MONTPELIER – A long time ago, when I was just a 22-year-old untested college student, the select board in Morristown appointed me chair of the town planning commission. It was the mid-1970s, and land use planning and zoning were still in their infancy.
I quickly realized I had been thrown into the deep end of the pool.
Some insisted zoning should require a minimum of 25 acres per house. Others argued for one acre so that working families could afford to build a home. And many wanted nothing to do with zoning at all. The argument, “It’s my land: you have no right to tell me what to do,” was not just common; it was loud.
I had never had adults hollering at me before. It was a baptism by fire. What I learned, though, was invaluable: if you listen closely enough, you begin to understand what is behind the anger. Often, it is the fear of the unknown.
Fast forward to today, and I am reminded of those same emotions.
In 2024, the Legislature passed Act 181, a law that represents one of the most significant shifts in Vermont’s land use policy in decades. Traditionally, Act 250 applied based largely on the size of a development. Act 181 changes that framework. Going forward, the key question becomes not how big a project is, but where it is located.
In simple terms, location, not size, will determine when Act 250 applies.
Supporters argue this is a necessary step. The law is designed to encourage housing development in village centers and areas with existing infrastructure, while protecting forests, farmland and environmentally sensitive land. At a time when Vermont faces a real housing shortage, that goal is understandable.
But for many Vermonters, particularly those in rural areas, the change feels like a heavy burden, and once again, the reaction has been strong.
One concern that resonates deeply with me is something very fundamental: the ability of parents to give a piece of their land to their children so they can build a home. This has long been part of rural life in Vermont. It is about family, continuity and putting down roots.
Act 181 does not prohibit this. But in many cases, it will now require Act 250 review, bringing added cost, delay, uncertainty and stress to what was once a straightforward and deeply personal decision.
Farmers, who are among the very best stewards of our land, have voiced particular concern. Many of them simply want the ability to pass land along to the next generation without navigating a complicated and expensive state permitting process.
To me, this is where the law needs work.
There is no question that Act 181 has positive elements. Making it easier to build housing in our downtowns and village centers is a step in the right direction. Encouraging smart growth and limiting sprawl are worthy goals.
But we must also recognize that the current approach places a disproportionate burden on rural Vermonters. The balance is not yet right.
The Vermont Senate has proposed delaying implementation of Act 181 to allow time to address these concerns. That is a prudent step. As many of you know, I did not vote in favor of Act 181. However, I remain committed to working constructively to fix it.
Good policy requires balance. We can support housing development and environmental protection without undermining the traditions and practical realities of rural life.
Just as I learned back in the 1970s, when people raise their voices, it is worth listening carefully. Behind the frustration we are hearing about today are legitimate concerns and it is our responsibility to address them.
David Yacavone represents Lamoille-Washington in the Vermont Legislature, including Elmore, Morristown, Woodbury, Worcester and Stowe.
