 Well, then I will start. I mean, it's telling me that we're now streaming live. So welcome, everybody. This is the Tuesday, August 25th session from the House General Housing and Military Affairs Committee. We are meeting for the first time since June, since the end of June. It's been two months. I hope everybody's harvesting and freezing and putting up their their stuff. If we were in person next January, I will share with you my roasted tomatillo salsa, all grown from the garden. But that's kind of a cheap offer because we don't know if we're going to be back in the building at all next year, so or how we're going to do that. So and Representative Kamash joining us. Welcome back. We are going to Representative Kamash. Hello. We are going to, as I was mentioning before, we went on the air. We have quite a tight schedule in the next month for just even the limited amount of work that we have in front of us. And it's, I say limited, but we will be getting a lot of pressure from advocates on their priorities. All good bills that people have been spending quite a bit of time over the biennium working for. And if this were normal circumstance at the end of the biennium, we would be in the building for quite a long time for weeks on end trying to finish up this work. We don't have that luxury moving forward this month. And so what I'm interested in at first is your well-being. Where are you in terms of are there any things that are standing out for you? Did you have a good break? Are there things that are going to preclude you from being able to participate fully or in a distracted way? I certainly want to be accommodating to people's work schedules and life schedules. I think I put into an email that if you do have things that stand out, please let us know. I also want to acknowledge that under this world of unprecedented events, we are doing business smack dab in the middle of what's going to be an election season. And I really want us to try to build a wall if we can. Everything we do is political, obviously. But I just want to acknowledge publicly that there are, you know, that many of us have races and are anxious to try to deal with that. But my focus really in the committee's focus really has to remain on finishing up the business that we signed up to do for Vermonters. And I know that that's kind of not going to be easy. And there's going to be some tempers that might flare. It is the end of the biennium. But just know that that's something that I know that I'm aware of. And if you need to chat with me at any time, feel free to call to talk through things that you may see. But we have limited amounts of time on Zoom. And it feels now that we're beginning again, it feels a lot more limited to me than I thought it might back at the end of June. So with that, before we get into the bills, specifically S-237 in front of us, does anyone have any, I don't know, what did you do this summer? Reports? Representative Gonzalez? More housekeeping question, actually, in terms of our committee schedule and if it will be as it was last time where we would know at the end of the week what our schedule is the next week or if like the house session that or the floor session that the speaker put out of that will have start times, even if we don't have end times for the house. So wondering if what has been figured out if anything about that? I just received yesterday the draft schedule for next week, which for us would be very similar times. I do believe that the, I haven't looked at it closely enough to know when the floor times were going to be scheduled, but I think the general feeling is that this week and next week will be fairly light floor. But that said, for instance, we're still pushing to see if we can get recovery residences off the big wall and over to the Senate. And they of course have bills that, they of course have bills in the same condition. So the short answer is yes, we should have the schedule by the end of the week. I may have the schedule as soon as tomorrow. It's being, it's, it was shared with the chairs and I believe it'll be issued officially as soon as tomorrow or Thursday. So welcome Senators Sorak and we're just doing a meet and greet here. And anyone else on, I know that, you know, I don't, I don't want to, I don't want to deprive anyone if they have news or if they again, if they have known, known roadblocks ahead to share. If not, then we can just go on and hopefully catch up over time. Last week, was it last week already that there was a meeting of the Appropriations Committee that our committee was invited to? Several of us were able to attend. It was an Appropriations Meeting Committee on the Military Budget. And in that meeting, we basically talked the thing that we need to deal with by the end of today with respect to that, even though we're meeting with the military tomorrow, is specifically the, the Appropriations Committee is inviting committees to participate in conversations about, about our portfolio, when they meet with people, in this case, the guard on the budget presentations that were being done and proposed by the administration. Those of us who were there heard that there was very little change in the military budget. The Appropriations Committee is seeking not so much a full budget memo, but sort of a written acknowledgement that we know what the, what the proposal is and that we support it or don't. As they move forward, they are on a very expedited schedule in terms of getting the budget done. Most, I think all of us who were there last week, not at our heads, yes, that the changes that were being proposed were sufficient and, and were not detrimental to the guards mission. As we understand it, there was language that will be presented tomorrow on the scholarship language. There's an issue with the scholarship language in that we made these scholarships