 We're going to finish up on getting some comments from the administration of other sections of the bill. So we could do that hopefully in five or ten minutes. We'll go through the bill itself. I can do it really fast. So look into your bill quickly. The first section contains the chapter 117, the stick provisions to make local bylaws updated to, you know, the smaller lots to increase flexibility around accessory dwellings to enable duplexes. That's a big chunk of your provision. It also includes the Act 250 changes to exempt downtowns and neighborhoods from it. So that section covers the stuff that you had in Europe as well. Right. But right now, just to be clear, the administration has pulled back from the 117 machine changes. Right. And we are recommending a law-sensor-based voluntary approach. So there's a difference there. What it doesn't include are the tax credits, the proposed tax credits, within the neighborhood development areas and the expansion of the downtown and village center tax credits. It doesn't include, and it may not need to, but the V-HIP program. The V-HIP program? Yeah. That's available. Yeah. Okay. So it maybe doesn't need to put. Probably an appropriation for it needs to be traced to somewhere. As you noted, money is what makes things happen. It doesn't include the language, or water and wastewater connections, for delegating that to municipalities of money. We talked about the double permitting, right? There's language that requires the secretariat when municipalities request to take ownership of the connection process. That's not even in this bill. It was detailed in our package, but it was not in the bill. The opportunity zone incentive. As far as I'm curious as to why that didn't work again. The opportunity zone credit that we talked about at the very end is not in there. And then the better places proposal for the crowd granting is out there. The language for all that is ready to go. It's in representative Marquott's bill with the exception of chapter 117 stuff. Ellen's worked on all that and should be able to, you know, if the committee wants to add all that back in, it should be fairly easy, I hope, to pull it back in. So you said the crowd sourcing the opportunity zones. The, well, all the money, none of the money stuff is in here. Right. I think even in the version that you were working on initially. It's the TBD, certainly. Right. And it's, you know, your discretion, how you want to handle that. We presume the governor's, you know, going to plug budget money into the budget bill. And I don't know what the process is. You will also include that in your bill. That's for somebody else. And then the wastewater duplication fix. They are permitting. And Ellen, did I miss anything? You're. Okay. So what I'd like to do at this point is work with, I think several attorneys working on this bill. I, David Hall, was the lead person. So why don't you work with David who worked with Ellen and others to just do an annotated, an annotation alongside 237 of what's missing. And then to the back of your bills, it looks like placeholder language for the bonds. And that encompasses the entire bill. Right. Okay. So things like the inclusionary zoning thing that was in your draft, that's language, and things that's in. You didn't mention anything about you have anything to say on that at this point. It basically gives you authority to collect information and adopt rules. Right. The 117 language basically. Municipalities can already regulate these short term proposals right now. What that, there's a line in your bill that we include that we recommend. It put a spotlight on municipalities can do this and just points it out their ability to do it. You don't need to specifically enable it. But we thought it'd be helpful since it is a concern just to spotlight it. Doesn't representative Harris have a bill? I think I saw something, yeah. So my understanding is that's not the case. The unionist allies without charters need to have specific ability to create ordinances about it. That doesn't make any sense to me, but we have smart lawyers. I know, but we have different opinions on that, I believe. So I think we also. We also are getting our first data on short term rentals, a five year housing needs assessment that we're contracting with. We put a provision to track short term rentals and we have the first reporting of that. We know the top 10 towns, they're all next to ski areas. That's where the top 10 short term rental market is. Killington, that was not warned. It's right at the ski areas. We also know which counties have the highest percent, the lowest percent, the average per night stay. We have some info that we're starting to analyze here. But we don't have any info in that probably on how many houses that otherwise could be full time homeowners are now being used as short term rentals. You don't have the affordable houses that have been taken offline as a result of short term rentals. Right, but we have data for several years about which owner occupied homes, rental homes, and then seasonal recreation or occasional use. And we have charts that show communities that have high levels of seasonal homes and their short term rental percentage and those that have low. And also the tourism department is also conducting the short term rental study right