 Christopher, by the way, good morning, everybody. Good morning, members of the public. Christopher is with us as representing the administration. He's been, as you know, the lead person on developing our downtowns and smart growth. And that's going to be a big part, whatever form it takes, it's going to be a big part of our housing bill. So welcome, Christopher. Let's get started with Ellen. Let me, I don't think I heard back from David Hall. Is he with us? Or he's not? He is. OK. David's there. OK. I'm here. I'm just lurking in the background doing everything. OK. Well, then we'll start very briefly with David. And then we'll move to Ellen because I know she has some time restrictions, as does David. This is going to be the nature of Zoom, I think. The, today, all morning, we're going to be starting to deal with our omnibus housing bill. And let me put some more lights on here. Hold on a second. So I asked David, I don't know how far we've gotten in this, to take some of the bills that are floating around that deal with housing and to put them in a draft that would be fairly long. And we'll go through them section by section and make amendments, say, where you don't have support for one idea or another, or if there are other ideas we can put in. But I expect it to be a fairly heavy bill at some point, but hopefully covering the waterfront of good ideas that we can realistically move forward with, pass, and implement. So I don't know if that's a little bit of a lead-up for you, David, just to get the document posted at this point and tell us what you've got in just not substantive, just an outline of where the bills came from, who sponsored them, perhaps, and where you got them from. And then we'll turn it over to the parts that Ellen has drafted. Does that make sense, David? I'm feeling confused and flummoxed only because I think everything that you guys have asked for so far, Ellen, has actually drafted. So that's fine. That's fine. Am I wrong about that, Ellen? Ellen is not sure about that either. Did you? Well, that's OK. I thought you drafted at least Keisha Roms' bill, though, Mel. So I have part of its mind and part of it says. And part of it's Becky's. Oh, OK. That's right. Oh, right. Yeah. Because I'm on that bill, too. This is the housing bill. I do realize that this is a little bit confusing and everybody has a little bit of right to be confused. But we'll get there and we'll just plow ahead with, I guess, Ellen's sections first. And if there's some sections that remain, that you have drafted, David, we'll we'll deal with that. I know I did ask David to include the ideas of a land bank and a 529 plan from the realtors. But I don't know who drafted those. It may have been the realtors themselves, but we'll get to those as well. David, Keisha's computer is having a little bit of a hiccup and she'll be here with us shortly. It's doing an update that is intervening with or joining us. My the Omnibus Economic Development Bill also has a few housing pieces in it also, which David did draft up. There's Keisha. And so we might want to look at some of those, too. I think that they anyway. So we've got housing pieces in a bunch of our bills. And I other ideas are still floating around to get there. So oh, yeah. And there's one in budget adjustment, which we, of course, need to deal with, which is the home builders gap piece, which I'm. There is hope that that might also be part of a budget adjustment. And I guess I would say that there's a sub question here, which is what do we want to make sure we include in budget adjustment? And I think we should carve out some budget adjustment time that may have one or two housing pieces in it. And we know it has an economic development piece and a new workers piece. So let me just interject here and try to put some shape on everything. I got multiple emails throughout the day for multiple people saying, I'm going to get you something that didn't happen from some people. It did happen from other people, a huge amount of the stuff that you guys are considering Ellen did. And we have been in touch with each other, but we don't have at this point, like one repository in which all of these things appear because it wasn't entirely clear at the end of the day. And I mean, the end of the day, whether, you know, we should just be dumping a bunch of stuff and waiting for other stuff or whether you were going to use this time with us to talk about what might be in what might be out if you wanted to hear them on the basis of their individual bill numbers. As you suggested, Mr. Chair by, you know, where did this come from? Who drafted it? What's the number? What's the deal with? So if I misapprehended and understood that and you wanted everything in a 100 page vehicle at this moment, I'm sorry, I don't have that 100 page vehicle at this moment. We do have the constituent parts and we can speak to them. OK, so I apologize to the extent I'm responsible for any of that. It's been a kind of crazy couple of days here. But it's been a crazy few days of this week. And I can't believe it's only the second week. And I feel like it's already it's already Thursday. Mr. Chair, aren't we hoping? Sarah Clarkson, can I just finish my conversation with David? Because I just we don't have to make too much of this. I wasn't really expecting that we would be totally focused at this point, that it needs to come into focus what we're doing. But just to be clear and I will have a conversation with