 at the General Housing and Military Affairs Committee on Thursday, September 10th, talking about S237. Ellen, if we could, can you pick up where we left off, which was like section, I don't know, we have the five yet? So in where we left off was what is section four in the as-pass version and section five in the strike all version and that was, as far as the as-pass version, the only other section related to the municipal zoning component is the implementation section at the end. So we didn't know where you wanted to go next. Well, let's go, can we be in the, can we be in the strike all? Sure. Okay, so in the strike all, so we were, we had been talking about the report from the department on municipal constraints. And so then the next section, section six was the language regarding challenges to bylaws under 4412. So the Attorney General can enforce against towns where there's concern that the bylaws are not conforming to 4412 and that they are discriminatory. Okay. And this, I believe, was a VPA, the desire to have some enforceability was a question from the VPA for a request to have some kind of language in there. I don't know, Alex, do you recall that? It was, but what's been drafted here only, just so you understand, would only apply to a portion of what we're talking about. It would not apply as it's drafted to the inclusive housing provision unless Alan, I'm missing something. No, so I, so what's here in section, section six is the technical correction. So I think the VPA is sort of raising two, two, I saw two points. So first, we are amending section 4412. And one of the things we're doing is we're adding a subdivision A. And so the technical correction is the first part. And that's what I did. So because we're amending it, I left this section needs to have the new subdivision A to make the cross reference correct. But then there is the second question of if you want the new inclusive development provisions to fall under this enforcement provision. And so I did just want to point out that currently in this statute 4453 only applies to 4421. And there are other things in 4412 to which it does not apply. But I can read you the sort of short list of what it currently applies to. So it currently applies to bylaws under, so you can't have your bylaws violate your town housing element or have unfair housing practices. The bylaws can't exclude mobile homes, mobile home parks, prefabricated homes or modular homes. And you can't exclude mobile home parks with your bylaws. You must allow multi unit residential dwellings in at least part of your town. It covers the, you must allow at least one accessory dwelling unit. And then it also covers residential care and group homes. So you can't prohibit those either. So that's the list of things that this provision currently covers. And so those are the things that if the bylaws as written or as administered violates any of those, this statute is used to challenge that as discriminatory. So you have the option, if you think that you would like to then add the inclusive development provisions regarding density, you can also add that if you want, but it is a policy decision. And this is Alex again, I think from VPA standpoint, we weren't sure what the intent was, but from a planning standpoint, the disenforcement provision is all about housing and the inclusive development provision seeks to be about that as well. So I think we thought it would make sense to give the attorney general the power to challenge both what they, what the attorney general always has been able to, which is what Ellen just read as well as the inclusive housing provision. Okay, representative Wallace has a question. Yes, I just want to be clear. All of those different types of housing that you just listed off Ellen, is that new to the statute or some of them new? Or I just want to be clear on that. No, I read you the list of things that currently exist in 44121 that this section applies to that currently exists. Okay, thank you. It's also our understanding at VPA that we're not aware that this provision has ever been invoked that the attorney general has ever made an investigation about whether municipal bylaw violated this spirit of housing provisions and discrimination on that front. So it's little used. Okay, Ellen. I did find one case where it was used. It was not an attorney, it was not an attorney general investigation. It was independently challenged by a developer, I believe. So yeah, but the point is true. It's not that often used, but it is a tool available. Erhard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Erhard Manca for the Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition. I just want to say we really appreciate the planners bringing this to everyone's attention. And as I mentioned briefly yesterday, I think since, you know, if you are going to include two B, it makes sense even if little used to have this provision in since it all addresses housing. So we would support inclusion of B in the language. And thanks to Alex and Sharon for bringing this up. Representative Kolecki. Thank you. I think, too, that we should have the inclusionary zoning aspect of this ad. Ellen, if I'm understanding correctly, you know, that's a major intention of this law. So I think it'd be great if we could integrate it. All right. Next section. Can I just interrupt for a second, please, that the next section is also labeled section six on the strike all. Is that typo? Yes. Sorry. There's, I found a couple of other typos also. So yes, this is a typo. So section six repeated is enumeration of powers. And so this is language at being added to title 24. It's in the municipal power section. So this is giving municipalities the ability to regulate short term rentals separately from long term rental units. And so this is this provision was in the as-pass by the Senate version. But I just moved it up because it's also part of title 24. So I thought it made sense just for it to fall under the section also. And it fell later because we had attached it to or in a discussion with the potential study. Yes. Right. And that's that's how I got mixed up here with keeping the study in or moving this up. So comments about this. This is May. Or they shall have the following powers to be able to do this. Yes. This relates to Vermont being a Dylan's rule state where the municipality only has the powers granted to them by the legislature. So here you are granting municipalities this ability