By Taylor Hella

Vermont’s housing shortage is no longer a future concern; it is a present crisis. Across the state, rental vacancies hover near zero, and home prices have soared beyond the reach of working Vermonters.[1] Yet even as the state pours millions into affordable housing initiatives, local zoning ordinances often stand in the way of building the homes that Vermont needs. Vermont’s land use provisions, designed to preserve scenic beauty and small-town identity,[2] now serve as a barrier to urgent housing needs.

The resulting tension between local control and statewide necessity defines Vermont’s affordable housing debate. While state lawmakers have passed legislation like S.100 (2023) to streamline housing development, the patchwork of municipal zoning codes under Title 24, Chapter 117 of the Vermont Statutes still dictates who gets to live where.[3] The state’s deep commitment to home rule and environmental preservation, though admirable, risks reinforcing class and racial segregation through law.[4]

Under Vermont’s Municipal and Regional Planning and Development Act, each town wields broad power over land-use decisions.[5] These local bylaws, often drafted by volunteer planning commissions, determine minimum lot sizes, density caps, and permissible housing types.[6] In theory, this allows communities to tailor growth to local needs. In practice, however, these bylaws often restrict affordable housing. For example, large-lot zoning in rural areas effectively excludes multifamily units and raises per-unit costs. Scholars have long identified this phenomenon as exclusionary zoning: a system in which seemingly neutral land-use regulations yield exclusionary outcomes by making housing unaffordable or inaccessible to lower-income residents.[7]

The Supreme Court cemented this framework in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., where the Court upheld a zoning ordinance that segregated land uses in the name of order and aesthetics.[8] While Euclid’s rationale still anchors modern zoning, it has evolved into a tool of exclusion. The same logic that once protected residential tranquility now enables towns to reject the duplex next door.

Vermont’s strong environmental laws, especially Act 250, amplify this tension.[9] Enacted in 1970 to regulate large-scale development and protect natural resources, Act 250 requires detailed environmental review for most new projects.[10] Although it remains a cornerstone of Vermont’s environmental identity, critics argue that it unintentionally limits affordable housing construction by adding cost, delay, and uncertainty.[11]

Similarly, wastewater and septic regulations under Title 10 often limit higher-density housing even in suitable areas.[12] The paradox is striking: laws meant to preserve Vermont’s rural charm now contribute to its demographic decline. Vermont has preserved its landscape but priced out its people.

Recognizing these barriers, the Legislature passed the so-called “HOME Act” to reduce municipal gatekeeping.[13] The Act mandates that certain municipalities allow duplexes or triplexes in residential districts previously zoned only for single-family homes.[14] It also requires towns with designated downtowns or village centers to ease parking and lot-size restrictions and accelerates permitting for infill housing.[15]

Yet even this modest reform sparked intense backlash from local officials and residents, who viewed it as a serious threat to Vermont’s tradition of town control.[16] The debate exposed the fragility of Vermont’s home-rule ethos: when statewide needs collide with local autonomy, even minor reforms can trigger constitutional anxiety.[17]

From a policy standpoint, S.100 is progress. From a structural standpoint, it may be too little. Without a deeper rethinking of how local zoning power interacts with state goals, Vermont’s housing crisis will persist as a legal, not just economic, problem.

Many Vermont municipal zoning codes emphasize the importance of maintaining a town’s existing character. While the phrase character of the area appears neutral, scholars argue that community-character zoning operates as a subtle form of exclusion in land-use regulation.[18] Courts generally defer to local boards’ interpretations of character, rarely demanding evidentiary rigor.[19] This deference compounds structural bias: older, wealthier residents dominate public hearings, while renters, young families, and newcomers are rarely present.[20] The process thus replicates inequity under the guise of deliberative democracy.

Here, principles like facilitated dialogue and collaborative problem-solving could improve procedural equity in zoning processes.[21] Vermont’s existing mediation culture suggests a path for designing inclusive zoning deliberations that reduce the adversarial tenor of public meetings.[22] Just as mediation fosters understanding between disputants, structured facilitation may help bridge tension between ‘growth’ and ‘preservation.’