David sometime today on the phone where we'll start bringing in together pieces of the bill into one bill. That's a draft that will change over time over the next few weeks. I'm not asking for really any drafting at this point, just as David said, compile ideas and walking through what people ideas that people have put together in bill form at this point. But we'll sort that out with a phone call during the day. And and we will just use this morning as I actually was hoping we'd do is to start doing an overview of some of the component parts of this omnibus bill and whether we have them in writing or I sure we have them in writing, it may just take us a little more time if we start with Ellen to talk about some of her pieces for her to get them up and share them on the screen. So if that's OK with David and Ellen, I would just move to Ellen. Why don't we one of the key pieces I know that I've been very interested in and I've heard a lot about is. Representative Bongart's bill and I've talked to both Senator Brae about these issues and and Representative Bongart's and it may find a way in this bill or the other vehicle that we have is one or one, which is has the exact same has is very relevant to this. So if it's OK with you, David and Ellen, why don't we just put up on the screen H 5 11 and find out what that's all about? I think the committee will find some of the some of the elements of a lot of interest to developing housing. And we're also going to have Senator Bray in next week to talk about his active 50 bill. And Senator Brock has a as a bill of natural resources as well that has some housing elements and we'll talk about that. So we're starting to just get an overview at this point of some of the housing related bills that are out there that might form the core of our omnibus bill. Is that is that oh, does that is that a good way to proceed in Ellen and and David's minds at this point for this morning? Sure. OK. Hey, yeah. So, Ellen, let's take a look at this bill. And if the one thing I would ask you on this bill, as opposed to going through every section of the bill, if you can use your judgment and not not to say that we might not revisit it later on, but to try and not go through bills that are not related sections that are not related somehow to more effective development of housing. OK. OK, so so to start, five eleven is an act relating to promoting housing in Vermont centers. So I think perhaps all but one of the sections of this bill are related to housing. The first section is is a finding section. And as you as you and David and the committee build the list of things that are going in your omnibus housing bill, I'll be keeping track of the parts. This bill has some significant similarities to the language that's in Senator Rahm Hemsdale's bill in Stalesville. So we may not need both sets, so I'm just going to flag that. So the first section in five eleven amends the neighborhood development area requirements for a town to get a designated neighborhood development area. The first part allows towns to file jointly. So if an area if two towns want to apply for a neighborhood development area that will cover a boundary within two towns, they're going to allow that. That's the first change. Ellen, I'm going to ask you to at least for me to be very basic here. And and as we go along when we talk about these just give us the highlights of what a neighborhood development area is in in lay terms. Sure, we do have the expert with us currently. This is the part of the one of the programs that is administered by Mr. Cochran's department. So the neighborhood development area is a state part of the state designation program. The state designation program, as you remember, has five designations. Neighborhood development areas are an overlay of the neighborhoods directly adjacent and surrounding the commercial core of an area. So it's usually the area around either a designated downtown village center or new town center, and it is largely residential, although mixed use and commercial is allowed. But there are a number of incentives for towns that achieve a neighborhood development area. But there is also a pretty extensive list of requirements for a town to receive this designation. So this first section is amending some of the requirements for a town to apply for this designated area. OK, thank you. And so the first one currently only individual municipalities can apply for this designation. And so this first one is allowing joint applications with more than one municipality. And that's on the top of page four, lines four through five. Next, farther down still in this section related to neighborhood development areas. This is something that your committee has talked about extensively in the past, and it's another sort of it's some slightly different language than what your committee has seen before. But so the proposed neighborhood development area consists of those portions of the neighborhood planning area that are appropriate for new and infill housing, excluding identified flood hazard and fluvial erosion areas, except for those areas containing preexisting development and areas suitable for infill development as defined in the Vermont floods, hazard and river corridor rule. So this is this is similar to some language that your committee looked at in the past, currently under the statute, neighborhood development areas would not in areas in the neighborhood that are in the flood hazard area. They're