Column: Reject Royalton’s proposed flood hazard bylaw

I’ve been following the development of the proposed Royalton flood hazard area regulations by the town Planning Commission, and effectively rubber-stamped by a well-meaning Selectboard, since there was a public meeting about it in May 2024. As noted by the Planning Commission chair in that meeting (and subsequently reiterated), the proposed proposed bylaws are a “complete rewrite” of whatever flood-related measures are currently in effect in Royalton.

What is clear from the feedback delivered by concerned citizens at that meeting, as well as subsequent Selectboard meetings over the past several months and, most recently, at the pre-Town Meeting this past Tuesday, is that the stakeholders for the new bylaws (our Selectboard and Planning Commission) have chosen to rely predominantly on the input of non-community resources (the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission and unspecified others) rather than truly hearing and addressing the serious concerns coming from the local community. Not only is this unfortunate but it also is despite what is “required” by the Royalton Town Plan (page 119; adopted March 3, 2020): “Future revisions to Royalton’s flood hazard regulations will require input from the community regarding the level of regulation they believe is necessary to protect citizens and their buildings from severe flood hazard events.”

The stock response from the Planning Commission and, to a lesser extent, the Selectboard to public inquiry about the rush to implement these new bylaws has been two-fold — “public safety” and “local control.” However, in a town where there is no building code, no electrical code and no plumbing code, the superficial resort to the otherwise empty notion of generic “safety” rings hollow; we should either fully embrace taking steps to implement truly safety-minded measures applicable to all citizens of Royalton (rather than prejudicing those relative few — approximately 215 parcels — who happen to share their lands with the adjacent riverways) or we should be honest enough with our neighbors to acknowledge that little by little, we are effectuating zoning and backing our way into all that entails. (And along the way, prepare our town’s limited budget to bear the brunt of anticipated significant takings-related litigation that can be all but assumed to follow if Article II passes at Town Meeting.)

As for rushing in a set of regulations (bonus points if you can even decipher what is written in the document’s 21 pages of rules and six pages of definitions) while Vermont’s Flood Safety Act (Act 121) is implemented, here again the devil is in the details, which are strikingly lacking in the proposed bylaw despite its length, and a whole important aspect — the so-called Board of Adjustment — remains unclear and subject to further appointments by the Selectboard. The administration of these proposed new measures may be local, but that does not ensure they will be handled any better than by the state (which has done pretty well with Act 250 and governance of septic regulations).

All signs point to the prudence of pumping the brakes here, truly soliciting and addressing public feedback, and then coming back to the citizens of Royalton in due course. On this basis, I encourage all voters in Royalton to stand up, be counted, and vote “No on Article II” on March 4, 2025.

Matthew Matule is an attorney and a member of the Royalton citizen group 500-Year Landowners Stand United!.