to regulate short term rentals. Questions on this. Yes. Can you just tell me currently are there no regulations of short term rentals or are there some few. So I have heard anecdotal and I don't know this to be true. But I have heard. So let me just let me just step back. This provision was drafted by Tucker in my office. We are office the position of our office is that we did not find an explicit grant of authority to do this anywhere in title 24 already. And so it is the opinion of our office that this ability to regulate short term rentals separately from regular long term rentals is a power that municipalities do not have currently. I have heard anecdotally that there may be some towns that are doing this. And so if that's true that may be problematic. And so this language is clearly giving towns the ability to do this Representative Zahn. Yeah this is sort of getting into the as I just put the link in the chat. My I don't know how to characterize them but my my neighbors in Woodstock I won't make disparaging remarks about them but they are they are regulating short term rentals at you know at least think they are as we speak. And I guess I guess sort of part of my question about this is and I assume then obviously that this this ability to regulate is embedded within all the other statutory infrastructure for regulating housing in its various guises and therefore it's subject to all of the other. This by no means disallows or allows a municipality to regulate them in a way that wouldn't comport with other statute. I mean that's pretty obvious. I just making sure for the record. Can you can you repeat the question? Yeah I just meant that obvious I mean it's I think I'm asking the obvious which I don't I try not to do which is by allowing municipalities to do this form of regulation they can regulate it differently than long term but it still has to comport with all other statutes in terms of housing regulations elsewhere. In other words you can't you couldn't establish regulations that didn't comply with other parts of the statute or particularly like state of provisions in this bill for instance. Yes yes okay um Alex. Thanks I just wanted to to comment that if this if the state wants municipalities to be able to regulate short-term rentals this provision is key because my understanding of case law is that the Vermont Supreme Court has held that the term of a rental is immaterial and that the use is the same regardless of whether it's rented for a weekend a week a month a year and that's the way we've that's the way we understand the law to be and therefore that's how most municipalities perhaps Woodstock is the exception talk to landowners about short-term rentals and so we don't I agree with Ellen we don't have municipalities do not have the authority to regulate them differently from any other use residential use and this would this would give municipalities the ability to do so so it's it's a it's a it's a pretty substantial policy change but it's an important one if we want to get our hands around short-term rentals and how they might be impacting our more traditional housing supply. Thank you Mr. Chair I'll just I was going to say the make the same observation that our representative Zott made certainly Woodstock I know is trying to regulate Airbnb and the other platforms I'll also say that there's been some extensive efforts in Burlington underway to for Burlington to implement regulation of short-term rentals Burlington may have its own charter authority I can't remember exactly what authority they're using to they are using to do that it hasn't been implemented yet but I know that I believe that for clarity's sake this would certainly be something that we would like to see so that municipalities that did want to regulate on their own could could do so and had clear statutory authority to to do that as mentioned yesterday you know we consider to be we continue to be concerned deeply about the conversion of long-term rentals to short-term rentals all across the state not exacerbating our housing our housing shortages so we would support the inclusion of of this for clarity's sake thank you representative Hanko thank you so in reference to Earhart's comment about charter authority um so if a municipality is using their charter authority and regulating short-term rentals at this point and and thinking that they're doing it properly will this state statute override that supersede that authority uh I I don't know really how charters work that's sort of Tucker's realm so I can get back to you I don't um I don't know I would appreciate that unless someone else has the answer to that because I'm not familiar with chartered municipalities since I don't have any in this area and haven't really studied that but it would as with everything almost everything it would seem to me that municipalities would like to regulate their own um their own municipality and not have the state tell them what they need to be doing beyond you know the health and safety obviously um of of people dwelling in those buildings but that is an opinion thank you I'm not a lawyer but I would venture the opinion excuse me that the language that you see before you is broad enough so as not to restrict um whatever individual charter authority a municipality might have representative Gonzalez um just to um representative Hango your kind of question of and I'd love to hear back what Tucker's response would be but since we are a Dylan's rule states that the charters of each of our municipalities that have charters are approved by us as legislators and so then we are able to give authority according to approval of the charter so if if somebody if a municipality's charter says that they have authority we have the legislator sure has already approved that and so that gives them an authority but that there there um there is a push um to change us as Dylan's rule so that municipalities don't have to go through us as a state in order to make these changes on the municipal level so um just as a a small little background on that piece since representative Hango you said that you're you don't have that familiarity but but I I do so I wanted to share that thank you I appreciate that and also your heart's comment I guess my my underlying question then is does this statute supersede anything that the the municipality would have in their charter at the time of this passage no this is enabling legislation this allows them to do it