By Guy Page
With help from a handful of rural Democrats voting against their caucus majority,Vermont House Republicans added two farm-friendly amendments to S.325, the Act 181 reform bill.
The bill passed unanimously on Second Reading – but only after a plethora of contested amendments, including two pro-farm amendments by Rep. Greg Burtt (R-Cabot) that allows more development on rural farming properties. Burtt’s amendments to the bill already overturning the Road Rule and other rural development instructions would:
- Require the law “strengthen agricultural and forest industries, including homesteading, small-scale agriculture and forestry, and supporting housing, while minimizing conflicts of development with these industries”;
- Confirm that “No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on-farm business.”
The latter amendment passed by a 77-66 vote, with every Republican and over a dozen Democrats – almost all from rural communities except Burlington appointee Kevin Scully – joining them.
Winning Republican-inspired floor amendments on major, contested legislation isn’t something the House GOP caucus has experienced much – if ever – in recent years. Typically, amendments introduced by Republicans are voted down on party lines.
“It’s certainly a new feeling. In all of my 18 years, I can’t remember that happening,” Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell) told VDC this morning.
Rep. Rob North led the charge to repeal the Road Rule and other rural development restrictions in Act 181. This morning, he told VDC that what happened yesterday reflects an appropriate legislative response to overwhelming public opinion.
“It felt like democracy is supposed to feel,” North said. “It felt like that is how things are supposed to work. Very simple, plain language, common sense amendments that we proposed, supported broadly by Vermonters – not by elected officials, but by Vermonters. And Vermonters were heard.”
If the bill is approved today on third and final reading, it will go over to the Senate. The upper chamber will either agree to the changes, stand pat with their version, or make other recommended changes. If either of the latter two options happen, S.325 could wind up in a conference committee.
One Democrat who voted with the Republicans said supporters of local control in education also need to support local control in development.
“I voted yes on this amendment because I cannot fight for local control in education if I am not also willing to fight for local control in housing development,” Leann Harple (D-Hardwick) said. “I have faith that our local select boards will be able to make the best decisions for their own communities in terms of zoning and larger-scale housing projects and will also be able to use their own discretion about which projects should be approved and which should not. We all know we need more housing to fill our local schools to keep our communities alive, and so as an advocate for education I have to fight equally as hard for housing.”