Vermont reforms its land-use system to balance economic development and the environment.<\/p>\n
More than fifty years ago, legal scholars Fred Bosselman<\/a> and David Callies<\/a>, in an influential report<\/a> for the Council on Environmental Equality<\/a>, argued that local governments were ill-suited to address the environmental harms increasingly being felt at state and regional levels. What was needed, they thought<\/a>, was a \u201cquiet revolution\u201d in U.S. land-use law and practice. Bosselman and Callies urged<\/a> states to reclaim the legal authority, long delegated to localities, to meet broad environmental problems with large-scale land-use policies.<\/p>\n In their 1971 report, Bosselman and Callies noted<\/a> Vermont as one of the few states where the quiet revolution had already begun. Today, as the climate crisis and housing unaffordability give land-use reform new urgency, Vermont is once again leading the way. With sweeping changes to its land-use system, the state can claim another distinction: Vermont has brought the quiet revolution into the 21st century.<\/p>\n By the mid-20th century, two new interstates and the growing national interest in outdoor recreation sent<\/a> demand for development soaring in Vermont. In 1970, state legislators passed<\/a> Vermont\u2019s Land Use and Development Act (Act 250)<\/a>, creating the first statewide land-use system in the United States. Under Act 250, large development projects\u2014including commercial developments greater than ten acres and residential developments of more than ten units\u2014required<\/a> a permit from a local commission. Permit review considered<\/a> broad statutory criteria<\/a> to limit the environmental, cultural, aesthetic, and infrastructural impact of development. These decisions were<\/a>, in some cases, subject to judicial review.<\/p>\n Blamed<\/a> during periods of economic downturn yet widely credited with maintaining Vermont\u2019s characteristic rural charm, Act 250 has long been the third rail of Vermont politics. The last decade, however, saw<\/a> growing concern that Act 250 encouraged sprawling developments breaking up continuous habitat, forest, and farmland. Many farmers and environmental groups came to agree<\/a> with local developers and pro-business politicians that Act 250 reform was necessary.<\/p>\n After an influx of buyers during the COVID-19 pandemic, Vermont faced<\/a> a housing crisis. The Vermont Housing Finance Agency estimated<\/a> in 2023 that the state would need 30,000\u201340,000 new units by 2030. Act 250\u2019s size-based threshold for permit review made<\/a> it harder to build housing\u2014especially affordable housing\u2014at scale. The increasing importance of this housing shortage in state politics tipped<\/a> the balance toward reform.<\/p>\n In 2024, the Vermont state legislature passed<\/a> the Community Resilience and Biodiversity Protection Through Land Use Act (Act 181)<\/a>\u2014the first major reform of Act 250. Act 181 divides<\/a> the state into three tiers with distinct Act 250 requirements. Tier one includes<\/a> land in downtowns and village centers. In these areas, subject to municipal planning and infrastructural capacity requirements, projects can proceed<\/a> without a permit. Developments on tier-three land\u2014vital ecological areas such as critical habitat corridors, waterways, and old-growth forests\u2014need<\/a> a permit regardless of size. Finally, projects on tier-two land\u2014most of Vermont\u2014require<\/a> permits only when exceeding traditional Act 250 unit and acreage thresholds.<\/p>\n Act 181 reforms<\/a> Act 250 to reflect a commonsense assumption: When it comes to a development\u2019s impact, location is often a better proxy than size. A half-acre development in virgin forest places a greater burden on the vibrant ecosystems and rural beauty of Vermont than an 11-unit apartment complex in an already developed area. Considering size and location allows<\/a> Act 250 review to account for key externalities\u2014including the environmental costs of sprawl and the availability of affordable housing.<\/p>\n The characteristics that make Act 181 wise policy were also the conditions of its political possibility. Act 181 won<\/a> support from environmental groups by strengthening protections for critical ecological zones and by updating permit criteria to address climate and biodiversity concerns. Developers accepted<\/a> new restrictions in exchange for regulatory certainty and economic incentives when building in downtowns and village centers. And towns and cities accepted<\/a> limited state zoning reforms in exchange for greater freedom from Act 250 review in the areas where many of their residents live, shop, and receive governmental services.<\/p>\n Of course, relaxing Act 250 requirements in tier-one areas does not guarantee affordable housing. Municipalities could practice exclusionary zoning, and developers could decline to build affordable housing when\u2014as it often is\u2014less profitable. Act 181 is best understood<\/a> as the centerpiece of a broader land-use reform agenda alongside Vermont\u2019s 2023 Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone Act (No. 47)<\/a>. Both acts fund affordable housing, climate resilience, and infill development efforts, while Act 47 includes<\/a> zoning reforms prohibiting local restrictions on multi-family housing, additional dwellings on developed properties, and parking requirements in Vermont\u2019s downtowns and village centers.<\/p>\n By tying permit requirements to location rather than size, Vermont\u2019s government can steer development to protect public goods and achieve other policy goals. But unlike the zoning-style mandates often used in land-use planning, Act 181 preserves the resource-allocation and democratic benefits of a decentralized, case-by-case land-use system.<\/p>\n Bosselman and Callies saw<\/a> Act 250 as a harbinger of a quiet revolution in land-use policy. In most of the United States, that revolution never arrived<\/a>. Reform is needed more than ever before. Land use significantly contributes<\/a> to biodiversity loss and climate change, environmental challenges that far exceed the political or regulatory capacities of local governments. Act 181 reforms reconcile smart urban growth, affordable housing, and sound environmental policy. New and improved, Act 250 stands ready to meet a moment defined by climate change and a national housing affordability crisis<\/a>.<\/p>\n