contingent on a student going through basic training prior to receiving them and people can't go to basic training now, right now. And so the question was, will there be language that would allow that to happen? So we'll, we'll see what that is. Representative Fagan's been working on that as a, as a special that he's very concerned about it. So we'll hear the updated language that they're proposing tomorrow on that. On the other news from the military budget, they're returning money, I think, I think this goes to the work that you did last biennium with the understanding that once the scholarship begins, it's going to take several years to ramp it up to being taken fully. But they are returning some of the funds at this point in time simply because their expectations, their expectations have actually been met. But this is considered surplus money for this particular year. They don't want to lose their budgetary line that they're, that they've received, but they were returning funds that they weren't able to use almost specifically because of the way that they're ramping up their scholarship program. So the, the guard will be able to explain a little bit more about that tomorrow. So, but, but we either buy, I would say, I would say actually by tomorrow afternoon, we need to let the Appropriations Committee know. And each time we hear something, if we are, we are, we are invited to attend the BHCB hearing at 330 this afternoon. And it would be the same thing. We would be active participants in the conversation. If, if we, if we had comments, it would be a joint hearing between appropriations and us. Any questions so far? Sorry, I'm highly caffeinated today. So is the committee, do you want the committee chair to be at the 330 meeting? If you can make it, if your schedule allows. Okay. We will certainly, if there's questions, I believe the, I believe the administration has taken as their, as their immediate presentation or proposal is, they didn't change the, what they presented in January as much as they are representing that with some changes based on what's happened with CRF money in different areas. With, I think upwards of a 3% dip in the, in the appropriation. And I don't, I don't know if Emily, if you have any further insight into what they've proposed, but really it's, it's been I don't want to say it's simple, but it's, that's as simple as I think I can phrase it, is that there's basically a 3% drop in, in the, in the January proposal. Is that, and did I get that right? Okay. And did we get that invitation from Ron to attend this Zoom meeting? We should have received it as a committee on Sunday night, possibly from Teresa Utton-Jott, our chairman. Okay. And, and if we didn't, if, if by the end of today's meeting, people say they didn't receive that, that email, then we can ask for it to be sent out again. There was an update that was sent out today, as I recall. Just clarifying, I think that it's at 330 for VHCB is the plan. So, and that's going to be for the overall budget. We will have VHCB in later this week to give us an update, which they provided the, in August 15th memo of their work with the, with the $32 million that we had allocated to them for capital purchases. And we'll have further details about the housing programs. We, they've been stood up, like everything else we did in May and June. The work was pretty remarkable, but it wasn't perfect. And I think we'll hear from different people over the next week or so questions about whether we can tighten up the programs that we stood up. And some of the issues that came up. But I don't want to, I want to, I want to give full shrift to S237 for the rest of today. S230, let me see, let me just check my list. This is, no, that's what I had on my list, just to welcome us back with. And so I just wanted to introduce S237 by way of very short introduction on my part. And then as Senator Sorotkin to start the testimony to explain it, this is, in on the Senate side, this was a bill that started last summer after the session. It started out with conversations with stakeholders. And it also up until sometime in June, it included quite a bit of Act 250 language, which was similar to the language that we were working on on our side in the different committee. My impression of this bill back in March and April was that this primarily would be in the natural resources committee, the committee that was working on Act 250. But it, because that language was stripped out, we ended up being assigned the bill because now it's, while it's zoning, it's primarily housing bill. So this has been something that's been a high priority of Senator Sorotkin through the work that's being done since summer. And I just wanted to give him the opportunity to introduce the bill and let us know, in conjunction with a lot of the material that I shared with you in the last week or so on this, what the Senate's take on this bill is, what the prognosis was starting with the bill and what do we have in front of us. And then we'll hear from, then we'll hear from Josh Hanford and Jacob Hemrecker here, and then the attorney Ellen Szeczowski is here to walk us through the bill. And as we know, again, with the end of the biennium, this is a time where we may consider other housing bills that are floating out in the world. There's a bill that somehow got over to Human Services S187 that we'll talk about in the future. And certainly we had another housing bill, H739, that many of us felt was a priority that we want to consider. But that's for further conversation. Today's strictly about 237. So with that, Senator Sorotkin, welcome to House General. Thank you, Representative Stevens. I am going to be very brief because I promised my committee that I would be back in 10 minutes. And I think I've already passed that time frame. So yes, you're correct. This is a bill that S237 passed