now. So we're just getting the first data and what's interesting is there really was a spike for whatever reason in the summer of 2017. And then since then it's been fairly flat. It hasn't been rising much since then. But for whatever reason in the summer of 2017 maybe a new marketplace came online or something. And so we're finally collecting some interesting data. You know, Memorial County is the highest percentage of short term rentals in the state. Chittenden is the lowest. So I don't, we don't have a proposal of how to regulate this, but we're evaluating the data right now. We have a copy of that. This is draft. This is draft. Just draft. This will be a statewide five year housing needs assessment that people rely on. It's got a huge housing stock, which has an interesting that we have actually been growing rental properties in the state faster than homeowner units in the state for the last several years. It's the first time that's happened in Vermont ever. So there's some interesting data in here that I'd be happy to come back and give highlights or whatever you guys want. Before I was finished. Another month. Okay, and where is all this data coming from? Census numbers all over the place. I'm looking at Shawn back there. Yeah, a lot of it's the Census Bureau. Do you know all the sources, Shawn? Shawn Gilpin, Housing Policy Specialist of the Department. We're working with the HFA. Much of it is Census based. Some of it is the short term rental is coming from. Air DNA. No, it's air DNA. Sources. Piles. I just got another hundred and sixty pages. This is required every five years for all of our HUD funding, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Our CDBG, the home funds, the National Housing Trust Fund. The last one everyone referred to is the Bowen Report. We found that gap really was the 80 to 120 that we weren't producing units for. And so this will be a document, a study that's referred to for next several years to address housing needs. So it's not something we want to rush out drafts of information on until it's been vetted. And we're certain that everything is quality, it shouldn't be. A month. We have to submit it to HUD in May. But we will have it this winter, I promise. So we need it as a tool for our group. It's early February. It might be something we can start sharing. I mean, short-term mental is a complicated issue because a lot of people use the income to stay in their house. So a lot of seniors use it to be able to pay their taxes and take care of things. A lot of people use it for investment properties. Absolutely. And I think it, because it is complicated and because we are at your estate and it gets more complicated. And I think what's really needed is better guidance for municipalities about the tools and options they can use to regulate this on a community-by-community basis. You know, and this is just my quick assumption from that data point that the 10 communities are all ski area towns. You know, that I don't know that it's automatically you could assume that those houses would have been available as affordable housing. It's someone that's, those homes are vacation homes, family, rental. They're not openly available on the market as affordable housing year-round from what I know from the data. A lot of the accessory dwelling units, however, have been being rented to staff who work on those mountains who can no longer afford to live in those communities. Because those accessible, I mean, affordable, I mean, accessory dwelling units are being now used as airbnb. So actually, there is impact anecdotally from all of us about what is being taken offline. So I think we need to put some science behind what's being taken offline that have been embedded in the part of how we house our seasonal staff, particularly in ski areas, actually. And anyway, it's a big conversation. And I think giving municipalities tools to thoughtfully address it is terrific. And some data to inform the conversation. Not a community that's done that. But I would also say we have to have some statewide expectation and value address to this. I would argue that, yes, we're a tourist state, but we have plenty of, you know, it also pits B&Bs and inns and hotels and hotels against, you know, so we already have an industry that we also want to support. So it's complicated. Amen. It's a gig economy. It's been very fast and there's different approaches being taken in many municipalities, other states. I don't know, someone told me that New York has, New York City has banned them. There's a great article in The Times where, you know, they just enforced, you know. Well, and many, as we know, many co-op building, I mean, many buildings in New York already have so many strict regulations about who they are able to, who owners are able to. Okay, well thank you. All right, so we follow up with Ledge Council and work to put those pieces together. I will have you back next week. Sure. I hope you'll be around as a resource as we keep. Hey, believe in my life. You will. We plan on spending a lot of time with you. Like it or not. There's all these pastries and birthday parties. Thank you. The First. Please understand. I don't think I'm going to be able to, I'll just, I'll give Davin a little bit of an answer. How are you? He's on next. I think he's telling me. Thank you. So