excluded from the ability to receive the incentives. So this is adding that the areas in the flood hazard area can be included as long as they contain preexisting development suitable for infill. And you say what what bill was this language does look very familiar to me. It was in a bill that was was it in one on one or two sixty seven or. I think it was in two thirty seven thirty. And I cannot remember off the top of my head if it was in one on one. It may have been a good this committee, at least, and maybe the full Senate has already passed this language at one point or another. All right. So. So this is similar to what you passed. I don't think I see exact because on page five, there is some additional language related to it that was added. I will say that this this bill was is the result of a sort of stakeholder process from the fall, a number of parties worked on it. So there are some additional components that have been added. But a lot of it, especially here, are things you've seen before. So again, there's new language on page five still related to the flood hazard area issue. So if the neighborhood development area includes flood hazard areas or river corridors, the local bylaw shall contain provisions consistent with A&R's rules to ensure that new infill development within a neighborhood development area occurs outside the flood hazard area and will not cause or contribute to fluvial erosion hazards within the river corridor. So if the NDA includes flood hazard areas or river corridors, local bylaw shall also contain provisions to protect river corridors outside the neighborhood development area, consistent with A&R's rules. So this is requiring very specifically that towns applying for NDAs need to have their bylaws in their their town bylaws, they need to have adopted A&R's rules related to flood hazard areas and river corridors, not just in the NDA, but for the whole town. OK. Next, we're still talking about neighborhood development areas. This is striking the requirement that the NDA be served by municipal sewer or community alternative water wastewater system. So it's striking that requirement. And then finally, in the NDA section, I'm talking about densities here. So the bylaws allow minimum net residential densities within the NDA, greater than or equal to four dwelling units per acre for all identified residential uses or building types. So this is excluding the requirement that it be four single family units per acre. It's allowing for multi family units to be part of that calculation for density. So again, I apologize if it's just for me, but could could you tell us if you get this neighborhood development area designation? What are the advantages that would promote housing growth along this this line of the four dwelling units and what will that that will access other programs and incentives to to allow housing to be built quicker, more cheaply, more densely? Is that is that the part of part of it? So there is a pretty I think Chris probably knows the fullest off the top of his head, but the list of incentives for neighborhood development areas includes access to the priority housing project exemption under Act 250, which allows affordable housing to be exempt from Act 250. Non affordable housing projects in neighborhood development areas have a 50 percent off fee reduction under Act 250 also. So that's another building incentive. I do think they all neighborhood development areas also received the bonus points for the state grant programs. Which we've talked about before when some of the state grant programs like the wastewater revolving fund. That's not what it's called. You get bonus points if you're part of the designation program. And so when towns are applying for grants from the state, it's a it's a bonus to them. So I think I'm I'm probably missing a few. And so I don't know if you want to hear from Chris on the full list. No, that's fine. We will hear from Chris at some point, maybe even today. But I just wanted to get us grounded as we go through these things, not assuming that we all are well versed in this. I know we've heard this at least five times from different witnesses, but it's a new session and I just wanted to go slow in terms of making sure everybody had an understanding. I also want to say that I'll have to work with Scott because I'm sure there's a way I can see people's faces while we're sharing a screen here, but I haven't figured it out. So if you have a comment or question, just shout out because I can't see anybody but Ellen at this point. Sure. And then just as a reminder, your committee has looked at including neighborhood development areas in the tax credit program. That language hasn't passed. So currently, NDAs do not have access to the tax credit program. And Mr. Chairman, we ask a question. Yes. So we only have, I think, is it Chris and Ellen, is it right? We only have seven NDAs. Is that the biggest barrier for people wanting or reason people don't use them is that they don't have access to the downtown tax credit? So I think they're up to nine now. There have been a couple of not OK, but it's it's not a large number. Yeah, it's not. And I don't know if Chris wants to jump in. I don't know if it's that the tax credits are a barrier, but the NDA is, I think, the most recent of the neighborhood of the designation programs, and it does have the longest one. It's one of the longest sort of application requirements, you know, particularly compared to like