House lawmakers on Tuesday expressed support for repealing the land-use reforms that sparked outcry last month among rural Vermonters who are worried that the new regulations might make it harder to develop their land.

After hearing testimony in opposition to the new rules for two weeks, members of the House Committee on Environment conceded that Act 181, the law they passed two years ago to reform Act 250, was proving problematic.

“Certainly we don’t need our shared interest in protecting our environment to divide Vermont, particularly at this moment,” Rep. Amy Sheldon (D-Middlebury) said during a somber hearing.

The Senate voted last month to postpone two of the reforms that sparked opposition. But Sheldon said she was willing to go further and repeal those two particularly disliked provisions of Act 181.

She said she agreed that repeal was needed for the tougher environmental regulations envisioned for “Tier 3” areas with sensitive habitats, and the “road rule” that would require additional environmental review for new roads over 800 feet long.

Those rules were still under development. But as details emerged, the political backlash was fierce from rural landowners who argued that they were getting tougher rules while the regs were relaxed in more urban areas. Hundreds of people held a rally on the Statehouse steps last month.

Rep. Rob North (R-Ferrisburgh) said rural residents were informed that their land would be included in certain more protective areas, instead of being made part of the process.

“They got brought in way after the fact, and they just need to be brought in earlier,” North said.

Statehouse steps in March Credit: Kevin McCallum

The goal of the reform was to make it easier to build housing by relaxing permitting requirements in already developed areas with robust land-use rules (Tier 1); keeping it largely the same in most of the state (Tier 2); and toughening land-use rules around headwaters, wildlife corridors and “sensitive natural communities” (Tier 3).

Rep. Ela Chapin (D-East Montpelier) said she regretted that people didn’t realize those areas were in the process of being narrowed. But she said she was very impressed with the thoughtfulness of the feedback the committee received in recent weeks.

“I’m mourning we have to start over in some ways, but am also excited that we have new information from the last two years,” she said.

While the committee took no action, the acknowledgment by Sheldon that repeal was needed, and the agreement from other committee members, was a major development in the yearslong Act 250 reform process.

Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden Central) said he was “shocked” to hear Sheldon’s committee had done what amounts to an about-face on the policy.

But Sen. Anne Watson (D/P-Washington), chair of the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, seemed less surprised by the pivot in the House.

She had proposed a delay of the Tier 3 rules until 2028 and the road rule until 2030 to allow more feedback on the policies. But that feedback came fast and furious and was hard to refute, she said.

“The more that I have learned, the more I have come to understand that there were some legitimate problems with the policy,” Watson said.

If the House indeed votes to repeal portions of Act 181, Watson said she would take some testimony on the idea before making any decisions. But she acknowledged she was unlikely to resist the change.

“I think the goals are good, and think there are maybe other ways to achieve them,” she said.