the Senate unanimously on a 30 to nothing vote. And it is primarily concerned with land use planning policies that could promote greater density in housing in appropriate locations throughout the state. I had the privilege of being employed by two giants in this area, John Ewing and Paul Brune, both of who are legacies legends, I should say, dealing with smart growth in the state of Vermont. And it's an issue that's near and dear to my heart. And we had ventured out of the state house last summer. We did hearings all around the state of Vermont and about how to promote more affordable housing and workforce housing in the state. And one of the things we consistently heard was that it's not all about money. Everybody has their handout for more money to make housing more affordable. But there are certain policies that you could promote that could reduce the cost of developing that housing and especially in neighborhood development areas and designated downtowns. While we were doing that, the administration was doing their homework and doing research upon what several western states had done. And I would encourage you, I heard your list of witnesses, but I would also encourage you, maybe Josh is going to speak for Chris, but Chris Cochran was very instrumental in our work on this particular legislation, so I encourage you to hear from him as well. But I'm not going to go into the nitty gritty, but there are many policies here, mostly in the nature of carrots, to try and incentivize communities that are areas where we would like to see smart growth, to promote the density, greater density in those areas, and to make housing more affordable as a result of those policy changes. We've already, as I think I may have mentioned to some of you, we've already started to see on a national level some of the leaders in land use planning coming forth and saying hailing S237 as a major piece of legislation in the right direction. I'm going to stop there because I really need to get back, but I want to say one thing that our committee has done and it's in conjunction with conversations I've had with Representative Stevens that both of us have been very concerned with getting a registry of housing rental units in the state of Vermont, as well as getting a more professional code enforcement process going, and we passed a bill two years ago that kept that momentum going. We sent a commission out to come back with recommendations and it was the understanding between Representative Stevens and I that the House would work on those provisions and so long and short of it, I hope you add those to 237 and I've got a run. Thank you. Thank you Senator and we will be, I'm sure you'll be aware of when we're taking this bill up and so please follow and we'll be in touch. Thank you very much. Sorry I have to run. All right, I'd like to pop over to Commissioner Hanford if that's possible. Commissioner Hanford, your house has changed. Yeah, I'm actually in the office today at empty office. I have all afternoon Zoom meetings and I have a house full of, I have my kids and several friends over so it was just not a place to work today. They call that school, don't they? Isn't that school? Yeah, I guess so. It's summer school or some sort but I'm happy that they're enjoying summer and this was nice to be able to retreat to the office so thanks for having me this morning. I think it's still morning. I hope everyone's had an enjoyable summer at least as much as you can. Certainly been sunny and warm but I've just got a couple comments that I can make on this bill and then Jacob's going to kind of run through some details or maybe you'll have Ellen go through the different sections first. I'm not sure but my main sort of points I wanted to get across is that one section of this bill, section two, currently as it's in the bill you know the administration is opposed to it at this point. We have been working with the League of Cities and Towns and Vermont Planners Association. They have expressed real concerns with that section particularly section 2b, the sort of inclusive development requirements. We're hoping that there is some compromise, some changes that can get everyone to yes but until that happens we're holding out our full support for that section of the bill. They represent hundreds of towns and they all have their different views on this and it's sort of you know is a forced hand in a way that maybe could be more of an incentive-based approach that the actual goals are pretty much universally supported but each community might need to take a different approach to get there you know such as the recommendations and the zoning for great neighborhoods study and process we went through you know we did do a large stakeholder outreach over last summer to talk about this and engage lots of folks but that is the one sticking point that I'm hopeful we'll get to a compromise so there can be full support behind it. The other two elements are minor but we need to express that they are not necessary and they're unneeded and that's there's two studies in the bill, one that requires a study of age specific housing, senior housing and another for short-term rentals. I can send to the committee recent studies that show that this work's already been done. We you know we funded a five-year housing study you know it cost $50,000 last year which looks extensively into all aspects of housing including senior housing we paid extra to pay for short-term rental data and have that spelled out in there. Any new study in this area you know from our perspective feels redundant and would actually have to have a budget associated with it we paid extra for the short-term rental data and the only way to get more data is to continue to pay for that source data from the various vendors out there that are tracking all of that and so those two studies do not seem