 Welcome everybody it is Wednesday September 9th and this is the General Housing and Military Affairs Committee. We are picking up work on S237 which we've been working on now for for several weeks and today I wanted to start off the day with David Hall who is going to come in I may ask them to make some some changes to H739 that we would I would like us to consider to be inserting into this bill as because this as the end of the biennium we're into trying to take bills that have that are germane to housing and make sort of an honor this bill and this bill has been talked about a lot in this committee and I just asked them to make some changes that were reflective of things that have happened since March. And also some realities about what we think we can get across the line. Also here is Alan Szczewski. I'm sorry I put your name on again. The who has a straight call amendment to 237 based on the recommendations or the draft recommendations really that I made yesterday based on what I picked from from different resources. So also with us today are representative Amy Sheldon and representative Kari Dolan represented Sheldon is the chair of the Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources Committee. I'm sorry if I butchered your committee's name. And, and Kari is also on that committee and they have spent quite a bit of their time working on active 50 over the biennium and I think that they can. I asked them to come in to help with this bill. If there was anything that that they can help with. They did a walk through yesterday. So with that, I just like to open up the microphone to David Hall, because I'd like to get through just this discussion of 739. And put it aside so we can focus on 237 so David, I asked you to do some work on 739 is wondering if you could just. Have you been made a co host yet. I don't know. All right. Looks like yes. Okay, thank you so if you can just. Through the bill last week you reminded us quite a bit quite a bit was in the bill. So if you could just, you know, review for the committee, what I asked you to present today that would be great. Sure. So, David Hall legislative council. I hope what you have on your screen is a draft 4.1 of 8 739. Yes, relating to improving rental housing health and safety. We've talked about this bill fair amount. Again, last week is a chair indicated section one unchanged since you last slot. And remember that this vests the authority with the Department of Public Safety and specifically the vision of fire safety to conduct. Basically the oversight and enforcement of rental housing health and safety laws. Right now that's bifurcated or is shared between the departments of health and local health officials and this would sort of shift the state side from health to public safety. And then the local side would continue as it currently is. Again, there's no changes here. So if you have questions on this section, please let me know. As I scroll. Otherwise, I'm going to keep moving. Anyone section to here. This is the rental housing registry language. This is the statutory authorization and directive to the Department of Housing Community Development Coordination with fire safety health 911 board and taxes. To create and maintain a registry of the rental housing in the state. And then three is the requirement to register. I have modified this you see here in a for a couple of reasons one to eliminate the fee. And two, the landlord certificate scheme that was going to pass this year is not going to happen, it looks like. And right now the statute itself in still entitled 32 governing landlord certificates is not as comprehensive as the duty to register that's being imposed. It doesn't apply across the board that landlords have to provide certificates. And therefore the language that was left over was not going to work in my view. The way I changed it is to peg the registration date to the same date that when a landlord does have to file with Department of Taxes by January 31. So we're going to step up on that from title 32 and eliminating the fee language. We have what you see in a. So accept is provided in those specific cases relating to mobile homes mobile home lots on or before January 31 of each year and owner of rental housing shall register each rental unit with the ACD. Did they already do this or is this part of what they report to tax. Right now they do not register with the ACD this would be the duty to sign up with the ACD for the registry itself. So, right now there are different requirements for landlords to file with tax depending on the type of property, what they have to have more than one unit and post to register at that point it's compliance is not 100%. So, this really decouples the DHCD registration process from the Department of Tax process which my understanding is in flux, relative to what was being proposed. When we began this year. Representative Hango, do you have a question on the content or on the concept. I don't know the answer to that question my question is did David say that there will be no $35 registration fee for a rental housing registry. In this proposal, yes. So then I wonder how those new positions that we talked about would be funded so let's just keep that in mind as we go along. Thank you. All right, so, one, two, and three, are the same substantively they don't have any reference to registration fees obviously but the same the penalty and sees the same section four and five are session law authorizations for the positions within DPS and with within DHCD. At this point, it's just an authorization. There's no appropriation. There's no fee. There's no duty. And my understanding from the testimony previously is right now they can't add these positions of the can't fill these positions because of the hiring freeze and because of the inability to train these folks. You know, it's usually what you would have here in sections four and five is the authority to create these positions. And, you know, whether and how they are funded and on boarded is going to be an open question. Section six is unchanged. These are conforming changes entitled 18 concerning basically the duties of local health officials in the Department of Health which are no longer applicable. Section seven is the transition provisions and remember that this basically lays out how the authority migrates from health to public safety and how the rental housing health and safety code that currently exists. In effect, DPS can adopt it and hold cloth without going through rulemaking, or it cannot adopt its own changes to that code, but it has to go through rulemaking. And then so note that the timing here and be that upon adoption of rules