doesn't say that they shall it they shall have the following power to do it but not they're they don't there's their choice whether they whether they enable this kind of legislation on a local basis and what we just heard is that we don't they don't explicitly have that right to do that whereas chartered some chartered municipalities can so again this is expanding and this is expanding a power to the towns that they do not currently have um I've been reminded by our administrative assistant that the chat box is not available to the public and so we just have to be very we need to refrain from chatting policy in the box I think the clarifications that have been posted of course been discussed after we've seen them for today but just as a reminder that in order to remain transparent we need to we need not to discuss policy during in the chat box during our session so just thank you Mike for for bringing that back up all right so any further questions on this section seeing none um Ellen we can scroll down okay so what's um then so that's I think the conclusion of our municipal zoning sections then we get into the tax credit language so section seven that starts at the bottom of page 13 it goes into page 14 is the technical correction for the tax credit language in the village center statute so just condensing all that into a single reference and then section eight is uh so we're in the downtown and village center tax credit program in title 32 and this section adds neighborhood development areas as an area where projects can apply for the tax credit and we're adding a new type of project eligible for the tax credit which is the flood mitigation project so there are two new additions to this tax credit program and you did hear some testimony this morning from the commissioner about adjusting the language um online 16 to instead to refer to the area mapped as a river quarter as as opposed to referring to the rule and if chris is chris still here yep um that change makes a lot of sense to me chris cocking from the department our intent was you know these are these are narrow geographies and we wanted the public to be able to see who qualified and who did not and if dc believes this is a simpler and clearer approach that makes a lot of sense to us thanks further questions on this one we did discuss it earlier today okay so section nine also relates to this it's the the actual tax credit language and then we get into the mobile home park sections so this morning again you had testimony from the commissioner of the ec making recommendations on this language this section 10 is related to the town of browborough and the tri park cooperative um and i did uh note this morning that you discussed the commissioner's recommendations and i think you decided to adopt his recommendations on this section um or we well i think if we have the recommendations at this might have been this might have been discussed a little bit while you had to duck out okay um so on line six where it says um tactical basin plan comma including through restructuring and forgiveness and then on line eight um drinking water yes committee do we have a a representative dolan asked us to think about it again so um do we have further thoughts about it i think um you know i think the concern that representative dolan was talking about was pretty global and larger policy which i think the commissioner acknowledged and appreciated and um and but he's still seem to want to see language that in terms of this particular project um that in this particular narrow thing that that drinking water be in included in this any thoughts on that and if i didn't represent that probably i'll correctly please correct me can you reiterate please what her actual concern was about adding that um if i'm again if i'm misrepresenting her um someone please correct me but i believe what i heard her say was that in general when we seek to help communities like this we they understand that drinking water is part of it but that we as a state can't promise maybe or can't anticipate um that that that it should be the state policy the state policy that um that drinking water be included in in that phrase did i represent you know did i represent this is anybody i don't see anybody um correcting me which it's kind of scary but um that's what i recollected as well i agree uh representatives on was there a separate issue where she was um because maybe i wasn't i probably wasn't paying as close attention as i should have there was also a concern she was expressing about relocation uh being the best approach uh the most cost-effective approach for these types of development and i thought there was some discomfort with this approach relative to relocation so so the commissioners the commissioners testimony last week just mentioned that if we put relocation relocation is a federal funding thing like if it happens at all and it's primarily a FEMA based i mean i think there are other resources as well but it's primarily at least when it's in the aftermath of an event it's a FEMA oriented pot of money i know that waterberry had some that again was confusing to use but it was but relocation itself is not something that happens through the state revolving loans that the state money does not happen so while their plan and and i think representative Dolan's discussion about how relocation as a policy is preferred in places rather than mitigating against floods or she used the phrase building levies or or burns or i'm not sure what the phrase was but essentially um that you know this is the this is the dilemma to me having again having experienced this in waterberry is saying traditional settlement patterns happened like this and so when they flood it's really you you return it to what it was FEMA FEMA's policy is to at least return it to what it was and that can be expensive because it can happen again and again and so relocation or raising a foundation or taking something out of the flood zone in the long run will prove more efficient or more or less expensive because then that person or that home or that household won't have experienced another flood event if they if they were relocated um but relocation as a as a rule is obviously very expensive and usually is is is attached to federal funding um in a time mostly not only but mostly in a time of crisis so i think it's a preferred policy but it is also um it's it's also um the commissioner asked us to not talk about or to not have