necessary from our point now I'll post or send to Ron the studies and sort of the summaries on these two areas that have already been conducted for folks to look at and see if that sort of meets the goals as we're intended in the bill as it's written now. So happy to take any any questions now or have Jacob dive into you know the details whatever you prefer. Just I just I'll just have one question for Chip will you be proposing or will VLCT or will the people who who are opposed to Section 2B has there been work done to provide what that you know what that compromise could be and I say that because our committee does not know what Section 2B exactly is yet and so I don't want to I don't want to like jump all the way over it but I want to just take you know we know that there are some communities that have been upset by it or that or that want to see a change but I guess my question is in the intervening two months has there been a conversation where there is where where there's been a meeting of the minds on this? There's been a number of conversations with the league and also the league and Vermont Planners Association meeting and discussing trying to figure out what a compromise would be. I don't have language in my hand. You know there are a few areas maybe when you get into the details of this around a sort of opt out provision for a municipality that maybe the language around that being softened or any perceived penalties to a community being softened is one possibility I've heard. You know there might be real reasons why a community can't sort of demand this inclusive development and they don't want to be penalized for doing other good growth in their community or housing. You know I'm sure folks maybe have heard from Chip Sawyer from St. Albans and you know that's a community that's added 200 housing units just in the last five years or so in their growth center and their TIF district. You know they're one of the communities that is vocal on this sort of what they would describe as one size fits all. I think I think there's a path forward that we can get to with everyone a yes on this and that that's my hope but I don't want to speak for the league or Vermont Planners Association on exactly what would satisfy their concerns. Okay thank you. Representative Triano, Thanhengo. Thanks Mr. Chair and good to see you again Josh. So you know I was at a meeting last Saturday and a local realtor spoke about the in the last four or five months the explosion of property purchases with in Vermont and she was very concerned about affordability because properties are changing hands with a sight unseen at this point. Some people are trying to get away from urban areas and places where hot spots for COVID. So I guess I share some of her concerns with the impact of affordability on all properties in Vermont as a result of this explosion of real estate sales and I know as a listener in my town every sale that has happened since April 1st has been at least $10,000 over the appraised value of the of the property and it's actually opposing a problem with our CLA and will likely cause us to have a reappraisal. They will kind of do anyway but so the impact's kind of like cascade down on you know people trying to purchase or rent properties, towns that are trying to keep their CLA's intact and so on. So I just felt like I needed to bring that up because studies from last year really are not covering something that happened in the last four months. Very good point and you know I think this housing needs assessment doesn't necessarily try to match up units to units. It just talks about what we need going forward based on our demographics, our household size, our shrinking household size is really what's driving it. You know we have more one and two family households which means we need more housing that's affordable less incomes coming in not that our population our permanent residency population is exploding but to your points you know been on a number of calls with different realtors and sort of workshops talking about this and a couple interesting things are happening you know one the higher end housing market you know the million dollar plus homes have seen about a 300% increase in sales you know a lot of those were sitting on the market for over a year in the past and they're selling like crazy right now um you know so that necessarily doesn't directly impact the more affordable homes but the other flip side is there's less homes going on the market so there's less inventory so it's driving up the cost and that's been explained because people are scared to move right now they might not be able to get into the house they want to buy and they might not be able to sell that you know so people are forgoing their normal listing and moving right now because of covid and are just staying put so they've seen something like a 30 or 40 reduction in the number of new housing stock going on the market so it's a double there's not enough to even sell because it's not being put on the market and that that is available selling faster because there's less availability and a lot of folks from out of state are buying it as a second home or to move here permanently and they're seeing the most dramatic increase in sales on the high end of the market there's no doubt that there will be as time goes on if this keeps up some impact on the affordable homes but it is very interesting when you dive into the the data behind what's going on in home sales right now it's it's uh it's it's pretty nuanced well that's really interesting the million dollar piece but uh i mean there'll be some good money coming into the property transfer tax so that that's a win yeah that's a good point well i you know they they assess that uh only about 30 percent of the people who have purchased property in the past four months will actually be permanent