the Village Center designation. NDAs have a longer list of planning requirements that the town has to complete it. OK. And if I could add. Yeah, yeah, quickly. I'm Chris Cochran from the Department of Housing and Community Development. Yes, there are that can confirm there are nine neighborhood development area designations. The reason and most of the designations until recently were focused in Chittenden County. The reason for this is the primary benefit is is the Act two fifty exemption from and that only supports new development. We're not seeing a lot of new development occur outside of Chittenden County. There are some exceptions. I think we see some in the Hanover area, but it's not an attractive program as proposed to the rest of the state and our intent and hope with by creating the neighborhood development area tax credits that will engage more communities who actually need their housing improved. There's they're less likely to see a new development occur. And then the other piece of it, too, is, as Ellen mentioned, the list of requirements you have to update your bylaws to make sure you can qualify to make sure you can support compact development. And I think the investment this committee made in the bylaw modernization grants is going to prepare, you know, we had 41 communities and received bylaw modernization grants. The requirements in the bylaw modernization grants not coincidentally line up quite well with the requirements for the neighborhood development area program. So I do see there's great potential in the changes you're considering to significantly increase the number of NDAs that the state has. Mr. Chairman, I follow up with a question. Yes. So I hate to ask the obvious, but I've just always wondered with the NDA program is like, why didn't we just extend and have the opportunity for towns to expand their downtown, their designated downtown or village centers rather than have to overlay another program? Why wouldn't it have just been simpler to extend the boundaries of our downtown and village centers? That is a great question, Senator Clarkson. In fact, it's one that we want to do. And at the very end of this bill is a proposal to have an external review of the designation programs. You know, I've tried to explain so many times the five different designations, how they overlay, how they interact, and it's just too confusing. But they were made incrementally at different times for different purposes. And that's the framework we have. Now it's time to take a step back and take a look at them. And what we'd like to do longer term is actually recognize the entire settlement and not just, you know, the commercial area, the housing area, the area proposed for new development. Let's look at the entire settlement and align our regulations, our public investments and our regulatory reforms to support the kinds of development we want in these areas. Here, here. And I think you may see that Senator Bray's bill has a little bit of a lot of that in it. But we'll hear from him next week. So let's move forward. Can I quickly ask, Chris, what are the the the recent NDA designated towns? Yeah, what are the two new ones? You're on mute. You think I'd learn. Hutney, Vermont. And is it Berlin? Did Berlin get theirs? Berlin has it as a conditional approval of their of a new town center, but they have they have more work to do. They're seeking it, but their bylaws did not meet the standards. So they have more work to do. I will look quickly and when I I will let me just check really fast and I'll respond to the other one. OK, OK. All right. So speaking of New Town Center, Section three has a small change to the designation program for New Town Centers and it is again related to density. So it's it's a fairly minor change. So a new town, a town applying for a new town center must have regulations enabling densities that are not less than four dwelling units, including all identified residential units or residential building types per acre and not less than those allowed in any other part of the municipality, not within the designated area under this chapter. So just adding more specificity to the density requirements for New Town Centers. Section four has a small change that I think arguably relates to housing, but is a little slightly more ambiguous, the direct connection. But so we're looking at the the zoning permit section in title 24. So no municipal land use permit issued by an appropriate municipal panel for a site plan or conditional use shall be considered abandoned or expired unless more than two years has passed since the approval was issued. So some towns have expiration dates on their permits that require construction within a certain period of time. Currently, not all towns do, but sometimes do. And there was feedback that due to COVID and some of the other restrictions that construct there have been construction delays, which have required people to reapply for their municipal building permits. Section five, so now we're into some Act 250 amendments. First, so first, we're in the definition of priority housing project. The definition of priority housing projects under Act 250 are exempt, but there's a list of qualifications that a project needs to meet in order to be considered a priority housing project. It needs to consist of at least 20 percent affordable units and it needs to be located in a designated area. And currently, there is a cap on the size of the number of units that can be built