Vermont is trying to thread the policy needle by promoting, on the one hand, affordable housing and, on the other, land conservation. This experiment, in the form of two bills passed by the Legislature this year, will test the proposition that these two worthy goals are compatible rather than competitive.
Gov. Phil Scott thinks they are. His remaining reservations about the conservation bill led him to let it become law without his signature, but he noted that the measure recognizes that “balancing land protection and housing is core to the state’s future.” How that balance is struck could have enormous consequences for current and future Vermonters.
The housing bill, a bipartisan effort that Scott endorsed and signed with enthusiasm, will have the most immediate impact. Its goal is to reduce regulatory barriers to building more affordable housing, the damaging shortage of which is Vermont’s most acute problem. It focuses primarily on eliminating provisions of local zoning ordinances that have an exclusionary effect.
To that end, it mandates that no zoning ordinance can ban multi-unit or multifamily dwellings. Duplexes must be allowed in single-family zoning districts wherever year-round residential development is allowed. Towns and cities will also have to allow three- or four-unit housing in areas served by municipal water and sewer. This provision is intended to minimize sprawl by channeling new housing into already developed areas. The law also eases parking requirements; makes it harder to reject affordable housing on the basis that it does not conform to the character of a neighborhood; and makes it more difficult for municipalities to block the establishment or operation of homeless shelters.
Most of these reforms go into effect in December 2024, although the homeless shelter provisions become effective in September. This new regulatory regime will represent a sea change for many communities and for some perhaps an unwelcome one that limits the ability of local entities to control their own destiny. There is certainly something to that argument, but in our view it does not outweigh the pressing need to address the critical housing shortage on a statewide basis.
The law also contains minor revisions to Act 250 requirements, but the debate over more comprehensive changes was put off until next session, when the Legislature is due to receive several reports on the potential modernization of the landmark development law.
The land conservation law is as ambitious as the housing one. It sets the goal of permanently conserving 30% of Vermont’s total land — state, federal, municipal and private — by 2030, and 50% by 2050, and establishes categories for different types of conservation.
According to the VtDigger news site, these include “ecological reserve areas,” which would be managed passively to allow them to become wild; “biodiversity conservation areas” in which active management would seek to improve biodiversity for particular species and habitats; and “natural resources management areas,” where sustainable logging would be permitted. Conversion of large areas within these categories for development — including for housing — would not be permitted.
Vermont’s traditional settlement pattern of compact villages surrounded by rural lands and natural areas is the animating vision that both these new laws wisely seek to perpetuate. But there are big challenges ahead. Among them, will towns and cities embrace the mandated zoning changes in the housing law or drag their feet in implementing them?
Moreover, open land has been generally regarded as cheaper and easier to develop than siting a housing project in an already built-up downtown (although that added complexity and cost might well be offset if municipal water and sewer service is available). If more open land is conserved while the rest becomes more expensive, will developers simply take a pass? Or will they pursue the opportunities the new housing regulations afford for increased density?
And given that single-family homes remain the norm in Vermont, will the multi-family model have wide enough appeal for renters or buyers outside of the state’s larger communities?
However this all plays out, the Legislature and the governor deserve credit for trying to mesh these important goals. We hope they continue their efforts to strike the right balance and demonstrate that lots more housing can be built at the same time that the state’s most environmentally valuable land is conserved.