residents in germany and i've heard that as well so and also you know on another note on this sort of the the concern of of lots of short-term rentals vacation homes there's also some stress in that market i was just on a call with someone this morning with another legislator her her constituent you know that folks that have these properties they're actually not able to use them as intended right now the whole winter ski season home is in complete jeopardy because who's going to rent a season long home for the winter that they have to quarantine every weekend when they come up and they have to certify so they can't operate and you know with the value in mind in the past and so some of that sort of appeal is also wearing off so there's a lot changing right now and how permanent this is or is it just a blip is what everyone's wondering thank you i mean it appears that it could be a blip for sure and it could settle down but um interesting piece thanks yep a percent of hango and then kalaki i just want to um address our chair's comments about a solution a possible solution to this so back at the beginning of the month we received a flurry of information that probably got buried because we got so much information about this bill from different sources um i really want to direct people that there are some amendments possible language floating around out there and um also some commentary from the vermont league of cities and towns and the regional planning commissions and we will be hearing from both of those groups as well as hopefully the city of saint albin's who has some has some objections to the language in this bill and has offered some solutions to it that maybe we can move forward with a consensus on so i really want to make sure everybody digs back through the information that's come to us in the off session as short as it was and i appreciate if anybody has any questions to reach out to me because i've been in communication with our local saint albin's representatives and senators on this thanks go ahead john uh thank you and josh i do look forward to reading those reports and and becoming more familiar some of the issues i'm in south burlington and our city council did have inclusionary development uh and uh the the good side of it it saved the sprawl that's happening in south burlington and we have the o'brien farms development that is going up and there is going to be affordable housing in that mix and i think it's a really great example of how it works to integrate and to build a there there for a community and stop the kind of overall sprawl and have mixed incomes living in sort of the centers of this so i think there's an upside to this i at least i i eager to hear these other issues you're bringing up but um it seems to be really working it made people very nervous in south burlington and it's really working i think in everybody's seen the success of this kind of inclusionary development so um i want to make sure you know we look at this um for the health of our communities and the future of remod to have affordable housing in our mix so i hope we can all come up with the solutions that are right thank you um thank you thank you john and lisa and chip um so jake i'm gonna ask ellen to do a walkthrough first um and the one of the things um josh i don't i don't know um i started reading the hard copy of the housing book um the that that you sent um or that was sent out i think we have access to the electronic copy and um someone who remained nameless said you know before i started reading it was like no no you should read it it's it doesn't push you to sleep immediately and um which was a pretty backhanded um compliment but i wanted to say to the committee it is it is yeah that there you go thank you jake up um and in fact uh i appreciated the editing you have pictures from minewski street in waterbury and not my house so thank you um uh as as you know examples of other houses which are which are properly cited uh so the committee just it's it's a resource that i think if there is this um a solution to this there are elements that are discussed within this report itself that may lead us to some um to some solutions to the to the issues that are going to be raised so that's going to be an important resource and that was developed not only with the consultants but with with the department with jake up and josh and others within the department too so i think that's going to um be real if we can if we can use that as real homework in context of what we're going to learn from ellen today i think that would be really helpful so ellen um please it's um this is a long bill um and again we have not seen it i mean i've it's been shared with the committee but if you could just take us through it and perhaps give us the context of the material that stayed in i know that there is this this is actually an excision from a larger bill or that there was a large amount of material excised from this bill but if you could just take us through the bill and and really give us an idea of what we're talking about here that would be very helpful sure uh ellen takowski office of legislative council s 237 is on your committee page for today it is i'll put it on the screen now so um this bill is an act relating to promoting affordable housing there are a lot of different sections in it um i handled the bulk of it related primarily to municipal zoning um but the later sections starting on page 15 were drafted by david hall so hopefully you'll hear from him later but i'll start with the zoning pieces and um that does lar they do largely relate to what you were just discussing with the commissioner so section one we're in title 24 43 82 this is the section that lists the requirements for a town plan so first the first change so town plans shall include the following a utility and facility plan consisting of a map