at to that will be exempt. So the amendment on page eight or on page eight, yep, is is raising the cap slightly. So currently in towns that have a population of less than 3,000 people, a priority housing project has to have 25 or less units. And so this is now just saying in a town with less than 6,000 people. Priority housing projects can be up to 50 units. So it's getting rid of the 25 unit cap on the smallest towns. Quickly, this is probably not related to housing. It's updating the definitions of floodway and floodway fringe to match A&R's definitions. Then I have another basic question. I need my memory refreshed again. So the basic argument for allowing priority housing to bypass or at least one of the arguments I remember to bypass Act 250 was that there is elements of Act 250 review that are already being are already achieved, at least in part through the local municipality or town. Do I have that wrong? Is there any requirement here that there be some thorough review by somebody if we're in priority housing? It depends. It varies town to town. I don't I don't know if I can answer that question off the top of my head. Town municipal permits often have elements that are similar to Act 250, but only some towns do. You not all of the designated the town's designated areas have full zoning. Really? Yes, that's a little surprise. I mean, I'm surprised by that. I think arguably it's the vast majority, but not all of the designations require it. So it's a little difficult for me to answer that quickly. I will say that what some testimony you have heard before is that depending on who's providing the funding for the affordable housing, those funding sources sometimes do have high requirements that are similar to some of the components of Act 250. BHCB has pretty high requirements for receiving funding from them. So. Yeah, OK, well, we'll we'll get back to this question, I think, repeatedly, because that's, I think, part of the. The tipping point, the balancing act here, you know, if we're going to expand these exceptions to Act 250, we need to know what, if anything, is back up in those areas as we make the decisions to go in that direction. I mean, I think, you know, I for one, and I think the rest of the committee is is in favor of trying to promote housing in this way. And that Act 250 sometimes is an impediment. But I know environmentalists will perhaps be on the other side of the equation if there's nothing there to to replace it, unless there is no real need for it in some of these smaller communities. Anyhow, let's go on. We'll come back to that question repeatedly, I'm sure. So moving on to page 10. Looking at the definition of mixed income housing. This is language that was in one of your prior bills. It is a change that was requested by the NRB and VHFA to sync up the definition of mixed income housing with the calculation that VHFA is currently doing, which is adjusting the using the calculation to now adjusted for the number of bedrooms per unit. So that's added here. Right. And then on page 11, the definition of priority housing project is being simplified. Currently, for NDAs, a priority housing project has to consist exclusively of housing. That is a mixed income housing. And now this is allowing that a priority housing project in an NDA can consist of mixed use, so affordable housing with a mix of potentially commercial entities in the building as well. Is this just for NDAs or for all the designations? So currently, priority housing projects in downtowns, new town centers and growth centers and NDAs in a village center. It's mixed use. But in other NDAs, it's just mixed income. So it's just it's simplifying it to say that priority housing project is either mixed use or mixed income in any of the locations. Great. Thank you. Section six is the permit exemption section in Act 250. And this is subdivision P refers to the exemption for priority housing projects. And what this is doing is, again, simplifying the language so that the process for the exemption is just really straightforward. And it says no permit or permit amendment is required for a priority housing project in a designated center. So it's cutting out some of the other things that currently have been there, but it's simplifying no permit or permit amendment is required. Good. And then. Almost done here. Section seven probably isn't related to housing. It's updating criterion one D of Act 250, which is the flowed away criterion. And then finally, this is the report that Chris referred to earlier. So it's giving his department one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to hire a consultant to do an evaluation of the state designation program. And look at potentially updating and reassessing it. So sorry, man, just shut up, Clarkson. Thanks. Before we go. Just gloss over the flood hazard areas and river quarters, I just want to remind us that they have huge impact on housing in our town towns as we found out in Irene. So I mean, it does have housing impact. Right. OK, sure. So I'll talk to you about it quickly. I'm just I'm just saying that we don't need to spend a lot of time on it now. I just, you know, when you say it doesn't have it, yeah, it. Go ahead, Ellen, you have something to add and I can't remember if you're. I can't remember if this was in as two thirty seven. It may have been. This is a piece of language that has been floating around since I started. It is it seeks to just update criterion one D to match