I'm new? That is true. And then, that new pay. And then it's protected. It's protected. It's protected again. I don't know if you've ever been a Canadian before. I'll tell my dad. There's better than wrong. The new deadlines for all of history. I'll wait. I'll wait. Just so he can't do that. If he can. Thank you. So can you introduce yourself? Can I have my bill back? Oh, you gave it to- I lent it. It was a loan, not a grant. And Sean took it. I didn't touch you on that. I mean, Josh, I didn't touch you on that. Josh. Oh, thank you, my dear. Ellen Sheikowski, Office of Legislative Counsel. I'm here on the language of S-237, which is the language that the commissioner and Mr. Cochran were just talking about. I am the legislative council in charge of natural resources and zoning and Act 250. This bill is being worked on currently by three or four legislative council attorneys. So there will be a sort of team approach to this. So I have sections one through 11. And then Becky Wasserman has some of the sections. So she will be coming at 1115 approximately. And then David Hall has the other sections of the bill. So I will take you through at least the first 26 pages. So maybe we should tell Becky that she should come around 30, because she's not going to do that in five minutes, right? Right. So 1134. Becky. And maybe 1144. Thank you. Sure. So starting with section one, we're in 24 BSA 4382. This is chapter 117. So in that we're in the municipal planning section of title 24. So we start with the section related to municipal plans. So the first change. So we're talking about what is required in a municipal plan. So the first change, I'll start reading on line 17. I mean, if the plan shall include a utility and facility plan consisting of a map and a statement of present and prospective community facilities and public utilities showing existing and proposed educational recreational and other public sites, buildings and facilities, including hospitals, libraries, power generating plants and transmission lines, water supply, lines, facilities and service areas, sewage disposal, lines, facilities and service areas, refuse disposal, storm drainage and other facilities and activities and recommendations to meet future needs for community facilities and services with indications of priorities, priority of need, costs and methods of financing. So this is adding a requirement that the municipal plan map includes the water supply, lines, facilities and service areas and sewage, lines, facilities and service areas. And what? I believe the justification and unless you would like to hear from the department on this is related to gathering more data and details on these water supply and sewage supply systems. Where they are is important to the build out, but I can't speak specifically to the, the actual. That's fine, let's get them back in. Got it, Marv. The next change also to the plan, a housing element shall include a recommended program for addressing low and moderate income persons housing needs as identified by the Regional Planning Commission pursuant to subdivision 4348AA9 of this title. The program shall comply with the requirements of 4412 of this title to provide affordable housing. So that changes just slightly what's already there because 4412 is going to be amended in the next section. So it's just referencing the change that is about to be made. So then section two, we're now in the bylaws sub chapter of title of chapter 117. So amending 4412 not withstanding any existing bylaw, the following land development provisions shall apply in every municipality. Equal treatment of housing and required provisions for affordable housing bylaws shall designate appropriate districts and reasonable regulations for multi-unit or multi-family dwellings. No bylaw shall have the effect of excluding these multi-unit or multi-family dwellings from the municipality. Within any regulatory district that allows multi-unit residential dwellings, no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting multi-unit residential dwellings of four or fewer units as an allowed permitted use or conditioning approval based on the character of the area. So this is if you're allowing in the zoning district multi-unit dwellings, you must allow four units. You can prohibit more than that, but it has to be a baseline of four units allowed. Can they condition approval based on the character of the area that if it's a permitted use, can they condition approval of the character of an area generally? I'm not sure. I'm a little bit unclear about this language. I'll need to work with the department a little bit more. I'm not entirely sure. I'm still new to this area. So. You want to answer or? This way. Okay. Try not be quick. Okay. A conditional character of the area of the bank standard is often used to appeal any new housing development. So while you may allow it, you can still appeal it based on the building or the plans not being consistent with the character of the area. Chris, I'm sorry. That was a little too soft. I think you were using your soft floor. Sorry. I'm in all my voice this morning. Yeah. So while you can permit a use through other reviews, you can say it's not consistent with the character of the area. You can reduce the density. So the intent behind this was to say, if you're going