relocation as part of this because it would give the false hope like was the commissioner's phrase last week it would give the false hope to the community that the state would actually um take care of the relocation as opposed to help them technically in finding the funding for it right and then connected to that though i think she was just flagging that creating uh that this was potentially going to set a precedent for other communities when comes to discussions relocation when there might be federal dollars available and then also the restructuring of the state loans and the state funds i think i don't know that she was specifically saying to omit this but i think she was just saying like we really have to be mindful of the fact that that what we're going to end up doing is locking potentially ourselves into this endless loop of mitigation and throwing money at the entities over and over and over and over and over and over and and uh she's where we thought this this would help kind of encourage that perpetual um throwing money at a problem um i i yeah i i suppose that that was part of it um and again i hear you know the the tension between what we want for statewide policy and what's on the ground in terms of existing um in terms of existing development is this idea that um is this idea that the um again it's my home you can't tell me what to do with my home but i want to be more resilient or as a community we want to be more resilient or as a state we want to be more resilient so each one of those requires a whole different um way of doing it but yet you're not wrong in hearing in hearing that that was in some of her her comments but this to me um at this point in time and i can obviously be convinced otherwise is fairly narrow to um you know the use of the revolving loan funds or the restructuring of them i don't think is is a precedent i think it's been done i think we're giving the treasurer more flexibility in some of the language we talked about earlier to deal with um the to deal with issues like this where they can set an interest rate that that works for the community i think we heard testimony last week from um from the commissioner about even going into um negative interest so um we have a few questions here uh airheart well if it helps i would just offer um since uh i appreciate uh representative dolens uh concerns uh but i would just offer that part of the tri park has already moved a significant number of their lots out of the endangered uh area post post Irene and they their master plan involves uh moving more relocating additional lots out of the flood plain so you know the language that is here would not go towards uh sort of you know pouring additional money or additional subsidy into an area that's that's that's in the in the endangered um you know flood that's that's endangered by uh by the flooding that happens frequently uh in in that area so i don't know if that helps but um i i think tri park is very aware of needing to move um their their lots out of the remaining lots out of out of out of the area for them part of the issue and this is what one of the reasons why the restructuring of the indebtedness needs to happen is that they have you know operating um operating income um constraints and need uh as part of their master plan need to have these loans restructured and restructured in such a way uh that um hopefully they can actually be forgiven um and just two commissioner walks uh testimony this morning while it bid give me comfort to hear him say that he uh thinks forgiveness is included in his understanding of the word restructuring we would still like to see the words forgiveness loan forgiveness or just simply forgiveness in there to make it explicit and i think you've you know the commissioner has the out in the wording to the extent possible if it turns out due to federal law around these funds that it turns out not to be possible in this instance then they do have that um that that ability to to say no um because the federal statute which i did look at is very complicated and this is not a funding program that i'm as familiar with as as others but it did uh clear it made clear to me that um principal forgiveness uh in some in in some circumstances was uh was allowable and that is what tri park would be asking for i'll also say that we support the elimination of um the uh the the language around other small uh communities and uh that is that is a helpful uh um clarification to to eliminate that support the commissioners request on that i i just wanted to jump in out of turn for a second uh chair and just say to clarify i i support this provision in the bill i was just trying to give a fuller picture of the conversation with representative dole and i i fully support this being in the bill great thank you um representative long then hanko thank you i actually don't have a heck of a lot more to say after hearing what airheart just said he basically just said verbatim what i was about to say being familiar with the master plan and recognizing that um tri park it has been working very hard to be focused on the relocation of those homes and getting the homes out of the floodplain restructuring those loans or for or being able to um see loan forgiveness will allow them the ability to move forward with the the relocation of those homes that they can relocate or even removal eventually of those that they cannot relocate because there are some that cannot be relocated even so i just want to really support this language in here even though recognizing representative dolens um broader concerns i think this this language is really important to keep it in here for this um section 10 which is really quite specific to tri park so thanks and just to recap a little bit representative long again the testimony we took was that i just want to make clear that that tri park represented up to eight percent of brattle boroughs yeah and brattle borough is is 15 000 people 12 i think 12 three three representatives so yeah but 12 yeah but three yeah so it's yeah so that's a substantial number of people and i just again for people who are less aware about the cooperative um movement in owning um mobile home parks this is a movement that's been going on for a generation or more um in vermont it's been very successful in new hampshire but in vermont it's kicking in a little bit more where the residents are able to with the state's health able to try to put together the idea that they