and so we're adding language in the middle of this paragraph to require on the map water supply lines facilities and service areas and sewage disposal lines facilities and service areas so we're we're teasing out what else needs to be included on the map within the town plan at the top of page two on the next page another small change in the the town plan uh the municipal plan section so we're we're striking the reference and changing it slightly here so um also required as part of a town plan a housing element and including a recommended program for addressing low and moderate income persons housing needs and so the current reference is to 44 12 so the program currently shall uh account for accessory dwelling units in 44 12 but we're changing that reference to say the program shall comply with the requirements of 44 12 of this title to provide affordable housing so we're just making it slightly more broad because um we make a number of of changes in section 44 12 and this is the the section that the commissioner just alluded to the section two inclusive development requirements so small change there in the town plan section and then now we're going to get into section two Ellen before you go into section two which which we've heard is is is the is the one section so far that needs our focus when it comes to the sewer lines and the water lines can you do is that is that mapping out existing lines or is that mapping out historical lines is that what is that clarifying uh it's present and perspective so um there was some testimony that some of the towns don't even have their sewer lines mapped and so those are important so it's present and perspective should be included in the map okay thank you okay so section two so this section we're in title 24 and these are uh required land developments that apply in every municipality so first bylaws shall designate appropriate districts and reasonable regulations for multi-unit and multi-family dwellings no bylaws 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 bylaws shall have the effect of prohibiting multi-unit residential dwellings of four or fewer units as an allowed permitted use or of conditioning approval based on the character of the area so in a district that allows multi-unit dwellings the town can't you must allow at least four units um you can't prohibit it based on the character of the area and so uh this entire title 24 is an odd title and this section specifically is a little confusing because the language is sort of structured um no bylaw shall have the effect of is is kind of a an odd phrase that's used throughout so um please stop me if it's a little if anyone's confused um but here we have character of the area you can't use character of the area to prevent four units in a multi-unit district your representative hang go thank you i just want to clarify for um purposes of you know living in a city that has some lovely old Victorian homes or whatnot that any of those homes could under this um under this new statute be made into apartments or have a dwelling attached to it or built in the driveway as long as the total number of units on that property are four or under is that correct so um there are a lot of variables that could come into play in the scenario you just described so um the next um on the next page we're going to talk about accessory dwelling units which is um you know when you carve out a small piece of a home to have a smaller unit either part of the home or directly adjacent to the home um we're talking here when you have a um a zoning district that specifically allows for multi units um you can't say that four units doesn't fit in the character of the area um you can prevent more than four um but up to four should be allowed if it's a multi-unit zoning district so my question on that is if it's um you know like a really pretty historic district and um they've already decided the town has already decided that a beautiful old home could be divided in half for instance but someone under this new statute wants to divide those two in half as well and make apartments totaling four in that home that supersede that would supersede what the town has already decided for their quote-unquote historical district um so this isn't necessarily project specific this is requiring that the town can't within their district can't enact a bylaw based on the care saying four units doesn't fit in the character of this area so I'm guessing that a town couldn't say two units or less under this new statute um if it's a multi-unit yes I yes I will also say I think the wording here is a little confusing um because it really the last few words of this section are important it's character of the area um because there could be some other potentially limiting factors like wastewater capacity or something that may prevent more than four units or more than you know less than four units so um if a district is going to allow multi-unit they can't say that the character of the area doesn't allow for four units so I guess that's to my point that the aesthetics of it would not be an allowable exception to this statute yes thank you okay representative walls had a question yeah thank you I actually had two questions and you may have just seen the first one I was trying to be clear on what character of the area meant and whether that could not only apply to as representative hang goes referring to uh an historic area you know you've got these beautiful Victorian homes and if that's part of the character of the area and also whether that could refer to the capacity and to I think use wastewater or sewage capacity uh I guess I'm my first question is what what is the definition of character of the area what does that include um I don't I don't have it in front of me I'll need to look it up um it does relate to aesthetics so um I I don't have a a specific