ANALYSIS
If you live in one of the 30 Two Rivers towns, the box at the bottom shows how to find which category your property falls in on the new map, how to check whether a project would need an Act 250 permit, and how to ask for a map correction.
Rural opposition to Vermont’s land-use rules did not end when lawmakers rolled back parts of Act 181. A proposed land-use plan covering 30 towns in east-central Vermont has drawn objections from landowners and town boards. It offers a concrete example of the broader dispute over how much government should limit what people can build or do on their land.
The proposal comes from the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission. Its planning goals include protecting forests and farmland and directing growth toward established communities. The dispute concerns how those goals would translate into binding restrictions on development, and how much say landowners and towns should have in setting them.
The objections concern specific provisions. The draft included limits on how many homes or buildings a project could include, restrictions on heating systems, and a requirement to leave most of certain large parcels undeveloped. Commission staff has since proposed removing or softening several requirements. Other restrictions would remain, and the state’s Land Use Review Board has questioned both their justification and the evidence of public support. Those proposed revisions still need the commission board’s approval.
That makes Two Rivers a useful case study in the broader rural pushback: what planners proposed, why residents and town officials objected, and how the proposal is changing under scrutiny. Its particular restrictions should not be assumed to apply in other regions.
Understanding the dispute also requires knowing when the rules would actually bind a landowner. For housing and commercial development, that largely turns on whether a project requires an Act 250 permit. Here is what the draft would require, what staff proposes changing, and what remains contested.
What a Regional Plan Does
Each of Vermont’s 11 regional planning commissions writes a regional plan. The plan includes a map that sorts land into categories, each with its own rules. Three categories cover most rural land in Two Rivers:
Rural Conservation: large forests and other land mapped for its natural resources. It carries the strictest limits on building.
Rural Agriculture and Forestry: working farm and forest land.
Rural General: rural land where scattered homes and some small businesses are expected.
Act 181 of 2024 required every regional commission to redraw its map using new state categories. The June rollback, Act 152 of 2026, left that requirement in place.
A regional plan is not zoning. The commission confirmed to Corinth’s selectboard that the regional map has no direct effect on town zoning, and that the housing targets in the plan carry no penalty if a town misses them. The plan can affect decisions through two main permitting processes:
Act 250, the state’s development permit. Projects that need one must conform to the regional plan.
Public Utility Commission reviews of solar projects and cell towers.
The map can also help towns. Village centers and other growth areas drawn on it can qualify for state tax credits. They can also qualify for Tier 1B status, which lets housing projects of up to 50 units on 10 acres or less skip Act 250 entirely. A town has to ask for Tier 1B, and it needs both zoning and subdivision rules to qualify, the commission told Corinth.
Less Land Would Fall Under the Strictest Limits on Building
The proposed map would reduce the amount of land placed in the region’s most restrictive category for development, from about 48% of the region to 34%, according to the commission’s acreage tables.
Under the current plan, that category is called Forest Based Resource Area. The proposed replacement is called Rural Conservation. Both are intended to limit development in forests and other rural land, and the commission says their rules are similar.
The change varies by town. In Hartland, the share of land in the most restrictive category would fall from about 30% to 2%. In Pomfret, it would fall from 57% to 24%.
Across the region, that share would fall in 24 towns and rise in six: Fairlee, Granville, Hancock, Pittsfield, Rochester and Stockbridge.
For a landowner, moving out of the most restrictive category could mean fewer limits on a future building project. Most of that land would move into Rural Agriculture and Forestry, which still has development restrictions. A change on the map would not, by itself, give an owner permission to build.
The practical question is which category would cover your property, what rules come with it, and whether your project would require the state permit that makes those rules apply.
Why the Dispute Continues
A smaller area under the toughest building restrictions does not resolve the other objections to the plan. For a landowner, the concern can also be what rules apply to a future home or business, and who gets to set them.
The original draft, for example, would have prohibited oil, propane or gas as the main heating source in new homes and businesses requiring an Act 250 permit. Other provisions would have required electric-vehicle chargers or limited the number of buildings and the kinds of businesses allowed in certain areas.