own the park rather than the classic um stereotype that that there's uh you know that there's a lousy park that has bad um and it may have been a quote unquote lousy park with bad facilities at one time but the but the park owners the home owners have um come together to uh own their living space in a cooperative way which is which is pretty forward looking in a lot of ways and it's not simple and the fact that they have such a detailed uh description of what their master plan is is really quite impressive chairman steven if i could just say one more thing um and that is just to say i how much i appreciate i'm first of all i'm really sorry i wasn't unable to be there for the first half hour this morning but i did try to review it our half an hour break i didn't get through everything but i did figure most of what was going on um i just want to say how much i appreciate commissioner welch's response to my question that came up last week and he has been super supportive and helpful of trying to work through the challenges in the language that language in the bill that we were um not happy with or didn't that wasn't going to be eligible and um has actually reached out i think he mentioned that he reached out to both senator ballon and myself um since then and has been working really hard to find language to make this work so i just wanted to say how much i appreciate his efforts on this he's been working really hard on it representative hango lincoln solace thank you i'm not sure i have a whole lot to add but um your original question was how we felt about leaving the drinking water um language in and my feeling around that i'll reiterate what i said earlier this morning that this really is an art area of expertise so my hope is if we do leave this language in as commissioner has asked us to but the bill will go to natural resources near the experts and they will decide whether it really should remain or not as for loan forgiveness i'm hesitant to put that into statute to make that suggestion that we could be able to do that because we really can't look into the future i know it says to the hospital but i think that covers many scenarios um so thank you representative consolas um so i just want to um say it's not reiterated the words that i'm stuck on um that my support for having forgiveness explicitly in here as an option because if that is possible um then i want to have that be on the table explicitly so i want to say that and then the other piece is in terms of the the infrastructure and a version of dolan um offered a suggestion around um flood mitigation for the the physical buildings themselves and so i'm just wondering if there's a way that we can tweak the language to um be a little more explicit about that to try to avoid some of the unintended potential consequences of downstream flood increase okay her heart thank you so really appreciated everyone's comments and just i want to put this in a little bit of a context which is that tri park and i think um committee members heard their testimony before you all left the statehouse due to the pandemic um they have substantial infrastructure and capital needs this is just we saw as a first installment on helping them to address all the issues that are in their in their master master plan um there was and i mentioned this yesterday in the original senate bill um there was 750 000 in appropriations uh that senate appropriations as is their usual habits stripped out when the bill came to them and that would have addressed some of the other immediate needs within the strictures of not having an appropriation attached to this bill this was the best that could be done as sort of i would say down payment on some of the most you know pressing needs in terms of them restructuring their debt they have an overall assessed capital needs of approximately four million dollars to address all of their infrastructure issues including the relocation uh that both representative long and and and i have mentioned and of that four million dollars uh roughly of overall infrastructure needs about maybe a million or just over a million could be identified from existing sources so they they have a gap that they're going to come back to you uh with next winter um i i know general assembly is going to have some of the same revenue and budgetary pressures then but these these are long-standing issues this is not just uh it's it's unique in so many different ways both as a large percentage of the population of brattle borough as the longest standing housing cooperative in the state which was formed back in 1989 soon after the general assembly originally created authorizing legislation for housing cooperatives and it's also the largest mobile home park in the in the state so it it is it is eminently in so many different ways deserving of of the assistance and this is merely a first kind of down payment or first installment uh towards helping with that master plan given all of your budgetary constraints and the inability to provide actual additional uh an appropriation to them uh say through the vermont housing and conservation board thank you all right um any further questions on this section okay ellen can you scroll down a little bit where are we at we're almost done with this section these sections here yep so section 11 on page 19 is the language um regarding the the um state treasurer um and then uh section 12 is the implementation section for the incentives under uh section 2b so um allowing the incentives to be available immediately to municipalities that adopt bylaws to comply before the effective date um and then the effective date section so uh the bill will take effect uh on december 1st 2020 except that the new inclusive development provisions of section 2b shall take effect on july 1 2023 um so towns have time uh to comply before they go into effect why did we choose december uh we i don't think uh so that was in your notes i don't i think it's i don't think there was a necessarily a a conversation about it but it was in the underlying bill it was july 1 2020 so it needs to be changed right okay and before we get to section 2 and start a conversation with section 2 um one of the other things that i wanted to bring up was the title of this bill um the title of this bill has gotten a lot of um has created a lot of um um i don't want to say discord but it certainly creates the impression that promoting affordable housing um especially for all that we've