or something like that. Is this the appropriate section to think about that or not really? Maybe like, yeah, if you wanted to like kind of give them like the way RPCs have statutory party status in activity, like, I don't know, I guess maybe in theory, you can give a transit agency party status in the municipal permit. I don't know about an expert on municipal permit, but theoretically this these sections of statute might be where you look at how to engage in the municipal permit. Charlie, if I just can summarize what you said, you don't think this language is necessary anymore? A couple months ago, when we were talking about this, we were thinking, but that it would be helpful. And then in further reflection, we don't see the need for this any further. But I was retrained, but the 40 months following. All right. Oh, no, I'm sorry. Page 9 for the top. Page 9. Page 9. Great. Page 8. Yeah. I'll submit this in here. Subaya. Subaya, I understood in a conversation earlier today that B-translast planning on submitting testimony or some information in that, I can't remember if I told you, but said they had submitted information to the chair. It came through well. I don't know. I just, I'm second-handing here right now, but you don't know who that would be from. I don't know. Amy Bell said it, but was it from her? Okay. What if that's from her, Michelle? Yeah. Yeah. Look for that. For section 38. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think we slide to 35, 36, 47 from you. So if it's not here yet, it's more coming. Great. Thanks. All right. And here we are. Your section represents sevens. You're asking about planning. You have walked through this language before. So hang on. Chris Cochran provided some written comments on this, right? On this section, Jacob? Which section? Section 40 resigns planning groups. If I recall correctly, section 40, what we want are about just adding other use for the existing municipal planning grant program. And how subscribed is that every year? Is people leave money on the table? Or is it oversubscribed? It's oversubscribed. It's oversubscribed every year. Every year. Every year. Probably like how much do you keep track of it? Yeah, I do. I could give that. I could get a report on that to the committee. For the past six, five years, you're looking for this all about. Municipal planning grants are used for things like... Oh, a huge, a huge variety of projects from a specific area of food and planning. Let's see what it can do. Account, organization, technology, learning, your pretty specific recreational space, student conference, municipal plan, bylaw work, natural resource planning. Tremendous amounts of money. Okay. And we... What is the amount every year that we have municipal planning grants? It's gone up recently. So around five, six, I think five, five, or six, Charlie, but you're nodding. I think we were at 650 last year. 650,000 dollars? Yeah. And then we are putting... Is this the one-time appropriation in here? There is a one-time appropriation, yes. And so... Not doing anything to the skin of... And it's always, is it always every year like... It is a portion of the property transfer checks. Yeah, it's done. Good. Representable. 17 percent. The RPCs and... Yes. There are three things that are funded by 17 percent. If some go to the GIS center, then there's the RPC allocation. There's the fiscal... They... Those three things, 17 percent. And the rest goes to the H.C.V. Well... It goes to a few places, I think. Yeah. 50 percent on the H.C.V. and then the other goes to the general fund. Thank you for that clarification, Charlie. And clean water. We did a clean water short-time constraint. Representing loaded. Yes, I reviewed S311 and I noticed that there were... There was a pretty extensive funding proposal in S311 that had to do with regional planning processes and things like that. Yeah, there's... So it would be interesting to look at what they're thinking, because eventually I feel like it's going to have that natural resources over in the Senate. It's going to have to deal with any differences we have in between our two... We're coming together. Is that the go box, Charlie? No, it's from... It's the Bee Home Act. Development. The Bee Home. The Bee Home Bill. But it has a lot of language and appropriations in there. They have a... So they have a single appropriation. I actually... I think it changed it many times. But it's a surcharge on the property transportation. Two and a half, that raises... And the first two million would go to regional planning. Right. Okay. I see that drafted. So that's why I can't remember specifics. Who did draft it? Kirby, because it's of tax provision. Yeah. So that is what it calls for. And that may get... That's in their bill, I think. Yeah. And so finance is supposed to take up the money sections. Yeah. But let's just... The highlights and then Jacob, ca