H.223 Protects Lakeshore Landowner’s Best Interests

Vermont’s precious shorelines are under siege from development pressures almost everywhere in the state.

Habitat important to the aquatic environment has little protection as things now stand, where zoning regulations are established by people at the most local level, who most often do not even begin to consider the unique vulnerabilities of a lakeshore ecosystem.

Since the people making those decisions typically lack any eco-science background, when push-comes-to-shove, immediate economic or scenic interests tend to prevail over long term protections for the environment.  

Ignorant of the impacts, landowners frequently strip the shoreline of small trees and shrubs so that their view is unimpeded, thus allowing polluted runoff to much more rapidly invade the waterway, and depriving lakeshore wildlife of the sheltering habitat that maintains a healthy aquatic lifecycle.

A bill that is currently being shaped in the House, H.223, represents a bold effort to save that habitat before it’s too late to do so.

As all of the lakes of Vermont are central to the public good, providing both economic and recreational benefit when their vitality is maintained,  the interests of the people are best upheld when efforts to protect those waters are coordinated on a statewide level and can benefit from the knowledge and training of ANR’s environmental science specialists.

It is with that in mind that shoreland regulation is proposed to

 Protect water quality, wildlife habitat, bank stability…protect the uses and values of lakes such as recreation, angling, tourism; and the property tax base….avoid expensive lake restoration in the future… (and) respond responsibly to economic development along lakeshores.

This bill does not in any way represent an effort to end or limit enjoyment of the lakeshore by landowners who currently live and recreate there.  Nor does it undermine the rich commercial potential of lakeshore properties. It only seeks to establish common sense zoning regulations to protect aquatic assets so that their value may be enjoyed by Vermonters for generations into the future.  

No one wants to spend time on a dead or dying beach.  It is therefore in the best interests of lakshore property owners to support H.223, as it will protect them and their valuable property from destruction and losses that might occur as the result of irresponsible practices  elsewhere on the shoreline.

H.223 is still in the formative stage, but already opponents of regulation are raising the usual alarms, suggesting the bill is  “another” attempt to take away landowner’s rights of self-determination.  Nothing could be further from the truth. It simply recognizes that the lakes belong to everyone.  As lakeshore habitat tends to cross town and county boundaries, impacts of poor management cannot be regarded as the isolated concern of a single town or village.

It is only good sense to establish statewide zoning rules to govern the management of our lakeshore, and to do it now before we get swept up in another building and development boom.

About Sue Prent

Artist/Writer/Activist living in St. Albans, Vermont with my husband since 1983. I was born in Chicago; moved to Montreal in 1969; lived there and in Berlin, W. Germany until we finally settled in St. Albans.

4 thoughts on “H.223 Protects Lakeshore Landowner’s Best Interests

  1. Glad to see your post.  Opponents appear at odds with their own best interests.  Keeping shoreline vegetation intact – or replanting it with native plants if it’s been removed – is a no-brainer.  It’s time for owners of lakeside and streamside property to recognize their responsibility to their watershed.  It’s clear that lake associations and town rules aren’t taken seriously; I believe people who degrade littoral areas need to face consequences for removing these free, hard working tools.  As you said, nothing is being taken away..

    Keeping healthy buffers adds to the value of the property,

    avoids the damage of erosion and invasive plant opportunities,

    Filters runoff from the water and provides wonderful habitat.  

    Who wouldn’t want kingfishers or bank swallows as neighbors?  

    Those who don’t appreciate the importance of these ecosystem services remind me of Woody Allen who said:  

    “Nature and I are two.”

  2. and is likely to be modified if it’s going to pass through the committee.

    Several problems with the bill as it’s currently written:

    Section 1422(8) defines shorelands as

    “lands between the mean water level of the lake exceeding 20 acres and a line not less than 500 feet nor more than 1000 feet from such mean water level.”

    Section 1422(29) defines protected shoreline as

    “all land located within 250 feet of the mean water level of a lake.”

    Section 1433(a) then states that

    “Beginning January 1, 2016, a person shall not commence or conduct land development or a disturbance in the protected shoreline zone, or when applicable, within a shoreline without a permit issued by the Secretary under the rules required under Section 1432 of this title.”

    Section 1432(c) establishes rules for the protected shoreline area:

    c.1: setback of 25 feet from the protected shoreline;

    c.2: maximum building heights for new primary structures;

    c.3: minimum lot sizes and lake frontage for new lots;

    c.4: limits on impervious surfaces and new design requirements for driveways and highways;

    With the exception of 1432(c).1, these rules are vague and are provoking opposition by lakeside landowners.  What’s the maximum height?  And how does max height clearly relate to any of the stated legislated goals (Section 1431)?  And the same goes for minimum lot size and lake frontage.  What size?  How long of a frontage?  Just those two items (c.2 and c.3) have the potential to serve as takings and affect property rights without any established connection (especially scientifically specific to water quality and fish habitat) to the stated legislative goals.

    The goals of the bill are widely supported by Vermonters, including those who will be directly affected by the proposed legislation.  But how these goals are best achieved while protecting landowner rights is up for debate, and as such, the bill is likely to undergo significant revision if it’s to pass through committee.

Comments are closed.