discussed affordable housing this year it gives the impression that we're talking about the the quote unquote conventional affordable housing that we work on which is which is not what this bill is about this bill is about building um allowing building of of units that are sustainable and equitable um and that will achieve you know some economic development that we that the state is pursuing as a policy but i don't think that it's about affordable housing alone and i think um we have an opportunity to change the name of the bill and i would um certainly if people have thoughts about what it should be let's think about it over the next you know hours or so um and and change the name of it and i'd rather i'd rather have a bill that i'd rather not have to start talking about a bill that says well it's not really about affordable housing that's not it's not fair to the bill it's not fair to the to the work we're doing so if we have a more appropriate name that can come forward please feel free to um to share um so ellen let's start the conversation it's 1 22 we have until a few minutes before 2 o'clock today and um let's discuss what we've heard what we remember about section 2 and where we think we need to go and if alex um i know alex are you still here yes yes i'm still here okay so i know and again we'll ask you questions or you can pop your hand up and again we'll we appreciate you being here as a representative of vpa um and for your you know and just they'll just remind the committee that you know obviously we're taking stakeholders testimony very seriously and um and but that alex represents i mean you could have two hats on you can have his planner of heinsberg where he can have his vpa hat on i just want to acknowledge that as we move forward and that's you know the same with anybody who's here as guests um you know representative um the chris cochran is here from dhcd um and i'm saying who else do we have kate here kate mccarthy is here from vnrc she testified on this bill in support of some of the vpa changes last week or i guess was last week so and air hearts here as um as a member of the vermont affordable housing coalition this is clearly the the most difficult section and the most complex section of the bill so um ellen if we could just start by doing the same walkthrough that we've been doing that would be great sure so i'm on page two of the strike all document um we're in title 24 section 44 12 so this is the required provisions and prohibited provisions in terms of bylaws for municipalities so um in the strike all the first time out this is the section we're talking about with the attorney general language correct yes right okay yes coming back yet tie it together here this is the section we're talking about this is the general section with changes now in it yes and so i guess technically the first change is that right here on line 13 we add a subdivision a um and because currently that that doesn't exist and so the attorney general section refers to 44 12 1 which starts here with the it's uh related to equal treatment of housing and affordable housing um and so one of the first sections we're going to talk about is the adu provision and that provision is protected by the enforcement provision in the attorney general language okay thank you and just to before we really get second care here i just want to be clear that this is um the equal treatment of housing and required provisions for affordable housing i mean that that also ties into our fair housing act ties into our protected classes which include people who are low income um already i mean there's already fair housing anti-discrimination language that exists elsewhere um while it's in the fair it's in the fair housing act is that and that's not mentioned here but that's what municipalities still have to follow when they're developing bylaws and that's what we're putting the enforceability in is that am i getting that right um yes and i think um one a that is where these ellipses uh that would be where the ellipses are i think one a does refer to the fair housing act um so i think that reference is in one of there but there is a number of provisions it's um a through f that are the equal housing equal treatment of housing provisions and so the list that i read earlier are uh the you know the can't exclude things that's what these ellipses are i cut all of them out um so those ellipses are there and i think that's this section is actually one reason why affordable housing may have been a title or or led to be a title because it's affecting it can affect people with low income um and it is housing that's trying to be infill or or multi unit which is traditionally but not solely um thought of in a in an affordable way so section e is the change so this is the um the adu language the accessory dwelling unit language um the language in this strike all is the same as it came over from the senate and so we're um amending the definition of accessory dwelling unit and so this section starts out by saying municipalities the the bylaw cannot exclude as permitted one accessory dwelling unit and so that accessory dwelling unit is located within or pertinent to a single family dwelling on an owner-occupied lot so that's the first change so we're we're saying that they has to be an owner-occupied lot as opposed to owner-occupied dwelling and then um we so this this next section sentence is just a restructuring from down below but the next change is that an accessory dwelling unit we struck the language regarding requiring it to be an efficiency or a one bedroom so um it can be larger than that but it has to be a distinct unit clearly subordinate to a single family dwelling and then the we also included that it can be um the unit can be 30 percent of the total floor area or 900 square feet whichever is greater and then we strike the um so so this is allowing so again i'll use um if i have an attached garage and i want a mother-in-law apartment i can have that and that's considered a necessary dwelling unit and it can only be a certain amount of size because it's attached to a garage it's clearly subordinate to um the single family home what this is doing is um saying that the um i can have a tiny house in my backyard provided i have wastewater capacity and i actually have the land to do it and the room to do it but this allows me to create a small unit that sort of stands alone in my backyard um so it doesn't have to be attached um and