to allow four units, allow four units and don't make this something that could be appealed and moved down to a much, much smaller part. So right now, in zoning law, there's always an overlay of disallowance based upon if it's inconsistent with the character of the area or taking that away in multi-family districts. I'm not using the character as an excuse for not doing this. But what would that do to a place where, say, a double wide is going to go into a neighborhood? We have to allow housing and we have housing problem and these are density and wastewater resources to support. So these were, I should say we crafted this bill to have a conversation about our housing shortages and what we're going to do. So we have ideas in here and what was going to sit and what was not. It was determined that we wanted to have a conversation about how do we increase density in our downtowns and bullet centers and engage communities in the conversation of their part of the solution realm and to just say we're going to change Act 250 and change the wastewater connection and add a little bit of money. I'm only going to get you so far. Municipalities, control, and use. This is attitude change. I mean, this is sort of supporting the notion that you can't hide behind any other character. Karen Horne, it's a little worked up over these things. Only some of them. Well, they also use wastewater. And the water period is an excuse to bear as we talked about, you know, the difference between septic and wastewater system and sewer system. And many communities complain that they're for sewer water users. You're hiding where the lower the seas are so you can have more connections. Oh, they don't want to necessarily go into existing water if you can help me. I'm going to reach to, it says, notwithstanding the existing bylaw, about 16 of the following provisions that apply to everything that's done. I just want to know if there's really any hook here to promote some of the things we're going to be doing by saying that every municipality have to have required provisions for affordable house. So that's related to when 4412 was enacted, there are already existing towns with plans and bylaws in place. And so in order to sort of recognize moving forward, new bylaws have to incorporate what's in the statute. So moving forward, updated bylaws and bylaw amendments have to incorporate these. I don't know if there's necessarily a hook, but it didn't, as 4412 has evolved, it didn't undo prior existing bylaws in municipalities. So moving forward. I guess what I'm trying to find the answer to is are there some required provisions for affordable housing elsewhere in the law? Seems to say a town can't override provisions for affordable housing. I'm trying to figure out what those required provisions are. I know there are laws about equal treatment on housing, but are there required provisions that apply to towns? All towns need to be affordable housing. I would like to say yes, but I'm trying to think of any specifically. I'm not sure. I think I can get back to you. Let's just talk to you. Can you say we can find out? Is it good to know that the existing law is required provisions for affordable housing that are applicable to all town bylaws as of before? What is the definition of affordable housing? I don't know. It's pretty important, isn't it? It's pretty different than it is in other sections of law that go back to page three. Yes, line eight. Except for flood and fluvial erosion area bylaws adopted pursuant to section 44, 24 of this title. No bylaw shall have the effect of excluding as a permitted use one accessory dwelling unit that is located within or pertinent to an owner occupied single family dwelling. A bylaw may require a single family dwelling with an accessory dwelling unit to be subject to the same review, dimensional or other controls as required for a single family dwelling without an accessory dwelling unit. By apartment two, does that mean physically attached? No. What does that mean? I do not have the definition in front of me, but a pertinent is generally within the immediate area. For example, at J.C. Cottage, for example. I believe so, yes. Or a garage, or something that is immediately in close proximity, I think is what it's like. I believe so, I'd have to check, but yeah, pertinent to is generally not an attached structure. But in close proximity too. We can Google it. There are a bunch of changes in the search section dealing with accessory dwelling units. Yes. As opposed to going through each one initially, could you basically say what the law is now and what we're trying to accomplish here? Sure, so this next section was going to amend the definition of accessory dwelling unit. And currently that has to be an efficiency or a one bedroom apartment that is clearly subordinate to a single family dwelling that has facilities for independent living, sleeping, food preparation, sanitation, has sufficient water capacity and isn't more than 30% the size of the single family dwelling. So this change is going to reduce that definition. So it takes out the clearly subordinate and the 30% so that it's a distinct unit not necessarily with the size restriction on it. So what, and these accessory units are permitted uses in zones, I guess even zones where it says single family dwelling, right? So