answer I can look it up for you I'd appreciate knowing what that how broad that is and what that includes my second question is I'm checking in on this I assume this would apply to new construction as well as rehabbing existing buildings uh yes okay thank you and we're talking we're talking about a municipality establishing bylaws um so we're not quite into individual projects we're saying a municipality can't enact bylaws that would prohibit these things if we go through this this whole section is this whole section d what it's saying is that is that there needs to be bylaws to appropriate districts is that appropriate districts can be are those downtown districts are those um are those areas that uh are those state sponsored districts or are these just personal districts and within a particular community that does not have a designated uh area um because it's saying that the dead the bylaws must shall designate appropriate districts so so we're going to say okay in this section of main street we can have multi-unit family dwellings which is kind of um but but those bylaws shall not have the effect of excluding the dwellings um um from the municipality I mean so so those two things just sort of are those those first two sentences are those repetitive um and then it says and then the additional language to me is saying that within that district that's already been created you shall not create a bylaw that prohibits units that are for fewer um and then and then based on the character of the area so it's a pretty loaded it's a pretty loaded paragraph there I'm just if we can work on getting that straightened out in what that means um not necessarily today that would be great sure so um right we're not talking about designated um downtowns or any of the the designations a town may apply for what we're talking here are uh zoning districts so the first two sentences are slightly redundant we're saying here you cannot prevent you can't your town can't establish that this town is single family dwellings only you must allow multi-unit dwellings and you can put them in specific zoning districts if you don't want them throughout the whole town you can you can locate them in specific districts um but the second sentence says you can't fully exclude multi-unit dwellings from your municipality okay representative hango thank you um so what I am getting out of this is that even if a municipality has already decided to allow multiple multiple units um in this district for instance an old large old home that's been divided into two apartments that municipality cannot say then that they can only limit it to two family a two family dwelling it has to be the limit has to be raised to a four household unit it cannot remain a two household unit even if it was um zoned as such so in in my understanding of this it is taking the zoning away from the municipality and putting it at our level at the state level and we're saying two towns that you need to allow four units or less nothing it really doesn't say anything about single family units because the town has already decided in their zoning that they do not have to remain single family units am I correct can I can I go to um actually can I take a pause here and go to jacob um and jacob can you clarify the interpretation of of the statute here of what we're talking about here I think the scenario that representative hango is describing as I read this line would be the case depending upon the interpretation of multi unit um which is not defined in this uh in chapter 117 in the planning act um but it does have some interactions with other other use terms zoning use terms um and for instance the duplex is uh distinctly uh defined so I think it comes down to what's the definition of multi unit and how is how is how are attorneys going to interpret that um uh but the uh the real um the real basis behind this at least from the administration which uh supports a voluntary approach um was that character of the area is often a very loose discretionary standard um that is used as a basis um for uh nimby appeals and um how how can that be narrowed um so that uh so that instead of a really loose test of what's in character that there are more clear standards and that could be you know in historic preservation district it could be a form-based code there are lots of other tools to um to regulate to make sure that what is built is in character um without having kind of a um a squishy test is that helpful sir stevens yeah I mean it's it's use the magic phrase of course which is it depends um but I think that when as we keep I do want to move on from this language and obviously this is section two and I want to flag it because we're going to return to it until we get it understood chairman can I just mention one quick character the area if it's not defined yeah yeah go ahead commissioner so you know this one section I think is less controversial than some down below in that you know this is getting at you know municipalities all have to have some sort of area zone for multifamily you know to allow other than single family homes in their entire community they can't do that now that's against fair housing law you have to allow multifamily so within those zones we're setting some standards here that okay you can't appeal it it has to at least allow four units and you can't appeal it just on the character of the area you know that that is used so many times to stop projects um that um are needed in the community because it's it's it's it is ambiguous and you can't define it as long as you can get enough neighbors to not to believe that it's changing the character it stops the project in its tracks even in an area that's already designated for multifamily so you're not getting the benefits of that multifamily district if people can't build more multifamily units is is kind of what this is