i don't have to be living in it i can just be on my so-called property yes okay representative diesels and as i understand it that really the the change here besides some reordering of words is that instead of it the um size being capped at 30 percent of the main dwelling unit it could be 30 percent or 900 feet for 900 square feet and um and and then it could so in that if it was 900 square feet um that's um potentially big enough to have more than one bedroom so that's also why it's striking out efficiency or one bedroom apartment that's that's how i read it is that you're understanding as well like the substantial change of it yes great thank you and and this says if i just want to put one in that zoning will allow this but if i want to put in two zoning could say no you can't put into or duplex or something like that it has to be this small and still remain part of essentially trying to remain part of what it has to be subordinate to the house yes so it does so towns have to allow one um they can prohibit more than one accessory dwelling unit however this language does also allow towns to be more flexible so they could adopt by-laws that allow multiple um dwelling accessory dwelling units if they were preferred and that goes back to the charter question right so a town like a city like burlington has its own set of rules that operate outside or adjacent to the state's laws this is addressing all those municipalities that don't have their charters and and i mean the ones that have charters as well but it allows them to do that but this is really a benefit to the towns that don't have a charter and they can make up can make up their own rules is that is that what we're doing here this isn't strictly limited to towns that already have their own charters municipalities that have their own charters i i really don't know the interactions between charters and by-laws so i i don't i can't answer that um but this is this language is applies to all municipalities um so right so alex do you have a quick clarification just to let you know that this language isn't benefiting municipalities this language is benefiting um landowners and and residents because the existing language allows municipalities to be less restrictive than what is in the current accessory dwelling unit provisions municipalities have already have the ability to do lots of innovative things with accessory dwelling units this language just may i guess provides state policy on where the the minimum should be set um and and provide some clarity uh but it's really a benefit to homeowners who would like to do these things and might live in a community that hasn't flexed the accessory dwelling units as much as this these provisions anticipate okay representative kalaki then son thank you chair um i just i i always thought of accessory drawing is being attached so it's interesting as your clarification but could this mean someone could park a trailer on their front yard because if it doesn't have to do um so we're talking about a distinct unit so um a dwelling unit and it has to have uh it has to have um facilities and provisions for independent living including sleeping food preparation and sanitation so um well my my physical therapist told me she's living in a trailer and her mother's driveway and i thought oh okay and so is with that qualify under this would her mother be allowed to do this can no one say you can't have that trailer there um i guess i'm wondering if what the sanita so so i'm so is would that qualify as an accessory dwelling unit and then the town would have to allow it i'm not sure does it have um sanitation facilities well most trailers do have some kind of but they may not be attached to any wastewater system so maybe that's the difference alex had his hand up for a split second there okay thanks alex yeah we deal with this at the local level all the time um and i think that a landowner could make the case that a trailer would could qualify as an accessory dwelling unit um i don't think there's any language in here that would prohibit a trailer from being considered um however a lot of municipalities deal with uh trailers especially recreational vehicles differently than um then dwelling units and they and we make it we make a distinct we distinguish between the two of them in definitions and the like and municipalities have the authority to do that and so any municipality that feels that necessary um can do so and certainly this this accessory dwelling unit provision has been in statute for a very long time so this what's proposed wouldn't change anything along the lines of what you're the scenario you're talking about okay thank you thank you okay representative zottenair and just a clarification on um the the use of the accessory dwelling unit when we package this law with the ability to regulate short-term rentals municipalities can say oh yeah these are the these are sufficient for accessory dwelling units in our communities but if you're going to be using for short-term rentals that's not allowed does it does this language force the municipality municipalities to allow short-term rentals as accessory dwelling as allowable ad use uh because i'm i very much want to do everything we can to hamstring the further production of short-term rentals in the state and so if this does anything to help those things proliferate i want to make sure that we have language that hymns it in in some way uh because i think it just as they have had incredible at least impact in my district and really creating a short supply of rental housing so this language says that a town must allow one accessory dwelling unit um when attached or pertinent to a single family dwelling unit and it sets the size requirements from that the bill then later separately says a town may regulate short-term rentals separately and just in a different way from the way they regulate long-term rental housing so i don't think it is in any way um forcing them to allow short-term rentals um they are given the ability to regulate separately um and and establish separate rules for short-term rentals versus long-term rentals right so that's my understanding but i'm worried that there is a kind of de facto encouragement here i can see a lot i mean and then i can also understand the argument for it like i can see a retiring uh couple that wants to move into a smaller space and rent out you know the other home and short-term rentals and have that supplemental income