now you can take a single family dwelling and it sounds with the broadening of this definition you basically turn your housing to a duplex. What's the difference between a duplex and an accessory unit in this particular case? So that's probably fair. It is removing the requirement that it be clearly subordinate. So it's allowing for the creation of a unit that would be either an equal or greater size potentially than the original unit. If you had a zone that wanted to be single family and the town didn't want duplexes put in there, now this is effectively a way around that ban on duplexes. Just call it an accessory dwelling. I haven't thought of it specifically that way but potentially. There's no apartment and rental first work done slot because the person living in the unit has to be related or something. I think it was part of the people over 55 I guess the law has gone through. It was from a long part of the law. Related and older. The other big thing that's being removed here is setbacks, covers, parking requirements. So again, just finding them for advocate because I support this direction. But if you had certain parking requirements based upon a, for a duplex, but if you set it up as an accessory apartment you might not be able to impose different parking requirements as it might exist for a single family home. I'm just thinking that, again, it's sort of the same question. You don't have, you don't have the worry that's clearly supported anymore so you can set up a single family house to effectively become a duplex. Can you avoid the parking requirements on the duplex by labeling it as a necessary apartment because you no longer supply parking restrictions or setback restrictions, covers? Potentially and I, parking, I have come to learn that there's lots of things about parking requirements that I do not know about. That can be a complicated thing. So I don't specifically know about the difference between parking requirements for duplexes as opposed to single family. And so potentially, but I'm not, I'm not certain. And Michael Hart and Ellen Hart. These, all these opportunities subordinate to and have to comply by municipal law. So, no, I thought it did. But I thought our understanding is that part of our easing things was enabling, was they wouldn't be getting these designations if they didn't have municipal reviews and ordinances in place. No, I'm on a wrong thing here. Okay, so I would see municipalities having a total heart attack by taking away parking issues here if it isn't requiring also that, anyway, because, for example, many downtowns have parking restrictions in the winter. If you do not have parking requirements on some of these things, they're going to be, I can use a phrase I'd normally use, but not so many audience. But people are going to be challenged by this in downtowns. There's like one, there's no place to park in the winter. Well, so I mean, look, we're embarking upon an area where I think we're going to obviously hear from all the people who are municipalities while we're embarking upon an area where just like we did 20 years ago, 15 years ago, we first set up these accessory parking issues as possible uses where you're going to have to balance the needs of the municipality with the needs of trying to create more housing. And it's almost sort of like an envy kind of thing. Yeah. I would also add, I think this language needs work. I think that the proposal involved as this bill was drafted and potentially doesn't reflect all of the proposal you heard this morning, I think that it has changed that what is here maybe doesn't necessarily reflect where the agency is now. And so the language needs to be looked at to accomplish what the goal is. Yeah, that's fine. Just to be clear, the agency may have helped us start to write this bill up. We will be the ones writing it down. Okay. On to page four, nothing in subdivision A1E of this section, which is the section we just talked about with the accessory dwelling units, shall be construed to prohibit a bylaw that is less restrictive of a accessory dwelling unit or a bylaw that regulates short-term rental units distinctly from residential rental units. So this is saying that... So in sort of reducing the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit, some of the language has been taken out and so now this is adding language about short-term rental units being regulated distinctly from residential rental units. And so this does relate to the sort of Airbnb concept. In researching this, I... So as you are probably aware, we have a Dillinger rule structure and so municipalities can only regulate in the way that the state has given them power to do. And so I am not certain currently that municipalities have the power to regulate short-term rental units. I'm not the expert on that. That is another attorney in our office. So there is some conflicting information, but I think potentially that this is adding an ability to regulate that we didn't already give them, so that might be something for you to think about too. That was my understanding. Tucker, when I spoke with him about short-term rental language, he wasn't there either. I mean, he was pretty sure. So if we want the municipalities to be able to regulate short-term rental units, then we wouldn't want this section of the