the work that A&R has been doing. So A&R no longer uses the word floodways. Right. He has an area and river corridors. So. It's not. It's it is it is a change to this criterion. And this this applies to anyone who is seeking an active 50 permit for construction housing or otherwise. And so this is just this is this is an update to that criteria to reflect A&R's current definitions. OK, so I have a couple of questions. One is for Chris, does the administration support this one hundred and fifty thousand appropriation? That's a great question. I I don't know if it's in the budget. But I'll check. Well, that's going to be two part question. And secondly, what are people's schedule? My intent would be to move to Senator Romsville to the to the extent to the housing pieces. I think they're all housing pieces, but certainly the pieces that Ellen worked on and then take a break. But I'd like to know what David and Ellen's schedule. I assume Chris, you could can you be here the whole morning? I assume I have a meeting at 10 that I have to attend. For how long will that be? It's probably a 15 minute meeting, but then I have another meeting at 11 with my secretary that I've got a brief run several days. OK, so you're in and out. Ellen, you're here till 10 30. Is that right? Yes. And David, what's your availability for the rest of the. At some point, I have to hop over to House General. But it's in flux. They scheduled me for more time than it will take. So I can be here the whole morning until they tell me they need me to pop over and then I got his food and then I'll come back. OK, let's let's maximize maximize Ellen's time at this point. When I see a vacant chair now. Oh, that wasn't your dark, a dark picture like I am too. Well, you're both totally backlit. Yeah, I know, Ellen, can you would it make sense? I know you mentioned something that there are pieces of Senator Rom Hinsdale's bill that are similar to these and maybe slightly different. Would it make sense to pull that one up at this point and talk about the housing elements? But it could be a tag team. You and David, depending upon. Who drafted what? And I know Becky, Becky drafted some to I understand. So we'll plow through. Yes, Chris, I if I could just add a little bit of information that may help this. Yes, there are several similar bills that try to look at priority housing project and to kind of make them work better for smaller towns. They were spawned by a memo that some of you know, a memo that several local planners wrote. I think there's a, you know, there's a Senate version. There's a House version and Senator and Representative Baumgart started with a similar version of the bill. H 5 11 is a more refined version of that. And it's seen a lot of stakeholder review. So there are differences and where there are differences, you'll you'll find that there wasn't support for them. So I don't know if that's helpful to the committee, but I just wanted to add that. Well, is that memo available? Could you get us that? Absolutely. Yep. Yep. And you received you received a copy of it several. I think it's several years ago, but it was kind of a response to S 237. You know, we were looking at changes at the local level to support compact development and the planners didn't really like that. And they pointed to the state and they said, you know, the state needs to make changes too. So 5 11 and these others bills are responsive to that. OK, well, with that in mind, yes, sit around, please. Well, yeah, I mean, I haven't I shared with Chris, my bill, and I haven't heard back from him where the disagreement is. I do think there's certain differences, like a one to one, you know, remediation of prime agricultural soils if you're building a neighborhood development centers instead of no remediation. I'm just trying to. I think if we go through the bills, the nuance is important. I'm just I haven't heard from Chris where the disagreement is. OK, well, that that's what we're intending to do throughout this process. It's going to take time and on to resolve these things today. But I do think it's a good idea to talk about whether there is on the heels of the 5 11 we should move to. Can we move to center around Hinsdale's bill and walk through that and highlight where there's similarities and differences? Yes, so S 226, right? And these sections should sound very familiar. So starting with section two on page five of S 226. It's amending the neighborhood development area requirements. So first, we have the language about allowing joint application with municipalities. That's the same as in 5 11. There's also this language here on page six related to the size of the neighborhood development area itself. So it's amending how large the NDAs can be. So currently for a town that has a designated downtown, the size of the NDA is one half mile from the perimeter of the of the designated downtown. This is extending it to three quarters of a mile around the downtown for village centers. It's going from one quarter mile around the village center to one half mile. And then for new town centers, I'm going again from one quarter mile to one half mile. So extending the size of the NDAs. OK. Next, again, on page seven, that language about the flood hazard areas in an NDA. So this is making a slightly different change if there are. OK, so if the proposed neighborhood development area consists of portions of the planning area appropriate for new and infill housing, excluding undeveloped