i hear that argument in my district that you know there's um sort of uh or restricted income individuals who do quite well with this but um yeah i don't i i don't know that we can do anything specific but i'm really a little sketched out about this provision like i want to see ad use proliferate but i want to see them used to house long-term folks not short-term vacationers okay and again the the offering of the tool to allow local zoning on ad uses is something that's new in here as well um air heart and then representative Gonzalez thank you uh to the original question about the interplay between this and um municipal charters i can tell you from personal experience having represented the city of berlington which perhaps has the most expansive charter in the state back when the adu provision was first uh brought into chapter 117 i think it was probably around 2004 2005 um it very much applied to berlington and by extension i would say that um it it it applies uh to all towns that uh that have charters it basically establishes a a floor um beyond uh below which municipalities cannot restrict um eight eight ad use and and certainly can be more person permissive as as both alex and ellen have have testified uh to the question about short-term rentals i do know that um in its um in berlington's own uh discussions around ad use and making uh uh them more uh easy to develop in berlington there was the question about um would that uh would that encourage uh conversion of some of those to short-term rentals and i i would say that there really are two separate issues uh that need to be addressed addressed separately and and by providing the authorization to municipalities to regulate short-term rentals i i think you're helping address the concern that uh representative zot has um has has raised no representative zoss and i think that with the the increase to 900 square feet as the minimum it actually reduces the possibility that ad use would be short-term rentals because it's more habitable um so um that uh i'm forgetting the exact average of remont homes in terms of square feet but um it's not that big and so the um the 30 percent um on average for homes would be um a small dwelling unit um but that would be more uh attractive as a short-term rental rather than a 900 square feet which is um not not grand but very livable um and so i think that that this change actually reduces the possibility of the short-term rentals and i will um you know direct people's attention to the to the article i sent i think it was yesterday to talk about um because this represents uh an attempt to try along with the zoning stuff that follows this is this is um trying to work towards a policy that supports what is been called in this article and in others middle housing right where and and the article was compelling not just in what we've been talking about but in an avenue that i hadn't really thought about which was um if i you know become 75 years old and i don't want to live in a 3 000 square foot home or a six bedroom house in a you know in a in a suburb of Burlington or whatever you know that that in Vermont's population is stagnant that people are going to have a harder time perhaps selling their homes um or they just want to live closer to home whether it's an assisted living or you know if they don't want to live in assisted so-called assisted living they want to live in a in a more settled area so this is it was it was just an interesting article if you haven't ready yet please please look it up and um and and just have an explanation more closely um in context with what middle housing is and i think that's what this is striving for in in our in our work here all right i'm seeing no further hands up at this time um uh let's scroll down to the rest of those up representative calack you got his hand up there you can keep scrolling up to the next section thank you i had a proposed title but i'll wait till the i thought you were winding up to tell us to go to the floor so no i want to finish this one little section just to get through that um now i'll tell you my title later actually let's make this the stopping point because again this this language here at the top of this page again allows for the regulation of um the residential units and so let's just bookmark that there and stop right there and we'll pick that up um you guys can pick that up in conversation tomorrow um committee discussion tomorrow and um because there's nothing better than talking about this bill at 8 30 in the morning on friday um so with that uh john what's your what's your what's your proposed title an act expanding equitable and sustainable housing in vermont those were used earlier and i just wrote them down about oh that's pretty nice it seems to capture the uh what i'm sensing the through line is here okay ellen just keep that in your want to post it and um again folks we can we can continue this conversation i um will not be here tomorrow um i have to go in turn my mother's ashes she's been dead for two and a half years and the family is finally getting around to it it's it's not a cabaret story um but um ellen could you could you unshare your screen so i can see everybody there we go um so i'm going to check in with chip triano who will lead the meeting tomorrow and and diana if you're there to help with any of the technical stuff um mike if you could make an invitation available to everybody who's here at who can who can make it alex kate chris um airheart any and um to continue conversation just all is available um and committee i would my expectation would be that you can um really continue these conversations scrolling through section two and to be um and then we will pick up the further conversation on tuesday it's we need to make some decisions on this bill pretty soon um and but i think it's our responsibility to just sort of hammer out what we've heard and see if we can put it into a format that we agree on and then go from there um and have a final discussion over pieces of the bill you know the early next week so um i will um considering we only had a half an hour break during lunch well let's just be done for now and we have i don't know how long it'll be but it's budget day on the floor so thank you thank you for your time um alex and kate thanks for listening in and um chris thank you for offering and an airheart thank you for offering your your feedback um as well to help clarify some of this for us um that's it