agreement. If you want to give them that power, you will need to include language like this somewhere. To distinctly have a regulated, distinct from residential problems. So the next section is related to small lots. The change is on the top of page five. Amity disability may prohibit development of a lot not served by and able to connect to municipal sewer and water service. If either the following applies, the lot is less than one acre in area or the lot has a record or death dimension of less than 40 feet. So this says a municipality may ban development on less than one acre, one eighth of an acre, if it is unable to connect to sewer and water service. And right now a lot is that they could ban development just based upon the size of the lot. Yes. So is there any... There's no waiver provisions in the law that are not shown here for someone presently to go in and develop a small lot. So the small paragraph, I jumped over on four states that if there is a lot that is created when the municipality changes their regulation, they are allowed to develop on the other grandfathered. So, yeah. So the next set of language is entitled inclusionary growth and it is the proposal related to requiring municipalities to allow small, greater density. So this creates sort of an opt out provision that I'll get to. But except in a municipality that has reported substantial municipal constraints in accordance with subdivision B2 of this section and notwithstanding any existing bylaw other than flood hazard and fluvial erosion area bylaws adopted pursuant to section 4424 of this title. The following land provisions shall apply to every municipality. No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting the creation of residential locks of at least 10,890 square feet or one quarter acre within any regulatory district allowing residential uses served by and able to connect to a water system operated by a municipality or 5,400 square feet or one eighth acre within any regulatory district allowing residential uses served by and able to connect to a water and sewer system operated by a municipality. So this allows for smaller areas as long as they're the difference being if they can connect to the sewer system. So it's one quarter acre if you can connect to the water system one eighth acre if you can connect to water and sewer. Page six, the appropriate a municipal panel or administrative officer as applicable shall condition any subdivision approval on obtaining a state wastewater permit pursuant to 10 VSA chapter 64. No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting or requiring conditional use approval for a two unit dwelling on any lock within any regulatory district allowing residential uses served by and able to connect to a water and sewer system operated by a municipality to any greater extent than a one unit dwelling would be prohibited or restricted within any such district with no additional review, dimensional or other controls then would be required for a single family dwelling without a second unit. When a bylaw establishes a parking minimum for residential properties each residential parking space shall be leased that will be leased separately from residential units shall count as two spaces for purposes of meeting the parking minimum for any proposed development within a half mile of a transit stop. The parking space leased costs shall be reasonably proportional to the production operation and maintenance cost of the space to reduce generalized subsidy of leased spaces by other residents. A municipality may condition the municipal land permit on continuation of the separate leasing of parking spaces and residential units. So what is it? Can we go back to the top? Sure. The subsection B. This is not the law currently. You can do a subdivision right now without getting leased for a permit. I am not sure. Is that the answer? You can subdivide it. And the subdivision? Subdivision just divides the lot. You still have to get a permit to actually build something. Oh, this is just a subdivision and not building. What's happening here? Subsection B. In subsection B. The law allows an idea. Oh, D. Parking. So this relates to when a municipality has minimum parking requirements for a residential property. If the development will be leasing parking space as opposed to including it in the rent, it shall count as two parking spaces instead of one. And I would ask maybe that Chris explain further. It's trying to find a market-based approach to parking. A lot of our communities at your point, yeah, parking is a real problem, but there are a lot of parking opportunities. In businesses, parking needs are in a day, but not in a night. Can these be leased? And if you find a parking place for somebody who needs one, can we lower the overall parking requirement? Can we find parking in other places? Can we pool parking resources? I get that, but there are many, because we have to accommodate municipalities requirements, particularly in the winter where many of them have no on-street parking. We do have cars, we're not all involved in our bicycles tomorrow, but parking is a barrier and it costs to housing. And oftentimes, an example is we build a senior housing complex where there's not a lot of need for parking, but the building says you need 78 spaces that go unused. And if those