VT Division for Historic Preservation
Proposes Changes to Rule 4:
“Historic Sites and Act 250”

In 2001, the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (DHP) promulgated Rule 4 to describe its process in the course of Act 250 reviews. In 2009, the DHP proposed revisions to Rule 4 in an attempt to clarify the DHP’s role under Act 250 law.   

Between June 23 and July 21, 2009, the DHP held five meetings around the state to gather comments and suggestions on a preliminary Draft Rule.  The Draft had also been posted on the DHP's web site for public review and comment.  The DHP solicited and received many written and verbal comments during the period of the five meetings and afterward. Meetings were held in Williston (June 23), Rutland (June 25), St. Johnsbury (June 30), Rockingham (July 14), and-, in Swanton (July 21). Over 100 people attended the public meetings. All comments received in writing and notes from the meetings are posted here. The DHP also worked closely with the Natural Resources Board throughout 2009 on the revised rule.

As a result of the public meetings and the feedback received, the DHP made further revisions to its proposed draft of Rule 4 to clarify the Rule’s relation to statute and the process. The proposed revisions to Rule 4 lay out the role of the DHP, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Act 250 District Environmental Commissions in the Act 250 land use permitting process.

The proposed revised Rule also distinguishes the role and authority of the District Environmental Commissions from the DHP’s role with respect to protecting “historic sites” under Criterion 8 of Act 250. The revised Rule incorporates all pertinent definitions (presently found separately in Rule 2); emphasizes the definition of “historic site” under the law (distinct and different from the definitions in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act); describes the criteria used to evaluate the “historic significance” of historic resources (including archeological sites); encourages collaboration with DHP in early project planning prior to formally applying for an Act 250 permit;  and clarifies that these are the DHP’s rules of procedure, not the Natural Resources Board’s rules.

Rule 4 thus poses no obligation on Act 250 permit applicants nor on the Act 250 District Environmental Commissions. However, if followed, the revised Rule 4 should make the process of applying for an Act 250 permit smoother and more predictable for an applicant under the “historic sites” section of Criterion 8.

After review by the Interagency Committee on Administrative Rules, the proposed rule revisions will be submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office. The formal rules adoption process includes a public hearing.

After that the rule must be reviewed by the joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules before it can be put in place.

Giovanna Peebles, SHPO and State Archeologist