Vermont's historic land use law, Act 250, strikes fear and loathing in the hearts of some who find the law onerous and obstructive; and love and gratitude in the hearts of others, who believe Act 250 has played a major role in preserving Vermont's natural character.

Passed in 1970, Act 250 has governed larger scale development in Vermont for nearly 50 years, with a list of 10 criteria ranging from traffic to soil erosion.

Now: Does it keep Vermont beautiful, or does it make Vermont expensive?

"Act 250 has provided a tremendous service to Vermont," said Sandra Levine, senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. "It is a foundational environmental law in Vermont that has both provided a lot of protection for our natural resources and helped direct development in very positive ways."

Developer Gene Beaudoin, director of retail development for Saxon Partners in Hingham, Massachusetts, has a different perspective, saying Act 250 is a mixed bag. Beaudoin has developed projects across Vermont, including the Shaw's grocery stores in Colchester and Berlin, and the Hannaford supermarket in Rutland. He says Act 250 is costly and sometimes ambiguous, introducing uncertainty into the development process.

Beaudoin said the "basket of permits," including Act 250, for the Shaw's stores he developed in Berlin and Colchester were about $750,000 each. That compares to about $300,000 he paid for permits in New Hampshire to build a Shaw's.

It's also relatively easy to appeal an Act 250 application, according to Beaudoin, which means a developer can spend $700,000 on the permitting process and risk losing it if a neighbor decides he doesn't like the project.

The future: What may change

Now, an Act 250 Commission comprised of six legislators, drawn equally from the House and Senate, are preparing to issue a report, and suggest changes to the law to help govern the next 50 years of development in Vermont.

The commission is focused on two main areas, according to the chairwoman, Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury: climate change and environmental protection. Climate change is not currently addressed by Act 250, and jurisdiction is limited to commercial developments of 10 acres or more, and residential developments of 10 housing units or more — the thresholds at which Act 250 kicks in for most towns.

On climate change, Sheldon said the commission is looking at adding a criterion looking at the impacts of development on carbon emissions.

Sheldon said the commission was asked to consider whether Act 250 had met its original goals of protecting Vermont's environment. She said that was a little hard to evaluate, because Act 250 only applies to developments that cross the 10-acre, 10-unit threshold.

"That's why we have 9-acre developments and subdivisions everywhere," said Sen. Chris Pearson, P-Burlington, vice-chair of the commission.

Could creating a no-development map work?

Rather than defining Act 250's jurisdiction by acreage or number of housing units, the commission is considering an approach that would map out areas inappropriate for development, county by county, something that was tried early on in the life of Act 250, then dropped.

Sheldon said those early maps still exist and were submitted to the commission by the Vermont Planners Association, a statewide nonprofit with about 150 members comprised of professional planners, landscape architects, engineers and planning consultants.

"I think it would help developers understand where communities and regions are hoping to focus development, so yes I would like to see maps," Sheldon said. "One thing we heard from the development community is it would help to know where they can and can't develop. Maybe everybody would like it."

Uh, maybe not.

Ernie Pomerleau, president of Pomerleau Real Estate, is an adviser to the Act 250 Commission, the only member of the development community in that capacity. He is not crazy about the map idea, walling off areas that can't be developed. Pomerleau suggests a different approach.

"If you want development someplace, incentivize it, make it easier to develop in places you want to develop," Pomerleau said. "To put big circles around places you can't build — if it's the top of a mountain, I get that. If it's next to X, Y or Z city, people may not be happy about that."

What developers want to see changed

In an effort to make his point about the daunting complexity of Act 250, Pomerleau commissioned David White of White + Burke Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. in Burlington to create a "spaghetti" map titled, "Project Permitting Flowchart."

The map shows a mind-boggling jumble of permits and letters of approval required for everything from air pollution control to scenic beauty. It also shows that the 10 criteria for Act 250 actually work out to 26 different criteria because some of the criterion have been broken down into sub-criteria.

Pomerleau is quick to point out that developers support Act 250. But they want the process to be more predictable, efficient and timely. Pomerleau is not advocating for eliminating any of the boxes on the flow chart representing various permits and approval letters, but he does want time limits put in place by which agencies and towns have to respond.

"The process can't go on endlessly," Pomerleau said.

Pomerleau also believes Act 250 isn't needed in places like Burlington, South Burlington, Montpelier and other Vermont towns and cities with sophisticated zoning and development regulations of their own. Pomerleau says that from the perspective of someone who has been dealing with Act 250 since it was implemented in 1970.

"Fifty years ago, towns didn't have zoning and regulation," Pomerleau said. "That's not the case now. Look at Burlington, with its Department of Planning and Zoning, Development Review Board and Design Advisory Board. Act 250 is redundant."

What environmentalists want to see changed

Jamey Fidel, Forest and Wildlife Program Director at the Vermont Natural Resources Council, has a very different perspective on Act 250. He said VNRC's research shows Vermont is losing undeveloped forest land parcels to residential development at an unacceptable rate because the overwhelming majority of rural developments skirt Act 250 by staying under the size cutoffs of 10 acres or 10 housing units.

Fidel said that according to the U.S. Forest Service, Vermont may have lost 102,000 acres of forestland from 2012 to 2017. He said the VNRC study, using data from grand lists and other sources from 2004 to 2016, showed residential acreage increased by more than 162,000 acres, while mostly undeveloped forestland decreased by more than 147,000 acres over the study period.

"Right now the growth we're seeing in the forest can be very scattered, and doesn't maintain the viability of forest parcels," Fidel said. "We're not meeting the goal of compact development surrounded by forests and working lands."

But Fidel said he doesn't want to say no to development in the countryside as much as he wants to say yes to "smarter development."

What to expect

Sandra Levine, of the Conservation Law Foundation, believes the only way to get there is by eliminating the exemptions to Act 250, all the way down to single-family homes.

"Honestly, good projects do not have difficulty getting Act 250 permits," Levine said. "It does not have to be lengthy or onerous, it needs to be the threshold that all development needs to cross."

Amy Sheldon's task, and the task of the commission, in the report and draft legislation they will be finalizing early next year, is to somehow respond to this wide spectrum of concerns and expectations regarding Act 250.

"The commission has done a ton of work," Sheldon said. "I feel like we have some recommendations that are going to lead to productive conversations during the legislative session."

Contact Dan D’Ambrosio at 660-1841 or ddambrosio@freepressmedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @DanDambrosioVT.