governing housing health and safety. DPS is becomes the entity with primary authority over rental housing health and safety DPS local officials have concurrent authority on this subject. And under three health local health have the authority with the local with each other for public health hazards and public health risks. So, before I move on to eight, let me, let me pull that all together for you. So the net result is this, the Department of Public Safety would have the legal authority to in statute to adopt. Excuse me to basically inspect and force. The housing health and safety laws. Remember that they already have roughly 70% of the issues this would close out the rest. They're already doing inspections and some cases and they're always take already taking enforcement actions on their portion of it, this would give them the rest and give them the statutory authority to. For instance, if they were in a building, and they saw something that was rental housing health and safety related. And they're always in their jurisdiction, rather than referring that to the locals or to the Department of Health. They can move forward enforcing the health and safety laws themselves. Without the new five positions probably not going to be significant or any expansion of what they do, other than those properties where there's some sort of co occurring issue. And, you know, under section seven, the trigger for them to become nominally the primary authority and state government for enforcing this stuff is when they adopt rules. Again, they have the authority here to adopt the health and safety code immediately, or they can go through rulemaking and come up with something else. And section eight is, is the penalties for vacant property study, I did change the date to March 15 of next year, just because I mean it had been something I can't remember if it was December November of this year but there was more time to do that. I wasn't sure what the right date is, whether you would have time to act on it next session. You know, so March 15. Kind of a shot in the dark policy choice up to you guys. The last piece is the effective date. For the moment, I've made everything effective on passage. And I remember that the way this was originally drafted, it was going to be a phased implementation starting in July, and then October, and then January, and then April for all these different pieces without any money directly involved here. Otherwise, the registration requirement is now pegged in statute to January 31. Which so you've got a while before that'll take effect. Every the, all the authority that is created in this act can go ahead and take effect on passage and then, you know, subsequent implementation is probably going to require additional steps down the road, I guess. So I have so far, happy to take questions. Okay, we have a question from Representative Triana. So, without any funding, David, this bill, if we pass this, it will give, it will render the authority totally from the Department of Health, the Department of Public Safety, and it will give the authority to hire these positions once funding is found for these positions. Is that accurate? I think that's accurate. Okay. Thank you. And David, does this and just to reiterate this allows the. This has the enabling language for the registry to be developed. Yes. And so, and committee, we've talked about the possibility of using CRF funds for this. And that is in the budget. As it stands right now, we'll hear, we'll probably hear about that over the next couple of days. So there is funding for it as long as it can be done prior to December 31. So if it can't be done before the 31st, then obviously this can't happen in this way. And it remains, it remains in unfunded. It remains unfunded. Representative Hango. Yes, thank you. I just want to bring up a point that I brought up last week when we discussed H739 and that is the computer system that would run this registry. I don't see anything in this latest iteration of how we would upgrade and or pay for that. So that remains a concern for me. Thank you. Okay. And that's exactly what the funding would be for that if they can, if they can manage the system prior to the end of the year, as long as that remains the deadline for the expenditure of CRF. So also, then the funding for the personnel. Same thing. CRF funds. No, we can't use, we can use CRF in the creation of the registry, we cannot use it for ongoing. Again, it becomes at the the ability of the department to be able to hire the people and right now there's a hiring freeze on. So this is just part of the process of building that system. And without the new rental rebates system. So we've received testimony over over time that the public information that is already available through the rental rebate program can be used in order to build this system. It's not reliant on the new system that they had proposed and thought that they were going to be able to implement earlier this session. Actually, that testimony was not satisfactory to assure me that we could use that database and that it could be shared across agencies. So I, I'm still referring back to the testimony that we received from the Department of Taxes and the agency of digital services that was not something they believed could easily happen. So I do remain concerned about the computer system and the information system and I also remain concerned about the personnel, how they're going to get these people on board get them trained and be able to carry out the function of this law and during this time where we have such a constraint on finances, I really am not seeing the wisdom of passing a law that we can't afford to implement. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And we will have a final discussion about whether we include 739 tomorrow during during our longer session so but thank you representatives on I think you might have just covered my two questions one is the money that's just the CRF money that would be dispersed for setting up the computer infrastructure. I mean, you merely has to be allocated by December 31, or does the system actually have to be up and running number 31. First question. Think you just hinted at this is this bill being considered as a standalone bill or is it going to get tacked into 237. Both of those options are still on the table we've been treating I've been treating mentally this 237 is being more include that that it could include 739 just because of the timing situation. But again, I'm going to be treat the committee with respect and treat the situation with respect and we'll have a vote on whether we include this material into 237 tomorrow or whenever we're ready to wrap up the bill. So it could be a standalone bill but we I've been working with the under the impression that it would be tagged on to 237. Yes, representative. I'm sorry go ahead Randall. Did, did you say that the computer system had to be stood up by December 31 or just the money allocated. I think that that's David do you have a clear answer on that I would have to say that the expenditures would have to be made by then but if David has a clear answer. The services have to have been incurred by the end of the year. You could actually look at the guidance was updated this summer and the FAQs after your German, sort of speaking to this point, and so the services have to be made by December 31. I'm sure that everything has to be the work has to be done within the covered period with some leeway as to when you actually pay the bill. It could be after the covered period, the FAQs say parenthetically that they expect that all the bills would be paid within 90 days. But the work itself would have to be completed by December 30. I think that would be an infinitesimal possibility that that deadline would be extended by the feds but that's that's what our Senate is working on this week. Representative Hango. So I just wanted to comment not to be totally negative but our experience with Vermont Health Connect and setting up and standing up that system. For a long time, a lot of money and never was really truly successful. So I have my doubts that this is going to be able to be stood up and functional by December 31. Okay, thank you. We'll take the opportunity to say that Vermont Health Connect was very successful for quite a few people while it did take some time to get stood up. This program is a little bit simpler in its in its thing and again, we'll have further conversation on this. Before we before we vote on it. In fact, we'll be voting on, you know, doing a doing a vote on getting it into the bill in the first place so All right, with that, I think, David, thank you for that update and thank you for the for the rewrite for the adjustments. It's not. I think one of the reasons this remains a priority is it was was encapsulated in testimony received, you know, yet as recently as yesterday from Earhart, which discussed very much the same attitude towards having a rental registry as as a lot of us experienced after travel customer Irene which was if we had a rental registry and we knew where apartments were and who to contact that perhaps we would have had some places to put people in a much more local way than than we have the ability to do now and so this is this is in in many people's view of an important step forward in order to do that in in case this happens again. I want to move to as 237 now, and Ellen, if I could bring you up and and I guess before we start running through I, I want to I want to bring in representative Dolan and representative Sheldon again they did. They did a walkthrough of this yesterday, I believe, and I just but they were not. I didn't share the potential draft that that I shared with our committee with them yesterday but I wanted to just get a sense of you because from your committee's perspective how the discussion of this went yesterday before we before we get into kind of a point by point on the the draft that's going to be in front of us. Sheldon, do you want to kick us off. I'll give it a go. Welcome. Thank you for having me, Amy Sheldon chair of House natural resources fish and wildlife. So we did a walkthrough and we heard from the Vermont planners association we had a little reminder of the terms in the bill and then we also heard from Chris Cochran and we whom I blanking on carry the other witness. Alex wine Hagen Chris Cochran and Ellen. We basically actually we didn't get very we just had an hour and a half or no we had two hours we did a walkthrough. We had a lot of questions people just trying to understand the bill. I know that the issue some of the issues that you guys have have concerns with as well came up in our committee around linking the density requirements for following the water and sewer lines is one that stands out for me. I think there was concern about the flood flood hazard areas which is something that we've been involved with certainly in the past, and from there I'm going to see what Carrie has to offer as what she remembers. Thank you. Carrie Dolan on the House natural resources fish and wildlife committee. And I thank you for this opportunity. Generally, we share your support for seeing more affordable housing across Vermont, including the service of our rural communities as well. We, we also agree with some of the testimony we heard yesterday from the Vermont planners association about the potential for unintended consequences. But if we aren't specific as to where we would like to see greater infill that we could result in the some of the unintended consequences of sprawl, or even heightened public safety concerns related to impacts to our areas that are most vulnerable for flooding. I think we all learned from tropical storm Irene how important it is for us to, to maintain a an effort of achieving greater resiliency of our existing and future housing stock. And so these are real long term effort to ensure that both risk and costs of flood recovery are minimized. And why we're we share your concerns for wanting to achieve safe housing as well as more affordable housing. And that went into some of the specifics were identified in Vermont planners association testimony where they talk about geographic area of applicability. And we support that that type of clarity to ensure that we are achieving the type of development increased housing development where we want to see that occur. I think specifically we, we saw reference to some of the, the old language that the state has had used in the past where refers to floodplain and and fluvial erosion hazard areas, but the more accurate terminology as reflected in state statute and in rule is about river corridors so we'll need to just clean up some of the references throughout that that bill. But, but basically both the concern about or the interest about clarity with respect to warehousing would occur, and the definitions of both that are already existing in title 24, such as infill development what that means where we use them in this, in this, this bill. One of the items we had in h926 pertaining to river corridors was something that was not controversial it was simply reflecting current practice of how the state implements criterion 1D of Act 250. Now it doesn't exist in this bill and it doesn't exist in the Senate bill so I'd like to see that information come back into this bill it's. And I think it. It refers to what's currently at h926 in criterion to related to river corridor. River corridor standard criteria. And then the. Let's see. I think another interest or concern that came up with which we actually appreciate we appreciate the reference on. I'm looking at the Senate bill on page 39 of s 237 that was passed. There are references, making those communities with updated bylaws, a priority for some and sent, you know, as incentives priority for some funding and, and it does list the state revolving fund for drinking water and wastewater. I do want to bring to your attention that the state has 2017 environmental protection rules and associated criteria for priority listing of projects for state revolving fund applications, so that it. I just want to flag that because any and already contained in those criteria include public health water quality, which is tied to federal clean water act requirements and affordability, as well as designated center center and regional benefit and so there, there's some language in there already. It may be any change in priority or criteria would have to go through rulemaking so I want to just bring that to your attention. So that, you know, you recognize that it will take both time and effort and it may make sense to hear from the agency and natural resources regarding that that portion of it. And then the, the final point I'd like to make is regards to the tax credit, which I think we all recognize that is an important tool and we've used it in a number of cases. What we've learned, especially with tropical storm Irene and are the vulnerability of Vermont in from flooding is that we are really dealing with two types of flood impacts both inundation, which is the height of water spilling over as well as the what we call fluvial erosion hazards or erosion, erosion related to flooding. Some, not all flood proofing is created equal, some flood proofing makes sense such as elevating you utilities off to give some height away from flood waters. And if some of the flood proofing actually entails increasing erosion hazards on other properties such as establishing or putting in a burn, or putting in some sort of water diversion at the site you're actually increasing the erosion hazards on other people's properties. So we want to make sure that we're not incentivizing the wrong type of flood proofing so it's again something I want to flag that that we should be take care and certainly look to the type of flood proofing that where it makes sense to offer a taxpayer cover taxpayer type of credit or incentive. Um, thank you I mean I'll have further questions in a bit but we have two questions lined up here representative hang go then collecting. Thank you. And this isn't really directed at natural resources fish and wildlife, but since this bill was passed out of the Senate. There have been so many parts moving parts of the h926 act 250 reform bill that have come and go from this bill. It, it's fairly clear to me that this is a zoning and natural resources type bill and I know that we're the housing committee and people build homes in various places in Vermont that might need the agency of natural resources or legislation from the committee of natural resources but this bill I really feel is beyond the scope of our committee's jurisdiction and I'm hearing so many pieces of what we need to look at the effect. We need to talk to agency of natural resources we need to hear from department of environmental conservation conservation excuse me. So, I guess my concern is we've talked about this from the beginning as an affordable housing bill the bill but it's evolved into a zoning bill. We've heard from just about every municipality in the state of Vermont about zoning bylaws. I really feel that this should be in natural resources, Fish and Wildlife Committee, and I would like to know how the chair feels about that. And just because I know you heard this bill in your committee very briefly, but it seems like there are so many pieces that apply to the jurisdiction and the hard work of your committee. Amy. Yeah, thanks for that question. I guess since we're just unpacking it for the really for the first time. I think it's the process of figuring all of that out and there are a lot of areas, a lot of sections of the bill that are in our areas of jurisdiction I would agree with that so that's why we're here today to listen in on what you all are doing I I think at the beginning of this representative Steven said you had taken weeks of testimony I didn't realize that. So, we have we have some questions and representative Dolan outlined them very well so we are here to have kind of that conversation and understand where we are with the bill. Thank you. I really appreciate that you recognize that this is very important to your committee and I feel like if you're just looking at it for essentially the first time this week that it's a real stretch to think that we could put together something meaningful by September 25. So I want us to be really careful about that, because since parts of 926 are now gone and gone for good for this session. There's only a few parts remaining I feel like this is becoming the new age 926. And, you know your committee has spent two years dealing with that bill, and this is very important legislation for you. So, I, I hope if we do this by September 25, it's going to be done right with the correct input from the correct committees and agencies. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Collackey. First of all, thank you, Representative Dolan and Sheldon for coming to the committee and I love what our committees work together like this. I have a different perspective than my colleague, Representative Hango, but I am wondering in the bill in the Senate, there was a number act 250 provisions in it and then it went out into another bill in the Senate and then that didn't move forward or something. And do you feel that the bill as currently stands with none of that needs some of that integrated or represent Dolan, did you address the issues you would have from your committee's perspective with your comments this morning or earlier today? Well, I guess I'll start by just saying that we didn't this bill actually stood on its own at the beginning and then pieces of H926 were added to it and then removed. I think that's important to understand a little of the history of the bill. Thank you. Yeah. And my understanding is this bill didn't necessarily start with with any act 250 directly. And then as far as my committee having time to have considered that, we haven't done that yet. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right. So with that, Kari, are you okay? Where you are? In comments, you're already unmuted. Yes, I am. I'm fine. And I understand in terms of a next step that our committee anticipates putting together a letter for you. And I think that's under way to help help to identify or outline some of the comments that we shared with you today. That's great. And then again, if you are here today to hear how how Ellen has provided a strike all that I think incorporates a lot of the commentary that's been made by stakeholders. There may be answers to some of the questions that you raised, but certainly not all of them. So Ellen, if you're if you can join us and committee, what I would prefer as we're going through this is to hear the walkthrough of the bill of the chain, especially of the changes that were made based on what I shared with Ellen. And then we can go to questions after that. I just want to make sure that she has the opportunity to get through the bill itself. And and then we can ask we can ask questions as a follow up. I would appreciate that. Thank you, Ellen. Ellen, the microphone is yours. Thanks. Okay, so yes, based on the testimony you've received, Representative Stevens provided me with some comments and recommended edits. So I have made some changes to S 237 for you to consider. So first, the first change is on page two. So in section two, the prior draft had that language regarding in a residential district that allowed multi unit dwellings. You couldn't prohibit four or fewer dwellings based on the character of the area. So my interpretation of the dispute, you all had a very long discussion about the character of the area aspect being the important aspect. So my interpretation of that was that it wasn't about by laws, but about how the character of the area test was used. And that standard is related to the conditional use process. And that language is actually in another statute. So I took it out of section two, and I added it in section three. And so I don't know if you want to skip it for now, or if you would like to look at that right now. Just go page by page. That would be great. Okay. So that's why this language is different. We'll get to that in the next section. So then I didn't, I don't think we're at the moment, I don't think at the moment you're looking for any changes to the ADU language. So there isn't any changes there yet. But the next change is in the inclusive development language. So starting at the bottom of page five. So the following land development provisions shall apply in every municipality. So first, this is our first language change. No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting the creation of residential lots of at least 5,400 square feet or one eighth of an acre within any regulatory district allowing residential uses served by and able to connect to a sewer system operated by a municipality. So we struck, I struck the reference to water system here. Then, so shall no bylaw shall prohibit the creation of residential lots of at least four dwelling units per acre within any regulatory district allowing residential uses served by and able to connect to a water system operated by a municipality or eight dwelling units per acre within a regulatory district allowing residential uses served by and able to connect to water and sewer operated by a municipality. So this, the second two prongs are different than what you've been discussing slightly by changing the focus to the density of units as opposed to the size of the lot, which was in response to the which is in response to the VPA memo. So you want me to do you want me to walk through all of it or do you want to do you want me to stop and see if there are questions? No, I'd like you to continue walking through and then we'll come back with questions. Okay, so the next section was including some language regarding what this section is not prohibiting. So so nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prohibit a minimum lot frontage requirement so a municipality can use minimum lot frontage of less than or equal to 40 feet allow subdivision of land for residential lots that once established would result in prohibited land development within the mapped and regulated flood hazard fluvial erosion or river corridor areas. So nothing in this section shall be construed to allow subdivision for residential lots that once established would result in prohibited land development within mapped and regulated natural resources constraints. Nothing shall be construed to allow water or sewer connection lines sewer connection to lines or map service areas limited by municipal ordinance due to system capacity constraints disclosed in a plan policy or ordinance. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the subdivision of residential lots in municipalities with areas designated pursuant to Chapter 76 A of this title and that's the state designation program chapter. In the following areas a quarter mile radius of a designated village center, a half mile radius of a designated downtown, a neighborhood development area, a designated growth center or a half mile radius of a new town center. D is the language around duplexes that hasn't changed. There's a new piece of language in the parking minimum language. So when a bylaw establishes a parking minimum for residential properties, each residential parking space that will be leased separately from residential units shall count as two spaces for purposes of meeting the parking minimum for any proposed development located within areas subject to the inclusive development provisions of this subdivision. So that language replaced within a half mile of a transit stop. And I know there was there were some questions around that definition. Okay, and then there is some new language in the municipal constraint report. So the substantial municipal constraint report shall demonstrate that. The municipality has documented substantial municipal constraints on its municipal water, municipal sewer, stormwater, transportation, emergency services, schools or other services that prevent the adoption of bylaws that conform to the requirements of subdivision one of this subsection. The rest of this language on the municipal constraint reports is the same. So is the incentive section. And then, oh, this should be highlighted in yellow. So this language in section three is the new language about character of the area I was talking about. So 24 VSA 44 14 lays out the process for using conditional use review. So I included all the language so that you can see so in any district certain uses may be allowed only by approval with the of the municipal panel. The general standard shall require that the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following. And number two is the character of the area affected as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. So I added new language down farther in that conditional use section that says a multi unit dwelling project consisting of four or fewer units located within a district allowing multi unit dwellings may not be denied solely due to an undue adverse impact on the character of the area affected. So that was my hopefully that captured the intent of what the committee was discussing previously. And that's I'm sorry, I'll ask the question later. So then section four is the language around deed restrictions can't be added that would conflict with the inclusive development provisions. No changes there. Section five is the report from the department on municipal constraints. No changes there. Then section six is a was a recommendation that you heard I think from the VPA on title 24 chapter 117 includes this language about challenging bylaws that are discriminatory. So it specifically is about when the attorney general or someone can challenge a bylaw or its administration as a violation of 44 12. So because you're amending that in section two, we wanted to the VPA recommended updating the cross reference. So this allows for a lawsuit challenging a bylaw as discriminatory. And it is specific to 44 12 a one. The the VPA recommendation did suggest that you could consider adding more to that if you want the new inclusive development language to be covered by this that that is an option you have. But that this allows a bylaw to be challenged in court as discriminatory. So that is a policy consideration about whether you want the new inclusive development provisions to have that enforcement mechanism. But just adding the but as as I have currently drafted section six, it's just a technical correction. So another thing I did was slightly rearrange this bill from has as it passed the Senate. So I moved up this language regarding short term rentals because it is also amending a section of title 24. But I didn't change the language at all. So this is adding the ability for municipalities to regulate short term rentals separately from long term rental housing. And the accompanying section of the study regarding short term rentals, the chair requested to delete that. And so that's the end of the municipal zoning section. And then here that here's the tax credit language. So first is the technical correction in the designation of bill Center section condensing the language. And then section two is the section where first we're adding the neighborhood development area to the tax credit. That hasn't changed. But then we have the language on qualified flood mitigation projects. And so you heard testimony from the commissioner of the DEC on having the full title of the rule in the definition here. So this sentence here in in subdivision six, we're defining what area will qualify for a qualified flood mitigation project. So just so that you can picture it, we're talking about downtowns, village centers, and now neighborhood development areas. So those areas are eligible for the tax credit. But then what kind of projects specifically within them would be eligible? So this is saying any combination of structural and nonstructural changes to a building located within an area subject to the flood hazard area and river corridor rule, or within a flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA that eliminates or that reduces or eliminates flood damage to the building or its contents. So I just wanted to flag for your consideration. We're using the flood hazard area and river corridor rule. And then flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA as two areas within these designated areas that are eligible for the tax credit. I started to look into, I'm not an expert on these areas. I started to look into what the size of them was. But you do have an option if you wanted to use a different metric or phrase to define the area within the flood hazard area where should be eligible for these tax credits. So hope I said that clearly. So something to consider if you have interest in that. And then, oh, and then there was the Commissioner of BEC also requested changes to the language in the Mobile Home Park language. So on page 18, I used the recommended language that he suggested. So the department shall assist the town of Brownborough and Tri Park in implementation of the master plan, including through restructuring of state revolving loans and additional loan to the extent possible to allow for improvements to wastewater and storm water infrastructure needs. And then again in two, and to provide similar assistance to the extent possible to similar situated mobile home parks that also have infrastructure needs. And section 11 doesn't have any changes. Then we have the implementation section in 12 doesn't have any changes. And then the effective date is has been changed to December 1, 2020. So so those are the changes. Representative Callacchi. Thank you, Alan, for doing all this extraordinary integration with the chair. I do have three small points of clarification for myself. On page six, where we have the geographic distribution of a quarter mile, half mile. Get right there. Thank you. We don't need we don't need those in three and four. We have one, two and five. Do we need a geographic radius for three and four? I don't know if I don't really not familiar with all these terms. So that would be maybe a question. Chair, I don't know that questions too. But it would that be anyway, if Chris Cochran, are you available? Yes. This is Chris Cochran from the Department of Housing and Community Development. It relates to how the designations are made. So there are there are core designations, which are basically the commercial area. And so buffered areas around them would be necessary. And then there's larger geographic geographic areas, which are growth centers that are much, much larger areas and neighborhood development areas are larger areas. So this is just recognizing the differences in how these designation programs work. Okay, thank you. Thanks. Thanks a lot. And then page 11. I, you know, I know we're trying to look at this and inclusive zoning. And I wonder if it seems to contradict when you are new language seems right there is, I think the intent of this bill. It seems that it contradicts earlier above that when it talks about the character of the area. So if you could scroll up a little bit on page 10, then there. So under adverse effect, and then it has the character of the area. So I'm just, I understand we added for clarity, but Ellen, I wonder if our new thing actually contradicts that number two. It does. But so this on page 10 is laying out the current language that is used to evaluate a project. I see. I see. Okay. So it clarifies it. Yes. And then on page 12. I heard you say that we might want to include in our new inclusive development language. That's not in here. Did I understand that correctly when you said that? I think you've received some testimony suggesting you could include it in here. But I just made the technical correction. Okay. Well, I see that the chair has an unstable connection. So I don't know if you can hear me chair, but seems to me that this is the intention of this legislation that we should add this inclusive development component into this. So I would, I don't know. Yeah, no, I can hear you. I can just That's my question for us. All right. Those are my points. Thank you. Okay, that's kind of a that'll be a posted note for Ellen's office there. Questions. Kari, did you when it came to this reference to the flood hazard areas and river corridors that for the time being was removed from the Milba Home Park section? Are we did we refer to those rules and areas correctly in your in your opinion, where we have talked about them? I'll have to get back to you on that. I know I'm familiar with those projects down in Brattleboro. Actually, Ellen, there's just that you just passed the reference just before that to where right there. Yes, I'm familiar with the projects. I'm also familiar with the tactical basin plan. Some of those as we know, some of those projects are located in high hazard zones. We refer to those high hazard zones as floodways. And so to the extent which we can improve the safety of those structures or remove those structures from those floodways, we will be making a dramatic improvement in public health and safety. So that that's my first take when I looked into that section specifically. But we'll get back to you in more detail if necessary. All right. And Kari, I'm sorry, you were going to say something about the the mobile home park section. Is that I mean, I mean, that's what you're going to get back to us on is is is the mobile home park section, at least what the what the thinking is with that. Because they're yeah, I mean, they're in a tough spot. They're in a they're in a really difficult area because obviously they want to be able to plan for relocation. And they're looking for, you know, the guidance to in order and state support. Yes, it's it's it's a continued problems statewide, where we have inexpensive land is typically highly vulnerable to flooding. And where we see time and time again, mobile home parks located in these high hazard areas. So to the extent to which instead of hardening them with more and public investment only to be damaged in the future, not to mention people living in harm's way, the extent to which we can look to moving people out of these high hazard zones, I think is is the best strategy. It does result in a comment that you'll see in our in our letter, when we talk about tax credits, we I do appreciate the thought behind tax credits. And as I described it specifically, we'll want to put some guard rails around the type of flood proofing. But I also see the value where if you have a individual actually restoring floodplain function, that will only improve the public safety of people downstream. We should be thinking about offering those landowners tax credits, but that that's probably well beyond the scope of this this this bill. Thank you, Kerry. Repres, Airheart, actually, I'm going to go to representative Byron first and then come to you. Thank you. I wanted to shoot back up to page five to the lot sizes, please. I'm just I keep looking at the four dwelling unit per acre and the eight dwelling unit per acre. And well, first of all, actually in the top it says connect to a sewer system. It doesn't say water sewer like the other spots do, like the other subsections. Is that intentional? Yes, it was intentional. One of the one of the comments that we we had was that there are going to be municipalities with a water system and not a sewer system. And and they didn't they wanted to be relieved of the burden of this particular legislation. And the thing about this and the thing about the sewer system is that, you know, there is there is with sewer comes development, you know, obviously with wastewater comes development. And so by removing the water only portion of it, it just goes to the sewer system. And again, it does. Again, we do have an out in in the bills also municipalities, I believe are allowed to continue to zone locally about where they want their connections to be made, their their wastewater connections to be made. So I think this tries to get at, and I'm not sure I I'm not sure we nailed it, but this tries to get at the ideas that were prevalent in the letters from Middlebury and from Stowe, in particular, that that tries to limit the full development options that happen from from where you know, the in the Stowe's case from the village to the mountain, in Middlebury's case, you know, from from where it's based to the college or wherever else they have the sewer going out to. Okay, then I guess my other question, maybe I missed this was the what's the difference within the content of the four dwelling in the eight dwelling units that the language seems to be mirrored but X with the exception of the the count on the on the units themselves. We're dwelling units per acre with the water system. Yeah, I know, but I'm just losing the four to the eight like why are there the two separate? Because with the eight with with sewer, you're allowed more density. Right, this, this, oh, I missed the sewer part on the other one. Okay, okay, that was the gotcha. Yeah, gotcha. So this is the adjustment that I think it's similar to what people within VPA, I mean, I think the St. Albans, I think chip from St. Albans was it was talking about something a little bit different. He was talking about average density within within the town or the or the municipality. This is but this is more along the lines of this. This was more along the lines of what was in one of the VPA things of just saying rather than a quarter acre lot or an eighth acre lot that it is that you know that that they're strictly they're not strictly to a per quarter acre here. No, that that clears it up for me. Thank you. Earhart. Thank you, Representative Stevens really appreciate the opportunity to offer a comment. So on the mobile home section, that was not the one that was just referenced, but the one later on in the bill that talks about restructuring loans, specifically for Tri Park down in Brattleboro. I note that the language that was originally in the bill around loan forgiveness is not in here. And just to not to elaborate or reiterate too much my testimony from yesterday, but we really urge you to include the words loan forgiveness in it would probably be online six. It could be restructuring or loan forgiveness. I think the words to the extent feasible certainly could cover if it turned out not to be not to be feasible. But as you may recall, I testified yesterday that in looking at the underlying federal statute for the water and sewer funds, it does appear that, you know, over the last few years, the program was expanded to allow for loan forgiveness or very deep subsidies in certain cases. And certainly I think Tri Park can make the case that its financial restructuring requirements and its cash flow requirements really call for forgiveness of existing loans in order for the three mobile home parks to be financially sustainable and healthy into the future. So I would urge you to bring that language back into the bill. And while I've got the floor, I would just also maybe echo Representative Collackey's comment on expanding the provisions around the Attorney General's enforcement to include the inclusive development provisions. That was certainly something that we would support the affordable housing community would support. Thank you. And on that issue with the language, with respect to Commissioner Walk's testimony, I believe that there are some stakeholders talking with Commissioner Walk, Commissioner Walk had not read the master plan when he testified last week. And I believe that Jen Holler and perhaps Sufilian, who did testify will be, will be, I'm expecting them to have more language over the next day or so. And we're certainly amenable to that conversation and getting that, getting that type of language, seeing what comes up after the conversation between stakeholders and the commissioner. Thank you. Yep. All right. Representative Sheldon. Thank you. I have a question and a comment. I guess I'll start with my comment, which is they're both on pages five and six, the inclusive development sections. I'm really struggling with how if the goal here is to increase density, housing density in our, in our, in a walkable community, I don't understand this requirement to kind of mandate residential development along the water and sewer lines. And so I'm, I don't understand how that's supporting the goal of the bill. But maybe before, and in addition to that, I need to understand, I need someone to help me through the green sections at the top of the bottom of page five and the top of six. And in particular, someone already commented on section five, but maybe all of them just to understand what they're actually trying to do. I'm having a hard time following the negatives and positives in these statements. So maybe Ellen could help me understand section C at the bottom of five and then the green language. Sure. And I don't know if Representative Stevens wants to comment on the intent, but the so yes, title 24, especially in the section does have a lot of negatives that you need to keep track of when reading. So nothing in this inclusive development section shall be construed to prohibit a minimum lock frontage requirement less than or equal to 40 feet. So despite, I think this does relate to the the density and the minimum lot sizes above. So despite the fact that those are required, this is saying we're not prohibiting minimum lock frontage requirements of less than or equal to 40 feet. This subdivision shall not be construed to allow residential lots that would result in prohibited land development within flood hazard, fluvial erosion or river corridor. So we're not attempting to override the flood hazard and river corridor area protections. This section shall not allow for subdivision of residential lots that would result in prohibited land development within mapped and regulated natural resources constraint natural resource constraints. So we're not attempting to override the natural resource protection in these in these areas. Nothing in here shall allow water sewer connection lines or mapped service areas limited by municipal ordinance due to system capacity constraints. So that are disclosed. And then nothing in this section shall allow the subdivision of residential lots in municipalities with designated areas outside of the following designated areas. And I do think that is a new concept. Particularly this last section is a new concept that wasn't in the bill previously. No, this was based on a suggestion again. And what it is meant to do is that it creates an incentive to be designated. So it would it would create this if people were interested in these limitations. And they weren't designated then then then they would this would create an incentive to get designated so that they had these that that's provision applied to them rather than to stay undesignated. That's my that was my understanding from the VPA proposal. Representative Dolan. Thank you. And thank you, Ellen, for walking us through that. My follow up question on page six with that listing is that these are very different designations. Some are very discreet. And some are can take up a substantial part of a within the town jurisdiction. And which could result in sprawl, which is something we're trying to avoid here. So I only want to flag that is something that we should look into to make sure that what we describe here is adequate for the purposes of achieving our goal of infill, more more affordable housing, and without triggering some sprawl or anti smart growth type of development. Okay, thank you. It's 151 on my computer, and I want to be respectful of our time we need to be on the floor in nine minutes. And so I think I'm going to end this conversation here. And we will pick up tomorrow at 1030 in the morning. This is a lot to take in. And I appreciate people's comments. Representative Dolan and Sheldon, thank you for coming. If you have an interest and doesn't, and it does not conflict with your any meetings you may have, certainly, you're welcome to come tomorrow. If you have notes that you would like to share with us, please feel free to email them to me or to the committee assistant today. And this week, it's Mike Ferrant. And, and we'll be taking it in. So thanks everybody for for listening in on this, and we will again pick this up tomorrow. When I'm at work through, we have an extra session tomorrow, so we're on at 1030 for this till noon, and then we have a half an hour break and then 1230 to two prior to the floor tomorrow. So with that, thank you all, and we'll see you then.