are built, could we use them to provide parking opportunities for places where there's just no room? Developers need to partner with parking opportunities and or. And this is worth another jurisdiction. I get it. So what happens? I mean, it only breeds, like you can lease you have a home and you have a driveway space, you can lease that driveway space to somebody else and it counts as So is the owner leases the space or allows the tenant to lease the space that comes? We're just looking through like, you know, it's hard to regulate parking in a way that's flexible, but if I'm a builder of an EDU and I need to find a parking space, maybe I can go talk to the neighbor so that can copy. Creating creative opportunities for parking and not to build more when it's not needed is the intent of this section, but I think there are other ideas out there to do this, but you can't just assume no to parking and you need to find a place for cars and how can we use what we have better? Transfer and development rights is a transfer of parking. Yes, yes. But do you still have to the person who's leasing it would have their subject to some parking requirements now they've given up their spot? I think there's a new market for but also in these dense areas in these downtown areas and downtown neighborhoods it's conceivable if people don't need a parking spot and they lease them let's say the developer has leased parking spaces they could have a reduction in their rent I mean let's say that might be an additional LRA to rent and have X amount. Yeah, we're paying for a map. So, you know, if someone doesn't have a car they might lower their rent. So I didn't have to pave over my backyard or I wouldn't have had to pave over my backyard to accommodate the one and a half parking spaces per unit in my house. And no, you could have partnered with neighborhood. Either you could partner individually or actually there would be a neighborhood parking opportunity that could earn income for them as there are all sorts of ways we can solve charging stations so we can put it there. So it was kind of out of the box idea that how do we solve this one? I think we have to get creative about parking. All right, top of page 7 a municipality may opt out of the requirements that we just talked about by filing a substantial municipal constraint report with the department of housing and community development. A substantial municipal constraint report shall demonstrate that the municipality's bylaws comply with all of the requirements of subsection A of this section and the municipality has documented substantial municipal constraints on its municipal water, municipal sewer, or other services that prevent the adoption of bylaws that conform to the requirements of subdivision 1 of this subsection B. On or before January 1, 2021 the department of housing and community development shall provide a template and guidance on the form and content of the substantial municipal constraint report. The department of housing and community development shall post all substantial municipal constraint reports on the department's website and shall promptly provide a copy of the municipality's regional planning commission, the state program directors for municipal and water sewer funding and the Vermont Community Development Board the Vermont Housing Downtown Development Board the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board and the Natural Resources Board as well as any person requesting notice. Any person may provide comment on the municipality's report to the commissioner of housing and development community housing and development within 60 days of the filing. The department shall post all comments with the report on the department's website. A municipality that has filed a substantial municipal constraint report shall update the report each time it updates its municipal plan or bylaws. Failure to update the report shall disqualify the municipality from the incentives identified in subdivision 3 of this subsection B and may subject the municipality to review by the commissioner of housing and community development pursuant to section 4351 of this title. Incentives and funding on or before July 1, 2021 any municipality that requests technical assistance from a regional planning commission to update local bylaws to address inclusionary growth as described in subdivision 1 of this subsection B shall receive priority technical assistance through additional funding made available to the applicable regional planning commission by section 4306 of this title or municipal funding made available through the municipal planning grant program established in 4306 of this title and may use resources developed by the department of housing and community development to assist with the updates. The following state funding programs shall prioritize funding in municipalities that have updated their bylaws to comply with this subsection or are actively pursuing actions that will bring their bylaws into compliance with this section state funding for municipal water and sewer systems municipal planning grants under section 4306 of this title Vermont Community Development Program under 10 VSA chapter 29 sub chapter 1 and neighborhood development area historic tax credits under 32 VSA 59 30 CC a municipality that has adopted bylaws