Pause to revise Act 181 likely Chester residents weigh in at Planning Commission meeting

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2026 Telegraph Publishing LLC

At last week’s Chester Planning Commission meeting focused on Act 181, Land Use Review Board member Alex Weinhagen said his group would like more time to work on getting new rules — which make major changes to Act 250 — right.

Then, in an interview with The Telegraph on Monday, he said he’s confident this will happen in current session with the passage of a bill to extend deadlines for rule-making and dates for the rules to take effect.

“I’ve been told by numerous legislators and others following the legislature that S.325 will pass,” said Weinhagen, “and that there will be extensions to the Tier 3 rule-making deadline and the road construction jurisdiction effective date. There doesn’t seem to be any question that those will be extended.” Senate bill 325 started out as a four-page bill to create a task force for one thing and became a 27-page bill to extend Act 181 deadlines.

A Tier 3 area is where the LURB has identified “critical natural resources” that would need to be protected by Act 250. These include habitat connectors, river corridors, natural communities of animals or plants, steep slopes, rare, threatened or endangered species and interior forest blocks among others.  Click here for a Frequently Asked Questions put out by Act 250 on April 13.

“Our board has been very clear that the public feedback has been substantial and we are the ones recommending that those dates be pushed out so that we can have more time and so Vermonters can have more time to get their hands around this.” He also said that would give the legislature more time to see if more “tweaks” to Act 181 are necessary.

And while the delay will be welcomed by those who attended last week’s meeting, many are seeking a repeal of Act 181 – in part or wholly. At the same time, a group of 57 Vermont lawmakers – The Rural Caucus – has sent a letter to house leadership asking for the repeal of Tier 3 and the road rule.

Chester residents concerned about impacts on their land

With lots of questions circulating about Act 181, Hugh Quinn, Chester’s Zoning Administrator and chair of the town’s Planning Commission, invited Weinhagen, the chair of the group writing the rules for Act 181’s Tier 3, to Chester — via Zoom — last week for some answers.

A little more than 50 people gathered at Town Hall and online to hear about the intricacies of the “road rule,” “habitat connectors” and how the system of tiers regulates development projects, some of which would need to be reviewed under Act 250.

At its most basic, Act 181 encourages development of housing and other economic activity in areas where there is existing infrastructure like water and sewer. For rural areas that “location-based” Act 250 jurisdiction means that if a property has certain environmental characteristics or requires long roads or driveways, they will require an Act 250 review.

Before taking questions, Weinhagen gave a slide presentation explaining the Act 250 process and showing that the overwhelming majority of projects reviewed under Act 250 were granted permits without public hearings.

Right off the bat, Commission member Scott MacDonald expressed one of the main concerns: clarification on the so called “road rule.” The rule triggers an Act 250 review when a landowner builds a road longer than 800 feet or a driveway of more that 2,000 feet. MacDonald was concerned that the length of current driveways counted toward the total that trigger review.

Weinhagen said the law only refers to new construction and not to existing roads or driveways.

On Monday, Weinhagen told The Telegraph that the law does not define road or driveway and so the LURB has ruled proposed guidance that a driveway leads to three or fewer homes while a road leads to four or more homes. He also said that accessory dwelling units (like a mother-in-law apartment in a separate building) don’t count against the number of homes in the definition of a driveway. Also, a duplex house is considered a single unit so three duplexes would count as three homes.

Russ Monier was concerned that rules established now would be changed by lawmakers seeking to protect “new headwaters” or introducing new animals or expanding their habitat, therefore making land unbuildable.

“What happens down the road is a good question,” responded Weinhagen, adding that there would need to be good reasons to change the rules, which would require re-opening the public process.

Weinhagen emphasized that the LURB process for making those decisions is public and members respond to public input. He added that the board wants to give landowners as much flexibility as possible and is working to make the Tier 3 footprint smaller.

Lucas Saunders told Weinhagen that he purchased land that has a wastewater permit and wondered how this would affect him. While he might be able to build a house in the near term, Saunders was uncertain if he would later be able to build a garage or a chicken coop.

Weinhagen said that the rules would not keep him from building a garage or a chicken coop and he encouraged Saunders to get in touch to talk about how the rules might affect his property.

Long time surveyor Phil Atwood said that in 1969 — when Vermont was “booming” and surveyors were working 80 hours a week — the state needed Act 249 because sewage was running down the gutters in new developments. He called Act 250 in 1970 a “good law” that got stricter and stricter,  causing developers to make bad land use decisions to get around the triggers for review.

A couple of questions addressed the law’s effect on farms. Weinhagen explained that the state of Vermont has definitions on what is considered a farm and there are exemptions under the act and under municipal zoning for them.

As the meeting wound down, and discussion turned to wildlife corridors, Eric Schubert said, “There’s not one person here that’s excited about this and that’s the message you have to take back with you. Animals don’t care … They’ll cross the roads.” Schubert said he worried that “this is a long term land grab” with the idea of raising taxes and people will be priced out of their homes.

“It feels like a loss of privacy, a loss of freedom,” he said.

Weinhagen said he would take Schubert’s message back to the board, unvarnished. He reminded the audience that the board must implement the law, but cannot rewrite it: “If you don’t like what’s happening, please tell your legislator. They’ve been hearing the message.”

He said the bill that is in front of the legislature gives everyone time to change the law. Weinhagen also urged public participation. “Pick up the phone, call me. Send me an email,”  he said. Weinhagen can be reached at 802-480-1885 or at alex.weinhagen@vermont.g0v