After receiving objections, commission staff proposed removing or softening several of those requirements. The board has not yet approved those changes, and other restrictions would remain.
That helps explain why the dispute continues even though the proposed map places less land in its most restrictive category. The argument concerns both where development is allowed and how much control regional rules should have over it.
When the Plan Would Apply, Decision by Decision
The thresholds below come from state law and the Land Use Review Board’s current jurisdiction rules. The proposed changes come from the commission’s staff recommendations, which the board has not yet voted on.
Building a house. One house below 2,500 feet generally doesn’t need an Act 250 permit, so the regional plan doesn’t apply to it. The commission’s own example: five homes of any size, with driveways, would not trigger Act 250.
Above 2,500 feet: Any construction needs a permit. In Rural Conservation, the plan says that land must stay mostly undeveloped.
Land already under an Act 250 permit: A significant change can require a permit amendment regardless of size.
Dividing land into lots. A permit is needed for six or more new lots within five years in a town that doesn’t have both zoning and subdivision rules. In towns that have both, the threshold is 10 or more lots within five miles or the same Act 250 district in five years. Lots created by a spouse, parent or child can count toward the total.
The 80% rule: The original draft required subdivisions of Rural Conservation parcels over 30 acres to leave at least 80% of the land undeveloped. Staff proposes dropping that requirement. For projects on lots over 50 acres, it would instead require reasonable efforts to build near forest edges, existing development and roads.
The 10-building cap: Subdivisions in Rural Conservation could still contain no more than 10 main buildings. Staff proposes keeping that rule.
Building several homes. A permit is generally needed for 10 or more housing units within five miles in five years. The commission’s handout and FAQ say a landowner can build up to five units without Act 250, which is true, but state law and the Land Use Review Board’s rules put the trigger at 10.
Homes per acre: The original draft limited projects off paved roads to one main building per two acres in Rural General and one per five acres in Rural Agriculture and Forestry. Staff proposes replacing those limits with a cap per project: 50 homes in Rural General, 25 in Rural Agriculture and Forestry.
Paved-road access: The draft required these housing projects to have access onto paved roads. Staff proposes deleting that rule.
Heating: The draft’s fossil-fuel heating ban applied to these homes. Staff proposes dropping it for homes.
One acre of pavement and roofs: In Rural Conservation, a project could still cover no more than one acre with roofs, roads, driveways and parking. Staff proposes keeping that limit.
Starting a business. A permit is needed for commercial construction involving more than an acre of land in a town without both zoning and subdivision rules, or more than 10 acres in a town with both. The count covers all the land the project uses, not just the building.
Farm businesses: Storing, selling or processing the farm’s own products is exempt. An exemption for qualifying farm events and farm stays takes effect July 1, 2027.
Farm events: The original draft capped permitted farm businesses in Rural Agriculture and Forestry at 20 events a year. Staff proposes deleting that cap.
EV chargers: The draft required chargers at new Act 250 developments. Staff proposes making that a recommendation.
Truck traffic: The draft required businesses that generate daily truck traffic in rural areas to locate on paved roads next to growth areas. Staff proposes deleting that rule.
Heating: For businesses requiring an Act 250 permit, staff proposes recommending alternatives to oil, propane or gas when those alternatives are cost-effective.
Retail stores: Stores whose main business is retail would still be barred from Rural General and Rural Agriculture and Forestry. Staff proposes keeping those limits.
What’s allowed in Rural Conservation: Only farming, forestry, homes, outdoor recreation, home businesses, farm businesses and conservation. Staff added the two business types to the original list.
Leasing land for solar or a cell tower. These projects go through the Public Utility Commission instead of Act 250. The draft says solar farms larger than house scale, 15 kilowatts, “shall not be located” in Rural Conservation. It says cell towers can go there only if no other reasonable location or technology can meet coverage needs. The Public Utility Commission decides those applications under state law. It gives regional plans at least “due consideration” and, in some cases, “substantial deference,” according to the commission’s FAQ.
Who Should Decide
The commission reported 114 commenters across 27 towns. Submissions included 11 official letters from town bodies and a petition with 120 signatures, according to the commission’s own count. Much of the disagreement is about how far a regional plan should reach:
Bridgewater’s selectboard noted that the town’s voters have rejected zoning three times. It asked that “must” and “shall” in the plan become “may,” turning requirements into recommendations. The commission’s reply pointed to its proposed revisions, which would do that for dozens of policies.
