In what some might call an exercise in bureaucratic redundancy, Vermont legislators have introduced H.42, a bill that would establish a new Housing Board of Appeals to address municipal zoning disputes related to housing projects. Sponsored by Representatives Thomas Stevens (D-Waterbury), Michelle Bos-Lun (D-Westminster), Esme Cole (D-Hartford), Saudia LaMont (D-Morristown), Kate McCann (D-Montpelier), Phil Pouech (D-Hinesburg), and Monique Priestley (D-Bradford), the bill has sparked questions about whether Vermont is doubling down on its regulatory overload rather than addressing root causes of the housing crisis.
What H.42 Proposes
H.42 seeks to create a three-member Housing Board of Appeals, composed of individuals with expertise in land use law or housing development. At least one member would need to be a licensed attorney, and another would have to be either a professional engineer or land surveyor. The Board would have quasi-judicial powers, including the ability to reverse or modify municipal zoning decisions, award remedies, and oversee mixed-use housing projects.
Supporters of the bill argue that the Board could help streamline appeals processes for developers frustrated with local zoning roadblocks. However, critics contend that it merely adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already tangled web of regulations, duplicating aspects of Act 250 and other state-level mechanisms.
A Bureaucratic “Solution”?
At first glance, the Housing Board of Appeals might seem like a targeted solution to Vermont’s housing challenges. However, closer inspection suggests it could exacerbate existing problems rather than resolve them.
Vermont already has a robust regulatory framework, including Act 250 and municipal zoning boards, both of which oversee development decisions. Adding another layer in the form of a statewide appeals board risks creating jurisdictional conflicts and procedural delays. Developers might find themselves navigating parallel or overlapping processes, further disincentivizing investment in a state that is already losing development projects to neighboring regions with fewer hurdles.
The bill’s $600,000 price tag for the Board’s initial setup—including salaries for three full-time members and a staff attorney—also raises eyebrows. Critics argue that the money could be better spent on direct housing initiatives, such as incentivizing affordable housing projects, subsidizing infrastructure improvements, or reducing permitting fees.
Act 250 Lite?
Some have referred to the Housing Board of Appeals as “Act 250 Lite,” as it appears to replicate functions already carried out by the Environmental Division of the Superior Court and other regulatory bodies. Unlike Act 250, which has a broad mandate to evaluate environmental, aesthetic, and community impacts of development projects, the new Board would focus exclusively on housing-related zoning disputes. However, it’s unclear how this narrower scope would streamline housing development or address Vermont’s acute housing shortage.
The Board’s creation could also undermine local control, a cornerstone of Vermont’s land-use governance. Municipal zoning boards, composed of community members, are best positioned to evaluate the specific needs and character of their towns. Overruling their decisions at a state level could alienate local officials and residents alike, while creating tensions between municipalities and the state government.
Sponsors Face Questions
The sponsors of H.42—Representatives Stevens, Bos-Lun, Cole, LaMont, McCann, Pouech, and Priestley—are all Democrats, which might come as little surprise given their party’s emphasis on addressing housing shortages through government intervention. However, some critics are questioning the practicality of this approach, arguing that more rules, regulations, and spending won’t fix Vermont’s housing crisis.
“Throwing money at bureaucracy instead of streamlining processes or incentivizing development is just burning money,” said one frustrated observer. This sentiment echoes the concerns of many developers, some of whom have already left the state due to regulatory burdens, high costs, and project delays.
A Better Path Forward?
Instead of layering more bureaucracy on top of Vermont’s already overburdened regulatory framework, the state should focus on simplifying and decentralizing its development processes. The housing crisis won’t be solved by adding more rules, fees, and appeals boards—it will be solved by removing barriers and empowering local decision-making.
Repealing Act 250 should be the cornerstone of any meaningful reform. Local planning commissions, development review boards, and zoning boards already have the knowledge and tools to craft solutions tailored to their communities. Handing the reins back to these local entities would not only streamline the development process but also respect the unique needs of Vermont’s diverse towns and regions.
Moreover, removing top-down mandates like the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) would allow housing policy to prioritize practical, locally-driven solutions over ideological goals. While combating climate change is important, tying housing development to rigid statewide frameworks only serves to delay projects and increase costs, further exacerbating the crisis.
Finally, Vermont could attract more developers by offering carrots instead of sticks—reducing permitting fees, eliminating unnecessary regulations, and providing clear, consistent pathways for project approvals. By making development economically viable and less of a legal minefield, the state can encourage investment and growth without resorting to bureaucratic micromanagement.
In short, Vermont doesn’t need another appeals board or another $600,000 of taxpayer-funded red tape. It needs to get out of its own way and let local communities do what they do best: solve problems with the flexibility and responsiveness that only local governance can provide.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #HousingCrisis #VermontPolitics #Bureaucracy
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply