 Well, welcome everybody. It's 115 on Tuesday, September 15th. And this is the General Housing Military Affairs Committee of Vermont's General Assembly. We are picking up our work on S237, which has been titled as long as we've been working on it as an act relating to affordable housing. And we have had several weeks of testimony on this bill. It has been a lot of hard work on this committee to try to grasp a hold of some of these issues that have been discussed and that were promulgated in this bill. And we have essentially run out of time on threading a needle towards any potential compromise between what we might think is is good policy, though others may not agree that it's good policy. But we have come to the point where we need to take action on this bill if we were going to see any part of it move forward. I have asked Ellen to provide us with a stripped down version of the bill. We started this work on when we started this work on Thursday, we did do a section by section. And it was for this purpose basically was to really identify what the problematic sections were and to see what the interplay was between them and to see if there was a way for us to make it work. But it's clear that we can't. It's clear that there are issues in here which are important. They were important enough to be put in a bill in the Senate and passed unanimously through the Senate. And yet as we've tried to take to as we have taken testimony on it, it's clear that there are plenty of questions that have come up both with both with the whether our committee is the right committee for any particular section or whether the language itself is there is ready to be instituted. And so it's clear after testimony, we're leading up through last Friday that there are sections that just we should not consider for this particular biennium in this in this shape and form because of the lack of time. When discussing this with the speaker since last week, it's clear that from my from my experience, a bill like this that comes to us so late needed six hours a day, not just six hours a week of work on it to truly get to the core of what we're trying to do. And in discussions with committee and in discussions with witnesses, there's a feeling that there are other committees that need to weigh in on elements of the bill that and that's true. It's you know, this this bill came to us because it said it was a bill relating to affordable housing. And I think we all identified pretty early on that it's a bill about zoning and a try as we might to to try to get a handle on it all. There is I think I've come to the conclusion and I would say that there's a probably a consensus of some sorts here that there is that there is there are large areas of clarification needed when it comes to this particular subject matter zoning is not easy. The testimony we took from natural resources showed that there is a tension that I think is in our committee but there is a tension between protection of natural resources and historic settlement patterns and you know and add in the things that we've discussed with this bill which includes traditional zoning and lot size and trying to do infill development within traditional building patterns and so with that I again took the took the liberty to go through the bill with the with Ellen and identify areas that were that possibly could be considered you know possibilities for us but Ellen if I could ask you if the first document can be the the document as we worked on as we've been the strike off from last week I think it would be helpful for us to go through this again quickly and I can I can lead the conversation in terms of the decision I made to ask you to to build the next document which is which is a strike all as well. Does that work for you? Sure do you want me to put that you'll make a share my screen now and put that document up? Actually in a minute does anyone have any questions before we go through this bill and and I you know again I'm presenting this in a way that is you know based on you know based on an honest hearing of the testimony that we received and an honest really you know looking at the there were no easy solutions to any of the problems that with this bill that came up in discussion and and we don't have six hours a day for a couple of weeks to hammer out the right language that would make this work and to share with different committees that would make it work and so I present I'm going to present this you know going through this bill and say this is why I am proposing to do X to it and but leave it up to the committee to have an open discussion when we're done with the walkthrough and and have an honest discussion over whether whether the suggestions I'm making are right or not it's not I'm not claiming any ideological ownership of of the language that's left and the decisions I made so so Ellen if you could post that and Ellen if you can just remain you know on unmuted so that if I get something wrong please feel free to chime in and and just let me know okay so this is the strike off from from last week draft 1.1 and it was posted a couple of days it was posted on the 10th or yes it was posted on Thursday and Wednesday and possibly also Tuesday so it was posted just what just Wednesday and Thursday last week so all right so some of this conversation on these things was informed by a conversation that I had with a further conversation that we had after the testimony from Representative Dolan and Representative Sheldon from the Natural Resources Committee who had expressed their their feelings that because this falls into Title 24 which is really their one of their pieces of their portfolio and that's true for quite a bit of the zoning conversation that we're that we're going to have today so section one is about the changes that were inherent in section one or 19 lines 19 and 20 that had to do with water supply lines and while I you know we feel like there that this section was that this section had had been created in such a way that was not going to be expensive and not going to be owners to the municipalities it's a zoning issue and so I would propose that we cut section one and and allow this section of the bill to be dealt with next year through a different bill section two section 2a has to do with the while this is zoning as well this has to do with the accessory dwelling units and the ability to this that what this language did was it allows a single family dwelling unit to be subject to the same reviews as other single family dwellings without a unit and it changes the requirements for square footage and it basically loosens the regulations on accessory dwelling units and allows accessory dwelling units to be built on one and owner occupied property as long as it matches other zoning requirements that already exist and I will propose that we keep this section on accessory dwelling units section so we're I'm sorry go ahead with the next section and that goes through existing small wants that change does not change the 1 8 acre areas but it does change it just says that a municipality may prohibit development of a lot not served by an able to connect to municipal sewer and water service so it actually tightens that up a little bit allowing municipality to limit building on lots at this size section to be line 16 is and so my proposal is to keep to a section six out at line 16 inclusive development I propose to cut that whole section so if you could just scroll through that cuts the parking cuts a substantial report a substantial report because it's not necessary at this point in time this is a substantial municipal constraint report it cuts the incentives okay we can stop there at section three section three is proposed to keep section three again while this is zoning under the in conversation with the folks from natural resources they did not have a they did not have an objection to this adding this on here and this has the character this was a this was a piece of of language that many people had opposed to when it was a larger line but no one natural resources committee did not have a problem with it as as defined the section four is related to section to be so I would propose that that be removed section five is also related to to be so I would suggest that I would propose that that be deleted section six is also related in part to the changes proposed in section to be so I would propose that that be removed section this section six of enumeration of powers is this is the language that would allow a municipality to regulate by ordinance or bylaw the operation of short-term rentals it's not a mandate but it allows municipalities to to create bylaws if they so wish about the the airline that does not adversely impact the availability of long-term rental housing so that means that this allows them to to create bylaws on short-term rentals which we know have been a huge issue in many municipalities so the creation of that so this would allow municipalities the right to do to do their own bylaws on this it's not a statewide it's enabling legislation and as we discussed I think last year when we were discussing recovery residents they just want to point out that on a line 18 and 19 and kind of gives you the idea of what a short-term rental is and and how it interplays with what we know of short-term rentals and I think anybody who has a second home or and I think representative walls you had commented that when you have in the past rented out it you you pay close attention to the 30 consecutive days and for more than 14 calendar days per calendar year as a as a real standard that's not changing but it really defines what a short-term rental is in the next section section seven I would propose it to be cut there these are tax credits I was while this is a technical change on this first one I would propose to change it I was personally under the impression that some of these tax credits and discussions over tax credits had been a little bit more baked than they are and this section on tax credits has to do with ways and means and ways and means has not weighed in on in fact they made decisions earlier to while they made decisions earlier this year to extend some of the tax credit programs related to related to this downtown and village center they did not weigh in or they did not create tax benefits for flood mitigation and so I would propose that because this has to do with in this case this has to do with as we'll see if we script well this actually stopped right there Ellen so line seven this has to do with neighborhood development areas and that was not approved with the tax benefits that were that were discussed in ways and means and so while I interpreted this earlier on over the last several weeks as being a technical change it's actually it actually seems to be more of a policy change which is a policy that that goes through ways and means good moving on and then we stop here at definition six representative Dolan testified on behalf of the Natural Resources Committee that she was troubled by online 15 the concept of non structural changes being allowed under as a as a potential tax benefit and essentially asked that we not include that when it considers tax benefits but if we're not considering tax benefits at all under these circumstances then the section would just get cut along with everything else in the section so continue to go scrolling down um this section is proposed to be eliminated as well and that brings us to the to mobile home parks um I would propose that we retain this section um the version that we're looking at with the highlighted yellow material represents what had been put in at this suggestion of commissioner walk but we had a conversation with commissioner walk after this bill was after this particular version was was written and so we had different language of where it said restructuring or forgiveness and to allow for improvements to drinking water wastewater online aid here so that will show up in the slender slender version of this bill so I would propose that we keep this bill this is incredibly important to the town of Brattleboro and to the tri park cooperative in order to move forward with their master plan with these I'm sorry can you scroll back up and this is something that I didn't share that's not in the um that's not in the the next version of this bill but natural resources did request to be included in the section b where the reports would be um issued to senate economic development and house general as well as the institutions committee so that'll be a change that I would suggest in the next version of the bill as well going down to the next section and Lisa we'll get to you when we're almost done with the walk through here um this is section 11 is tied to section 10 this allows the treasurer to use her discretion to use amounts available to provide financing for infrastructure projects in mobile home parks and may modify the terms of such financing so that's this is of a piece with section 10 and implementation of incentive section 12 is moot because there are no incentives remaining in the bill if we accept the proposals and then the effective date um would have to change and we have the suggestion for that so those are my proposals for this um bill ellen if you could just switch over to the next um to today's version of the bill representative hango thank you I just had a quick question um after all of our discussion you did follow up with um commissioner walk and they were comfortable with including forgiveness for the um yes he testified I didn't follow up with him he testified at the end of at the end of his hearing that he would be comfortable with the phrasing um or forgiveness not and but or forgiveness okay I guess I missed that thank you um will we be going through a walkthrough of the bill as it now looks with ellen um because I haven't had a chance to read it through that's all that is teed up ready to go and ellen is here um the first thing I think I'll point out from a just from a you know what this represents in terms of space is that it's a 20 page bill that's going down to seven because of the amount of material that's been proposed to be deleted and um and actually because of the deletions of all the zoning the title of the bill essentially remains the same because basically what's in here is about accessible uh accessory dwelling units and mobile homes so with that um uh committee just not of your head are you okay with ellen moving on to the quick walkthrough of what's left in the bill um but actually before we start I also just want to put out there um because of because of the um removal of the language from the budget in an amendment on friday about the rental registry what that has done is um put us in a place where I do not believe that adding material from h7 39 to this bill is beneficial at this time it raised enough questions about whether or not um the registry program would be even done um my understanding from commissioner handford's testimony was that it was um because of the hiring freeze because of the uh loss of capacity within the department and the questions raised by um by us by committee members um and as well as as the reality of having a december 30 deadline or really december 20 deadline for expending the money um there was no guarantee that a program of registry being developed we using uh coronavirus relief funds would be able to get done and that's just a simple you know that's just there was nothing in the testimony that changed from that over the weeks and so I would also propose that this bill not include language relating to h7 39 um and we can have that conversation after this walkthrough of this particular bill as well ellen take it away okay so uh posted under today's date on your committee page is draft 3.1 of the strikeout and it reflects the changes that we just discussed um that representative stevens just uh walked through with you so here it here is what the strikeout now looks like section one starts with amending 44 12 of title 24 you'll notice first that there is no longer a sub a online 10 um that was purely added to address the inclusion of the new um subdivision b which was the inclusive development so that struck so uh the first so this change uh this section now just includes the change to the accessory dwelling units and then the existing small lot provision which is on the next page so first the accessory dwelling unit definition um is changing slightly um although it hasn't your committee hasn't adjusted it but this um as the chair just mentioned expand uh what an accessory dwelling unit can include it can be on an owner occupied lot subject to the same review as a single family dwelling and doesn't have to be an efficiency or a one bedroom it also allows it to be up to 900 square feet or 30 of the single family unit whichever is greater um and then this language is struck uh which previously allowed additional bylaws to provide um for conditional use of accessory dwelling units and we are striking that um but we are allowing bylaws to regulate short-term rental units distinctly from residential units so that's the adu language then on page three we have the existing small lot provision um a municipality may prohibit development on a lot not served and able to connect to municipal sewer and water if it is less than one acre or has a dimension width or depth dimension of less than 40 feet so that is section one and then section two includes the language regarding the character of the area it is in 44 14 which is permissible zoning regulations so we're in the section that discusses conditional use regulation so the new language uh 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 effect on the character of the area affected and by and just to be clear the word solely here is what's important um it like a lot of our statute it doesn't just it allows for denial if there are other reasons whether it's capacity permitting or or um or other issues that may prevent it from being built that's there we're just saying here that it's only on this if it's only about this issue that it can't be prohibited right and some of those some of those standards are here above the page this is the section that lays out how a municipality can use the conditional use review procedure and so um they are allowed to adopt conditional use review that includes reviewing the capacity of existing implant facilities character of the area traffic other bylaws and effect utilization of renewable energy resources so these are the other some of the other standards that that they can evaluate a project and so denial can happen for any of these other reasons okay and again representative hanga we'll wait till the end of the walkthrough before we get um section three is the language regarding uh municipalities having the ability to adopt a bylaw related regulating short-term rental units okay can you can you scroll up just for a second just just to let us again look at look at that um yep so section so this section starts at the bottom of page four so we're we're still in title 24 uh 22 91 is the section that has all of the um powers that municipalities have the ability to use when adopting ordinances so we're adding this new language subdivision 29 as um giving the giving a municipality the ability to adopt a bylaw regulating short-term rental units and then we switch to the mobile home park section sections so section four has the um the session law provision related to the town of brattleboro and tri park and the department of environmental conservation so um so the language does now include that phrase so the department of environmental conservation shall assist the town of brattleboro and the tri park cooperative in implementation of the tri park master plan and deer field river and lower connecticut river tactical basin plan including through restructuring or forgiveness of state revolving loans and additional loans to the extent possible to allow for improvements to drinking water wastewater and stormwater infrastructure needs um and then uh to provide similar assistance to the extent possible to similarly situated mobile home parks that also have infrastructure needs um uh there's a piece of highlighting here because i deleted the phrase small uh small communities i believe yeah yeah um similarly situated oh and relocation was also deleted so um that have mobile homes parks that also have relocation or infrastructure needs um and then three oh this is where i deleted other small communities so um identify statutory and programmatic changes necessary to assist the implementation of the plans and to improve access and terms by mobile home parks to the clean water revolving loan fund water infrastructure sponsorship program and drinking water state revolving fund so there was also the inclusion of other small communities was here okay um section five is the language about the state treasurer there um has been no change there oh back sorry back um in subdivision b the the chair just asked to add house natural resources to the list of um committees that's going to get the report from the department on the actions taken related to tri park so i'll have to add um down here on line six and seven uh house natural resources um and then um the effective date so section six uh this shall take effect on passage and that changed simply because a july one has already passed you had put in december one as a placeholder yeah and the 2023 date is unnecessary because we've taken out those sections yes okay i have two questions right now representative hango and then try on them thank you um section two i just want to be really clear about that that that's about municipal bylaws that's about the um zoning plan that municipality has already set up or will be setting up in the future um and those municipalities who don't have any type of plan like that this doesn't really address um situations in those communities or does it uh right this is only for communities that are using conditional use review as adopted um by their town um and then are using the conditional use review on multi-unit dwellings specifically and my second question thank you is the short term rental section three um there's language that says will adversely affect long term rentals who is the determinant of that and what are the determining factors of adversely affecting long term rentals yes i'm uh so i'll find it for you i well um so from a procedural i think i think it maybe isn't specifically clear but procedurally when a municipality is going about adopting this bylaw they will have to use this authority when adopting it and so they'll need to take this language into consideration and if they uh if they do not if someone challenges the bylaw they will um have to demonstrate that they have met this standard and i think that's all i they'll have to provide evidence of that who is they the person challenging or the municipality defending so the municipality will have to establish um through their bylaw um process um that they have met this standard and and if they are subject to a challenge the evidence they have on on their record in adopting the bylaw will be um what we'll have to meet this i guess that's a little vague um and i'm just thinking you know if a municipality has plenty of housing for rent that is long term housing then i would think that they meet this challenge that that they would be okay under this statute but i'm i'm not certain that this protects a municipality that has a lot of available housing already well this is again this is enabling regulation or this is an enabling statute this does not force a community to adopt these standards but if the community wanted to then this is the standard that they would achieve this is what they would use to do that right now a community cannot easily or cannot regulate in this manner and so if there is a community as you describe it then they may not be interested in adopting this bylaw at all so it's not a state mandate it's just something that allows there are going to be communities that you know we've we've used the phrase cookie cutter um in in different ways and this is one of those things where this is not a cookie cutter this is this is allowing a municipality who has these regulations in their bylaws to um to achieve this okay great thank you i think i missed the word shall in the page before that so thank you okay representative triano then gonzalez so um am i hearing this right that now under the mobile home section that we will it will be a combination of relocation and infrastructure improvements in brettelboro is that what we're at right now rather than relocating and shutting down the park no no no it's it's relocation is is the the concept of relocation is out of the bill okay okay and it basically talks about in this particular case um you know the first three lines talk about assisting in the implementation the next three lines talk about including through so processes that can be considered would be restructuring the loans that exist or perhaps or perhaps forgiveness as opposed to and as as was discussed on thursday of these particular loans um and additional loans to the extent possible to the extent possible being the it may not be possible um but that these loans that are um the restructuring and other processes could allow for the improvements to the drinking water wastewater and storm water infrastructure needs is no that we had to take out the conversation about relocation because um most if not all in uh funding that would happen for relocation would come through the federal government and not through these particular loans okay that's clear thank you and diana are you okay you had your hand up yeah it was just about the the um short term regulations but i'm good thank you all right so again i present these as proposals um you know we have put a lot of work into this bill to try to as i said earlier to try to make it broader but this is not the time for that and um and so i would open up the floor to conversations on the bill in in total we have as as we have for the last week or so we have invited um various advocates to be on hand as if they were in our committee room and that includes um chris cochran from from um dhcd and erhard manka from romant affordable housing coalition and ellen alex weinhagen from and i am i am i still butchering your name alex um and you have it right it's a haga dhana hagan um either's fine hagan is a little more german okay um and so uh i will open the floor to us all and start with um representative by wrong then go to alex thank you chair um i i guess my it's kind of a broad question so the parts that we've removed like such as parking and uh the constraint reports and whatnot has that moved over to whatever they're working on in natural resources or is that being removed from the totality of these conversations sorry sorry did was that not clear i hold on a second i'm turning off my video for a minute because i my my thing is unstable so was the question is this language going to a different place right now yeah that was just kind of my question i understand that it's removed from in front of us i'm just curious if it's still existing in a conversation somewhere else um not that i'm aware of i mean there's as as you all recall from this bill you know this was this was part of a bill that was meant to include other act 250 issues um and while these are not directly related to act 250 issues they were part of that bill it's not clear to me that well what's clear to me about age 926 is that it doesn't is not going to include any of this material and so we're not we're not punting this language over to any place to be considered this week my understanding is that this language will be um filed away and perhaps utilized uh in the next planning okay because i my curiosity was around the parking conversation the constraint reports and things of that nature i understand that they were removed from the content of the sections that we are still working on i just was curious if they were winding up in the contents as it got moved from another committee but it does not sound like that no we're not we're not moving we're we're responding to other committee's concerns about this material in terms of in terms of that and again if we had more time we perhaps would have been able to call on the right witnesses or have the joint committee hearings that we would have needed to work on this bill in that way but right now it's clear that we don't um and so regardless of of the i think at this point regardless of the quality of the conversation um we we're gonna we're just moving on from it okay nope thank you for clarifying that i appreciate it yeah okay alex hi so alex weinhagen legislative liaison for the vermont planners association uh first just thanks to everyone for trying to thread the needle on on the pieces of this bill that really didn't propose much controversy and and do need to move forward um my my only uh parting suggestion is that there was one section that was struck um it was section three of the original senate bill section four of this of the earlier strikeall in your committee related to covenants and deed restrictions that was stricken from this latest version but doesn't need to be there is only one minor reference to um section b which has been removed in that section and if that phrase referencing it were removed it would still make sense be intact and be consistent with what the senate version was looking to do and what it was simply looking to do is to make sure that some of the provisions in the bill like the accessory dwelling unit allowances will still remain possible in the face of potentially restrictive homeowners association language that can actually make those impossible um so right now even if a municipality allows for an accessory dwelling unit consistent with state law a homeowners association and a new development that's being proposed can eliminate the ability to do accessory apartments and we had such a case in my community uh which was really unfortunate where a homeowner came to us got a zoning permit consistent with our regulations and then was uh told that they were going to be taken to court by their own homeowners association if they followed through with that accessory apartment so i would just advocate that you consider reinserting that section and just just subtracting that phrase that refers to the piece that that is no longer part of the bill um and going forward that would allow at least the accessory dwelling units and perhaps other positive municipal land use regulations to to be possible for all people regardless of whether they live um under the auspices of a of a homeowners association. Alex before I before I ask Ellen about that um directly can you tell me offhand like what the relationship between a homeowners association bylaws and a condo association bylaws are because my experience in the past with condominium law is that it's very very difficult for state law to insert itself within condominium law and i'm just curious does does homeowners association um statute or what have you is it's more federally i mean the condo stuff is more federally based and it's really hard for the state to to like I said to um we tried to we tried to pass legislation 10 years ago that that got into that and we were told no you can't change it because it's it's you know the its condos are their own they're their own world do homeowners associations still fall under that as well? So the short answer is I'm not sure uh so I I I think of them as the same in my years of of municipal land use work I don't I have not seen a difference or heard an attorney argue that there's some difference between um a homeowners association that might govern eight lots uh who share a road and perhaps some open space and um eight condominiums on a on a common piece of ownership land I'm not sure there is a difference um what I would point you to which I mentioned in the past is the legislature's work on clothes lines of all things energy efficiency measures and the law that was passed that prohibited uh associations and deed restrictions limiting the use of of those sorts of energy efficient technologies as old as those technologies are like clothes lines um and I think that set precedent um that the state could uh monkey with uh private deed restrictions and association covenants and this section of the bill that passed through the senate um does the same thing but in a broader way um so that these housing provisions that both the state and the municipal municipalities are are looking to allow to give homeowners the ability to provide more housing um actually remain possible keep in mind that at least in my community and probably more in the urban to suburban areas of the state uh homeowners homeowner association developments are the norm um we don't see as many uh purely single family homes on public streets that have that have no sort of deed restrictions and common interest ownership provisions most of them especially for mid to larger size projects do and so there's a real concern at least in my sector that um these covenants can be used to to undermine the the housing uh goals that both the state and our municipalities have and okay no fair enough um ellen and then lisa ellen do you have um comments on on that section uh sure so as it was drafted the deed restriction language was specific to uh 44 12 b1 it originally didn't include the adu language so you can you can put it back in there and actually have it specific to any section i would just ask which sections you are being specific to so which sections would you like to um prevent restrictive covenants on which which section like 44 12 a or which like like if we if we said adu's yeah there's i could i mean i could insert that specific citation okay um representative hango so i'm not convinced that we need to add that back in um just because i've lived in a number of places across the country and um covenants and and deeds have their place for a lot of people um for a lot of different reasons and none of them being the the malicious type reasoning that mr. weinghagen was just alluding to um so i i kind of do take exception to that because it's not a planned way of excluding certain folks um but it is a way a planned way of um a mutual i'm sorry i just i at least i unmuted i unmuted you by accident can you you i meant to lower your hand could you unmute yourself i'm laughing because that might have been intentional um well i just i just feel that um sometimes planned communities like this are for the mutual benefit of of folks who who choose to live together in a certain um in a certain atmosphere for instance you know like they want to preserve being able to um look at farmland around them or have a view of the mountains or or whatever it is people are coming together to have a development so i really think that that might be reading a lot too much into it and i'm not in favor of adding that language back yet thank you okay representative kalaki well i think alex presents an interesting issue that to be consistent um i i think there's a strong point to to do that and it's only about as i understand that we can we can say it's consistent for the adus so i don't really see if as long as we're clear about what that is it's actually going to allow the state the municipals and the homeowners to understand the enabling language and the framework of this so i um you know i would love to see what this looks like this this extra paragraph and ellen if you can i would suggest be very clear as you said ellen to make it about the adus stuff that we're talking about and then i think the bill is clear what we're trying to do and you know chair i appreciate the work um you've done and everybody who's on this uh you know we're about 80 years of our conditional use short-term rentals which is in some parts of our state really problematic with letting the municipalities decide what to do about that and then the mobile home infrastructure i mean these are four key things that were um important for the state and to enable enable more affordable housing you know so anyway alex i think it's an interesting thing you bring forward and i think we should look at alex and then represent it up against us thanks um i just at some point if ellen could share her screen and show the covenants and conditions section i just wanted to point out that at least what was in the earlier strike all and in the senate version um was not specific to adus was not specific to a particular section of 4412 in fact what it says is that these deed restrictions covenants and similar agreements that prohibit land development allowed by municipal bylaws shall not be valid so it to um representative callacchi and hangos point um it it would be a very broad uh piece of legislation that would basically say any municipal uh any municipally regulated land development um could not be prohibited by a deed restriction a covenant or a binding agreement if you were to remove the phrase that said that the municipality had to first adopt a bylaw in accordance with 4412 b which you've removed um i from my standpoint i used the the accessory dwelling unit as the example of why this could be helpful um and the specific situation in my community where a resident was prohibited from from creating one due to their homeowners association restrictions there are other provisions of municipal land development bylaws allowances that homeowners um should have access to like home occupations that covenants and homeowners associations could also restrict but i respect representative hangos concern and and also representative callacchi's suggestion so if the if the committee's interested at all in putting this back in and wants to um make it much more specific not all municipal um regulated land development but specific to adus um that would be fine i just wanted to clarify that originally this bill wasn't specific to a particular type of land use like adus it was more it was broader than that alex i'm sorry but what are you suggesting to take out here um alex is right i was wrong so the provision set uh so this is the language um it was in section four so it's adding new language to title 27 which is the property law title so deed restrictions covenants or other similar similar binding agreements added after and we would have to update the date that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting land development allowed under the municipal bylaws in a municipality that has adopted a bylaw in accordance with 44 12 shall not be valid so what i would do is i would strike the reference um probably about here so it would um that so have adopted a restrictive uh a deed restriction that prohibits or have the effect of prohibiting land development allowed under the municipal bylaws shall not be valid so uh or i could put in there a specific reference to adus or as alex suggested it could just be um any land development that would yeah any land in any land development currently allowed by municipal bylaws and this still allows municipal control yes so this is so the the purpose of this language is to prevent from private owners from overriding what the municipality has adopted in their bylaws and to be clear line 13 on this page says at well line 12 and 13 says after July 1 2020 so you're talking about not rewriting these restrictions covenants or binding agreements to places that already have them right and that's important because otherwise we're um entering into unconstitutional contract clause territory so right um if we if we say that it's prospective moving forward saying that new uh new covenants and deeds can't contain these things that avoids any um unconstitutional issue yeah that's fine um thank you representative Gonzalez uh so i think that uh this is a really great catch um to include this language that it we have heard um not that much this biennium but in in previous years bienniums different issues that have popped up with homeowners associations and uh and so having something going forward really looking at the municipal land ordinances are what is um what is the law then we are supporting that and not allowing um uh extra government you know um uh trying to think about how to how to phrase it exactly but these non-governmental um uh organizations to determine land use when that is the role of the municipalities and the state and so i think that this um this is a great addition to to the bill and want to um echo representative Colackey's um sentiment about that uh we've by taking out the pieces of this bill overall that have that we've really struggled with uh that i'm i'm really glad that we are able to to get across the line some um or at least we have in front of us and it seems likely um because these are things that we have not that have not been contentious in our committee um that we can can move a lot of really important things forward particularly around the allowing municipalities to regulate short-term rentals if they need to and allowing ADUs to um be more possible so um they just want to want to say i'm very excited that we have a path forward representative Hango then by wrong um i guess my question um would be for the chair when you rewrote this what were you thinking um by not including this language um my eyes focused right on the the 4412 language that this was specific to um that this was specific to uh the language that were cutting but as alex mentioned when we talked about this on thursday and we were going through the sections i had said i had said um well this has to do with 4412 um and so we should cut it and he basically said the same thing he just said today which was actually no this can be useful for these purposes and so you know last night when i was when i was um communicating with ellen i just reverted back to my focus on the 4412 and not on the broader issue so i guess my question then is um something that i've asked in the past before and i don't mean it with any disrespect whatsoever but we normally when we're sitting in our committee room have committee members at the table and witnesses are when they're called on will offer suggestions this almost feels like we're all sitting around the same committee table offering ways to build this bill ways to write this bill and that that sometimes confuses me and this this is really confusing the issue for me as well so i'm i'm trying to understand where this is coming from and i i will ask for at least overnight to give this some thought before we make any decisions on this um because there are a number of other planners who are not weighing in on this new language that i would like to hear from thank you representative by ron i think this is for alex more than anyone else um to this section we were just discussing could you give me like a like a what a scenario like this would play out like like give me like a real-life sort of anecdotal story right so i can give you an example of a of a development that was approved um in 2010 uh and that was a 37 unit housing development pretty much all single family homes with a couple of duplexes and um they had commonly owned roads and infrastructure and as a result as that project was winding its way through our local development review process and also through act 250 uh they prepared homeowners association documents that included covenants and and restrictions we we tend not to pay a whole lot of attention to those except that we want to make sure that the commonly owned infrastructure is properly managed um and that sort of thing um in that process the the developer in those association documents prohibited accessory dwelling units accessory apartments um sort of got past us we probably would have asked about that why that was necessary if we had thought about it at the time but we didn't um that project was approved and built and the first house that was built in that project was the largest house it was um i believe over 3,300 square feet um it was designed with a basement that just lent itself to a separate entrance and perhaps an accessory apartment but the the original owners didn't use it or desired to use it in that way um they passed away and sold the house and the new owner saw that space as as a potentially advantageous accessory apartment so they came to us for a permit to do that and we said absolutely the state requires us to allow that and our regulations make that possible here's your zoning permit go go make that accessory apartment subsequently the homeowners association um found out about that and and approached that homeowner and said i'm sorry we have a deed a deed restriction that says you you cannot have an accessory dwelling unit and they nearly went to court over it but in the end the homeowner who was interested in creating it back down and said well i got my town permit but i guess i didn't i can't do it because of our our covenant and restriction so that's a real example that happened going forward if we were to have a new development proposed which in my community hindsburg we have several that are right now that proposed a similar restriction we would probably question it but if push came to shove and and the homeowners association wanted that restriction in place it would be valid and our idea of accessory dwelling units in particular or more broadly things like minor home occupations other sorts of land development that we encourage and allow for could be overruled the ability to do that could be overruled by a covenant or or a restriction within that neighborhood okay no that kind of just mapped everything out for me and i didn't know i appreciate that thank you representative hanko thank you this is a question that i had before but i forgot it and now i've remembered it thank you alex um my question is for a homeowners association wouldn't they have had to have discussions with the municipality early on when they were forming the hoa and writing their covenants and deeds and that was something that was agreed upon at the beginning at the outset of that development so no actually normally um review of deed restrictions and covenants comes towards the end of a development review process um at least in hindsburg we do we do look at those but um we we look at them for very prescribed reasons having to do with shared infrastructure and potential infrastructure that might be taken over by the municipality at a later date roads for example um we don't tend to go into a lot of detail about what color you can paint your house or um you know when the when the association will meet what their schedule is and that sort of a thing um if this provision were uh included in statue it would be clear to both developers homeowner associations and municipalities that certain types of restrictions are aren't allowed as a part of a homeowner a new homeowners association specifically those related to land development which has a very specific definition um in the planning and zoning statue so it would not restrict the ability of a homeowner association to um prescribe certain types of design architectural design and the like um but it would have the it would have the result of of not allowing a homeowner association to um overrule or supersede a municipal local municipal's uh bylaw when it comes to things like accessory dwelling units home home occupations and other forms of land development so i guess i didn't ask the question clearly because that didn't answer it clearly for me my question is um about the process before a municipality allows a homeowners association to begin building um of course they're going to take a look at where the roads are how big the lot sizes are those types of things it's it behoves a municipality to know that information before granting permission to an association to build i'm not concerned about colors of houses or when the meetings are but i am concerned that right now um a developer could not just come in and announce that they're going to build a development and have their own covenants without um having the development review board approve that in a municipality is that correct um it it depends to be perfectly honest uh there are cases at least there have been in my community where uh existing developments have introduced their own new homeowners association to govern them we don't review those or have any purview over those new developments oftentimes that involve a homeowners association will submit their draft bylaws for us to review but unless our regulations specify what is and isn't allowed in a homeowners association bylaw um all we can do is suggest and and encourage them to have bylaws that will work for the future and reflect what's possible based on the municipal bylaw and the state goals for for housing and planning um so yeah it depends is my answer sorry it did not be more specific than that now that's making it a little clearer for me um i i guess i feel like an HOA should have their bylaws maybe not their bylaws they should have their deeds um approved by the local municipality in which they are building or incorporating and um i think that the municipality should be looking at those types of of items but if it's okay with the municipality then we're back into that cookie cutter scenario where if it's okay with one municipality then that's fine every municipality should be able to make their own their own judgments and um decisions about an organization building in their community so i guess that's all i have to say on that thank you um is chris cochran available he had a bad internet connection um chris as you know works for dhcd and if you could if you could just tell us about this section and and and how it's been vetted and how we've talked about it or how that's been talked about in the senate anyway yeah um chris cochran from the department of housing and community development um this provision was introduced back in january and at the time it was much more broad various stakeholders got involved um vermont bankers association um the tidal association their state house representative um vermont housing conservation board a and r all these people who have easements or concerns about titles um stepped in to shape this bill they made it prospective um and they thought the intent was good um the yeah he just you're fading it you're fading it in i'm sorry uh i'm not sure we hear um i do think this change does make some sense and i would urge the consent the committee to um so we include adding this back to the bill um air heart sorry yeah i am and apologies i don't have uh access to video for some reason today um just you know you heard the discussion you know i'm not sure it's it's resolved um but just as a broader context i mean uh you know condominium association uh bylaws have been used specifically in the past to to discriminate um and so there are certainly things that uh need to be in in in statute that um that overrule uh and i think uh you know i i'm certainly um aware at least anecdotally of condominium association rules um that existed up until not too terribly long ago weren't enforced but that violated fair housing law so uh just to provide that little bit of broader context uh to some interplay between um you know association bylaws and and what may be in uh you know in in in statute and uh whether it's local local ordinance or or in statute okay thank you um for that clarification i mean i think that this is um also because it's prospective um it's really you know it's not i hate to use the phrase because it's so loaded right now but you know these other folks everyone else is is um is grandfathered in um there's a grandfather clause here um and as we know that's a very distinct exclusion um and so it protects the rights of people who have already created these things ellen on this issue it says july 1 2020 does that have to be shifted to a date certain in the future so it um so that's a date that we could say um well we could say december 1st we can say january 1st we can say whatever um on that so can you propose um can you um add this to the proposed um strike all with the date of um whatever are people comfortable with um uh october 1st or december 1st or january 1st i like january 1st in case things are in development it gives people some time but so from january 1st on any new homeowners associations would be subject to this um provision okay okay and um all right any further questions on any of the other sections or is this it's 230 i want to be careful i would be respectful of our time because we're going to be back with the agenda general at three and um i think that so for tomorrow morning we have on the schedule we have a conversation with on s254 which is a public sector union bill but we will not have damien here until nine a.m and so um i would um ask that if ellen if you can if you can create um the strike all with the suggestions that we've made here and provide that to the committee at some point this afternoon um that i would propose also that we have uh a vote on this tomorrow morning at 8 30 or between 8 30 and 9 any comments about that any any further comments on this bill uh just my support for the idea okay thank you all right um so with that let's take a short break um y'all can leave your computers on if you want the um uh when we're finished here looks like peggy is our host again um so peggy will peggy if you can just take us off of youtube right now so thank you everybody thank you to the witnesses