flood hazard and fluvial erosion areas. So this is just being it's a slight difference from the other language that's in five eleven, which is requiring that areas in the flood hazard area meet the definition of eligible for infill development. So what is going on here? I mean, in existing law where we have we took up a more protective and maybe less scientific approach to flood hazards. Are we trying to open the flood hazards areas to more housing? So if you could just explain that in lay terms, what what this section does and what the changes would would mean. Yeah, so currently a town that is applying for an NDA, they draw out the map and it includes in these provisions, as we just saw, how large of an area it can be. And if there is a river running through that area, the area that's in the flood hazard area and fluvial erosion zone is exempt from being in the NDA currently. And that means that development in those areas are not eligible for the incentives available to the NDA. So they are exempt from it. And so it's like they carved out a piece saying, OK, incentives are are available, but not for development in the flood hazard areas. Correct. Yeah. And so this is making a change. Five eleven is making a change also. But this is saying instead of excluding all area in the flood hazard area, it is excluding undeveloped area in the flood hazard area. So presumably things that don't already have a building on it or parking lot. So if it has a building on it, it is included in the NDA and therefore eligible for the incentives. OK, got it. There are pros and cons to that argument, obviously. Well, let me just make sure I got this right. From a lay perspective, the pros and cons I see is you have a preexisting building in a flood area. And the law presently says that you can't expand the use or, you know, extend the building or maybe even renovate, convert it to apartments or something like that. And now we're opening up that developed land to further development, even though it's in a flood area. I would say that's largely accurate, except for a slight nuance being people can do construction addition renovations, but the state will not be providing any incentives for that work. Got it. OK, good. I'm learning as I go. And this obviously highlights the juxtaposition of land use planning with housing development. And that's why we have to work closely with Senator Bray's committee on this. I did see Senator Brock's hand up, and I don't know if he still has a question on this part. I don't know. I think he was just letting us know he had to step out. Oh, OK. And so again, the slight difference farther down the page is if the neighborhood planning area includes flood plains or river corridors, the local bylaw shall contain provisions that ensure development is elevated or flood proof at least two feet above flood elevation, basal elevation, or otherwise, otherwise reasonably safe from flooding. So the difference with the 511 is requiring the town to actually adopt bylaws that address the flood hazard area. Issues and put that in and establish what their requirements are. This is sort of a blanket provision saying the local bylaw shall require elevation and flood proofing above two feet. I think there are similar goals and just different ways to get at flood proofing for the development in these flood hazard areas. OK. And so again, at the bottom of page seven, in 511, the the requirement that the NDA have municipal sewer or an alternative system is struck and that that requirement has gotten rid of. This is adding a slight change where the neighborhood development area has to have at least one of the following municipal sewer community or alternative wastewater system approved by ANR or a public community water system. And so this is a change because a community water system is just water, not necessarily sewer, so it's it's it's it's different. It's a different option. OK. Next, there's some language in the density provision, which we did talk about in 511. So it's striking the requirement that single family detached dwellings are part of the density calculation. That is in 511. But then it's also saying the density of four dwelling units per acre exclusive of accessory dwelling units, but inclusive of density bonuses or other incentives is part of the calculation. So. This is is trying to allow towns that have density bonuses as part of their their zoning that can be used in the calculation of four dwelling units per acre. Honestly, I do not know how many towns are currently using density bonuses. I don't think it's all towns. And so. This is this is just, again, a different sort of option on how to get to the density calculation. It's just like transfer of development rights. We're in fill housing or smart growth, things try to give a bonus to to downtowns. Or I'm mixing apples and oranges here. So towns can structure density bonuses different ways. But the way some towns do it is if the project can is going to either be afford made up of affordable units or senior units. I think there's a senior housing units. I think there's a couple of different ways that they can structure it. But if they're doing a thing that the town specifically would like, they are allowed to build extra units. So with this language here, this change. What would it increase density or decrease density under the section when you include the bonuses. So allowing density bonuses. Potentially could decrease how a density decrease the density