Fairlee’s planning commission said the language reads as highly regulatory, and that people could reasonably see the regional commissions as a de facto county government. The commission answered that the Legislature deliberately built a system with separate state, regional and local layers, and that local zoning doesn’t take priority over the others.
The state’s Land Use Review Board, in its Aug. 6 preliminary review, questioned whether the plan’s mandatory rules infringe on landowners’ constitutional property rights without enough input from the people who own the land. It asked the commission to show that towns and residents support rules including the 10-building cap, the one-acre limit and the rural retail ban, or to make them recommendations. It called the one-acre limit arbitrary and potentially very limiting, and said the retail ban could rule out a general store. It also asked the commission to show that its rural rules won’t fall hardest on lower-income, older and rural residents.
The commission disputes that its draft infringes constitutional property rights. It said the state board “erred” in holding stricter policies to a different approval standard, and that it sees no basis for that standard in statute. In the commission’s view, a town’s support is expressed through the commissioner each town appoints to the board. The commission noted that the state board has already approved one regional plan with mandatory language, and that mandatory language in past Two Rivers plans has held up in court.
The process itself drew objections. In August, the commission acknowledged that it violated Vermont’s open meeting law in March by voting on a land-use change without allowing public comment, the White River Valley Herald reported. That March vote had softened a rule: new year-round buildings in certain interior forest areas went from “shall not” to “should not.” The board voted again after allowing public comment, and adopted a rule requiring an opportunity for public comment on agenda items.
What Happens Next
The board’s next scheduled meeting is Sept. 30. Once the board settles the revisions, the commission will post a second draft at least 30 days before a final hearing and notify every town.
Every regional commission must have an adopted plan under Act 181 by Dec. 31, 2026, according to the Land Use Review Board. The Two Rivers commission told Fairlee’s planning commission that an extension doesn’t appear possible, and that it is still researching how the deadline affects the plan. After the commission adopts the plan, the Land Use Review Board decides whether to approve it. An adopted plan runs eight years.
Corinth’s selectboard asked the commission to state as plainly as possible what the plan does and doesn’t require of landowners. The commission said it will clarify how its policies apply through Act 250 and explain what triggers that review.
CHECK YOUR LAND (TWO RIVERS TOWNS)
Is your town in Two Rivers? Barnard, Bethel, Bradford, Braintree, Bridgewater, Brookfield, Chelsea, Corinth, Fairlee, Granville, Hancock, Hartford, Hartland, Newbury, Norwich, Pittsfield, Plymouth, Pomfret, Randolph, Rochester, Royalton, Sharon, Stockbridge, Strafford, Thetford, Topsham, Tunbridge, Vershire, West Fairlee and Woodstock. Other regions are redrawing their maps under the same law, and the statewide map shows all of them.
Find your property’s category: Open the draft map and type your address in the search box at the upper right. To see how your parcel changes, use the old-versus-new comparison tool, which shows percentages by parcel.
Would your project need Act 250? Start with the state’s jurisdiction list. If your land already has an Act 250 permit, or you’re unsure, ask your district coordinator for a written jurisdictional opinion through act250.vermont.gov. It’s the only definite answer.
Think your land is mapped wrong? The commission takes correction requests based on conditions on the ground until the plan is adopted. After adoption, a minor change, which can include one involving fewer than 10 acres, needs a yes vote from your selectboard and the commission board. The request then goes to the Land Use Review Board for a decision, and it doesn’t require amending the whole plan. Contact TRORC at regionalplan@trorc.org, 802-457-3188, or 128 King Farm Road, Woodstock, VT 05091.
Comment on the second draft: It will be posted on the commission’s regional plan page at least 30 days before the final hearing. Send comments to regionalplan@trorc.org.
The primary purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self-governing. Please consider a paid subscription to support our efforts.
This is the best, most understandable analysis I have read of Vermont’s new land use laws. Beautifully written, comprehensive and actionable. Great work. I’m becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you!