Vermont is hardly alone in grappling with exclusionary zoning. Oregon’s HB 2001 preempts local zoning to legalize “missing middle” housing statewide.[23] Massachusetts’ MBTA Communities Act links transit-oriented zoning compliance to state funding, pressuring municipalities to allow multifamily development.[24] California’s ADU reforms override local bans on accessory units entirely.[25]

Each model narrows the scope of local control in favor of statewide equity; a principal Vermont  resists. As housing scarcity worsens, Vermont may have to adopt similar measures. Preemption need not mean abandoning Vermont’s participatory culture; it can mean redefining participation to include those historically excluded by process itself.

Vermont prides itself on community, yet its zoning laws too often privilege nostalgia over need. “Preserving character” should not mean preserving exclusion. A modern interpretation of Vermont’s land-use ethos would recognize that diversity is part of the state’s character.

State laws can no longer treat housing as a purely economic good or zoning as a purely local affair. Act 250 must expand to include housing justice; the future of Vermont’s landscape, and its communities, depends on it.

[1] St. of VT Agency of Com. and Cmty Dev., Vermont Housing Needs Assessment (2025), https://accd.vermont.gov/housing/plans-data-rules/needs-assessment.

[2] 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(8) (2025) (“intended to preserve the aesthetics or scenic beauty of the area”).

[3] An Act Relating to Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone (HOME Act), 2023 Vt. Acts & Resolves 47; 24 V.S.A. §§ 4382(a)(1)–(2), 4411(a) (2023) (empowering municipalities to determine land-use patterns, residential density, and population distribution through planning and zoning bylaws).

[4] Jessica Trounstine, Land Use Regulation and Residential Segregation, The Regulatory Review (Apr. 11, 2022), https://www.theregreview.org/2022/04/11/trounstine-land-use-regulation/.

[5] 24 V.S.A. § 4411(b).

[6] Id. § 4414(1).

[7] Christopher Serkin & Leslie Wellington, Putting Exclusionary Zoning in Its Place: Affordable Housing and Geographical Scale, 40 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1667, 1667 (2013).

[8] 272 U.S. 365, 379 (1926).

[9] See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §§ 6001–11 (Act 250).

[10] Id. § 6086.

[11] Olga Peters, Construction: Act 250 and Math That Isn’t Working, Vt. Bus. Mag. (June 9, 2024), https://vermontbiz.com/news/2024/june/09/construction-act-250-and-math-isnt-working.

[12] Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10 §§ 1973–78.

[13] HOME Act, supra note 4.

[14] Id. § 4303; see also Vermont League of Cities & Towns, S.100 Summary (2023).

[15] HOME Act, supra note 3.

[16] See Lola Duffort, New Senate Housing Bill Amendments Draw Opposition from Vermont League of Cities and Towns, VTDigger (Mar. 15, 2023), https://vtdigger.org/2023/03/15/new-senate-housing-bill-amendments-draw-opposition-from-vermont-league-of-cities-and-towns/ (“The Vermont League of Cities and Towns is typically opposed to anything that would infringe on a municipality’s autonomy.”); see also Carly Berlin, To Add Housing in Much of Vermont, You Need Wastewater Infrastructure. Local Opposition Can Kill It, VTDigger (Feb. 25, 2025), https://vtdigger.org/2025/02/25/to-add-housing-in-much-of-vermont-you-need-wastewater-infrastructure-local-opposition-can-kill-it/ (quoting Peter Locher, chair of Montgomery’s planning commission, “Nobody moved here for a more dense population.”).

[17] See Duffort, supra note 17 (discussing legislative resistance rooted in concerns over municipal autonomy); see also Berlin, supra note 17 (noting resident fears that infrastructure would bring unwanted state-driven housing growth).

[18] See Michael Lewyn, The Case Against the Case for Zoning, 35 Geo. Envt’l. L. Rev. 249 (2023).

[19] In re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLC, 185 Vt. 201 (deferring to zoning board’s interpretation of “character of the area” standard).

[20] See Sara C. Bronin, Zoning by a Thousand Cuts, 50 Pepp. L. Rev. 719, 761–62 (2023).

[21] Anika Singh Lemar, Overparticipation: Designing Effective Land Use Public Processes, 90 Fordham L. Rev. 1083, 1118 (2021).

[22] Patrick Field, Kate Harvey, & Matt Strassberg, Integrating Mediation in Land Use Decision Making, Land Lines Jan. 2009.

[23] H.B. 2001, 80th Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2019) (enacted).

[24] Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 3A (2023) (conditioning certain state funding on compliance with multifamily zoning requirements near transit).

[25] Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65852.2–65852.22 (2024).