that comply with subdivision 1 of this subsection B may adopt bylaws that allow land development that has been restricted by covenants conditions or restrictions in conflict with the goals of this chapter and duly adopted municipal policies this subsection shall not affect the enforceability of any existing deed restrictions this is all new development yes so that section I just read subsection 4 is referring to the section I'm about to talk about in section 3 so it's related to restrictive covenants on the land can't be effective so so what you just read seems to say that the states have prioritized funding in each of these areas for communities that are trying to update their bylaws to conform to this yes is there any guardrails or definitions or are you thinking rulemaking how are you going to define the word priority I mean does that mean that they can potentially get all the funding if they need it just these communities that get all the funding and the other programs might or they get a point system where they get 10% priority I mean is that something that you've thought through yeah it's currently existing like right now all of our designate centers get a priority consideration from our grants and programs as well as other system so we don't necessarily dictate the degree of priority or how they prioritize our programs if you have a designation you're almost assured funding but sometimes funding is competitive and you have priorities considered but there's also other factors so there's not a strict definition of how the priority will be after grant request additional consideration of these communities because they're trying to meet these requirements they're trying to find more important housing solutions is there a time any kind of time limit on these locations and stuff how much time this is going to add to the development of a of a unit or several units how many understand the question well I'm just wondering what it's going to do to someone who wants to put a unit in how much is going to how much is this going to delay the development of units as communities adopt this process well if this process is adopted will it affect the timing it should speed should speed it up we're asking communities to say where do you want your housing to apply this limit appeals that complicated delayed projects let's solve the parking problems and lands that base costs to building something new to create more housing opportunities and large lots and sewer solutions that's what we should do but there are hard conversations but it is the most cost effective place to develop the infrastructure there to serve. Section three adds new language to title 27. Covenants, conditions and restrictions of substantial public interest. Deed restrictions, covenants or similar binding agreements running with the land added after July 1, 2020 that prohibit or have the effect of the activity land development allowed under the municipal bylaws in a municipality that has adopted a bylaw in accordance with 24 VSA 4412B4, which is the inclusionary growth provisions we just talked about, shall not be valid. So this is a provision that overrides restrictive covenants that may be in deeds or contracts. I think this is a little challenging for downhounds that also need green space. So to go to your better places aspect, some of those covenants may actually be helping communities be better places. Those green spaces that may be by covenant undeveloped may actually be enhancing the downhound. So a little bit of a worry about that. Well, the intent is not to get rid of any conservation reasons. So we're presidential, so it's not always just boundaries. The intent is many neighborhoods have associations that only single family can have. Right, okay, I know it's with the covenants we want to get rid of, but we haven't articulated that conservation easements are not a little bit. This was brought up by our stakeholders. So this was earlier drops. So to me, it would be very important to make sure that we don't include conservation easements. I think that language potentially would have some other, there's some other concerns potentially, so that if you're interested in that provision will need some. Yes, for their needs a little, a lot of additional work. But I get the point of that, in particular, that those communities, and this just enables to do it as required. If it's a barrier to. All right, section four, session law provision on report on substantial municipal constraints. Honor before January 15th, 2023, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall report to the General Assembly on any substantial municipal constraint reports received. The report shall address the number of municipalities that have reported the substantial community restraints, the nature of the restraints, the impact of the development of housing in those municipalities at any steps the department recommends towards reducing or eliminating constraints. All right, so that ends the municipal zoning part of this bill. Next will be the Act 250 sections. I think that might be a good place to stop. Several of us had lunchtime meetings, a little five minutes, a little bit of a lot, covered a lot today. So how do you back next week? We'll continue to go forward on this bill. And everybody, let's start for the birthday present.