because not all. Development is required to meet the density. The the desired I'm not doing this well here. Density bonuses, I believe, are optional. So not every development will necessarily meet that and get that. And so if you're doing a calculation on how many units per acre is in one area. If it's eligible for density bonuses, it doesn't actually mean that it will be dense. But and I don't know if Chris can explain it more clearly that I just did. I see Senator Clarkson has her hand up. Yes. Yeah. No, I think Keshia and I I mean, I think the objective here is actually to encourage density, right? So I whatever, however this life, you know, so you should keep in mind that our objective here is increasing density. So yeah, I failed to do that. Then obviously, we need to figure that out. OK, could I could I add both of Irons hot? We had concerns with this approach. Basically, a town could have two acre minimum zoning, which we don't want to support and say, oh, but in this area, we have a density bonus that allows us to build and meet the neighborhood development requirements. We want to establish a floor for the whole community, for the whole sewer and water service area to create more housing options in the entire community, not a specific site by site approach to creating density. This is also incredibly difficult to administer and review for us. And we need to keep in mind of the goal. We're trying to create more housing opportunities in the whole community, not a piece of the community. Right. That was that was why we were concerned with this. And that's why the group ultimately chose the option in 511. OK, I think I think the goals were the same. Right, right. Maybe need to be tweaked as far as the language. OK, let's move on. OK, so now we're moving into the area on new town centers. So. So this is an interesting provision. This would allow for more than one new town center in a town. So a municipality may apply for new town, new town center within the municipality, provided that no traditional downtown already exists in that municipality. Unless geographic features, natural areas or public or conserved lands significantly constrain opportunities for development in or immediately adjacent to the traditional downtown. So this would actually allow downtown, towns that have a designated downtown to also establish a new town center. OK, anybody. Keisha or Allison, do you have an example here where this might be appropriate like the town of Barry or something? Is I don't know. I mean, when this expansion, which sounds like it couldn't hurt, but well, maybe it could. But is there a town in particular that was in mind, you know? I'm looking at Chris, because, you know, I think this has bubbled up. I'm, you know, I'm trying to think of downtowns that have a lot of like a river, a college campus, a natural area right next to them where their downtown is pretty tight. But I don't want to misspeak about which downtowns that actually applies to. Chris Cochran, I'm not certain if there's a specific example in mind. I can't say just the general concern about this is, you know, we only have limited resources that we can allocate to these communities and creating kind of two or more centers. You know, creating a new town center could compete with create, you know, the downtown designation and kind of undermine the vitality investments that we've made in that community. So that was, that would be one, I guess, high level concern about this approach. Right. Well, yeah. And so maybe we'll hear from certainly here from the league on this one. If they have, I mean, if there's a specific town that cries out for this, we could put it in and put the language in that limits it, you know, pretty much to that situation. So I think it's a good. There may be in the way land use has developed around the state, there may be an example where this would make sense. So let's we'll hear more about it for sure. I think the example that was given to me was Stowe, who's traditional downtown is in that, that one area. And it's pretty well built up. Right. Right. I don't know where the second area would be, but yeah, we'll hear more. And then finally on page nine in the new doesn't. Well, finally in the new in the new town center section is the same language that is in five eleven adding clarity to the density requirement of not. So not less than four dwelling units per acre. OK. Um, section to be gets into the active fifty amendments. So again, looking at the definition of priority housing project, this version actually removes any cap on the size of a priority housing project. So it removes the calculation for the number of units. Old. I like it. Again, it's it's reflected again on page eleven. That's part of the same amendment. And then on page twelve, again, this is the language is the same language that's in five eleven, which is just simplifying the actual exemption for priority housing projects. So let's let's get a time check here. We usually like to take a ten minute break at ten o'clock. Do you think that makes sense, giving your time frame? Or should we just plow ahead, Ellen? So my sections go to page seventeen of this bill, right? And we're on page thirteen. OK, let's let's take it here. And you're good to be with us till ten thirty. So let's take a ten minute break right now and come back and we'll finish this up. This is a good start. I know it seemed a little disjointed, but it's a good start. Thank you. Great for ten.