trying to get at maybe it's not the best way but that's how I interpret it and it's some of the other provisions farther down that the mandatory inclusive development that more of the the the planning community has concerns with that's my understanding that it's not so much this one first piece here all right and and so committee if we could actually just let's go with again I appreciate everybody jumping right in and and getting into the nitty gritty of this but let's try to get through um let Ellen get through this presentation um and and then we and just keep marking the sections where we need clarification and we know section two or elements of section two have already been brought up as question as as areas that we need to we need to look at closely so Ellen um please go right ahead okay so uh next on page three so uh this is the we're about to talk about the definition of an accessory dwelling unit so except for uh flood hazard and fluvial erosion area bylaws no bylaw shall have the effect of excluding as a permitted use one accessory dwelling unit that is located within or a pertinent to a single family dwelling on an owner occupied lot so that first change right there um we changed that it had to be an owner occupied dwelling to an owner occupied lot um next a bylaw may require a single family dwelling with an accessory dwelling unit to be subject to the same review dimensional or other controlled as required for single family dwelling without an accessory dwelling unit an accessory dwelling unit means a distinct unit that is clearly subordinate to a single family dwelling and has facilities and provisions for independent living including sleeping food preparation sanitation provided there is compliance with all of the following the property has sufficient wastewater capacity and the unit does not exceed 30 percent of the total habitable floor space floor area of the single family dwelling or 900 square feet whichever is greater so there's a couple of changes here um currently under statute an adu can only be a studio or a one bedroom apartment so we struck that and it's now just reads a distinct unit and also we've essentially raised the the size so the unit does not exceed 30 percent of the total habitable floor space or 900 square feet whichever is greater um so we so those are these are the changes now to the definition of accessory dwelling unit okay so then on the next page we hold on but that's that but that language that you just struck the little three is pretty important too i would imagine right so yes we're also striking um this is a requirement so provided there's compliance with and we struck the language applicable setbacks coverage and parking requirements specified in the bylaws representative hanko so um the parking requirements i saw some chatter about that and somewhere in here it it specifies that the dwelling needs to be within a half mile of a transit center or something to that effect um i i really um don't know that that's feasible in a lot of our smaller municipalities even if there is a transit center it's not really taking people anywhere like for instance the city of st albins has an amtrak station the amtrak train runs once a day and um right now it's not even running because of the uh covid restrictions so um parking is a problem you know i know we've all seen victorians or or uh colonial homes built way back and they have nice beautiful lots and somebody's paved over part of the lot and made a parking lot for the tenants that are living there and there are many cars in the driveway or out on the street so what was the does anybody know what the rationale behind striking parking requirements is and and i'm sorry lisa i'm just going to interrupt i just we will get to that answer i think as we move along as you know you are probably the most you've probably had the most um um uh experience with this bill and without position to this through the st albins connections and i'm hoping to get through this so that we can so that the whole committee can understand what's going on with the bill and then come back to that question because it's an incredibly important question i mean the parking requirements is incredibly important but i would like to try to get the committee to hear the whole bill um before we get to to before we get to that nuance which again is is well worth uh delving into is that okay certainly yeah thanks no thank you all right ellen please continue sure we'll hear more about parking in a moment um so all right so then yes we did strike that language um next so nothing in this subdivision that we just talked about shall be construed to prohibit a bylaw that is less restrictive of ad use so a municipality is free to be to have more relaxed standards for ad use or a bylaw that regulates short-term rental units distinctly from residential units so we struck language and then we added new language so uh we struck language related to ad use and then add a new language that references that now a municipality can regulate short-term rental units distinctly from residential rental units and there is further language clarifying this later in section 18 and 19 we're just 19 so um we're shaping some language related to ad use and then further clarifying language related to short-term rental units um next existing small lots so a municipality may prohibit development of a lot not served and able to connect to municipal sewer and water service if the following applies the lot is less than one acre in area or the lot has a width a width or depth dimension of less than 40 feet so this change so currently municipalities can prevent development on small lots but this change is saying that they can only prevent development on small lots if they're unable to um connect to municipal water and sewer and then we get into the notorious inclusive development section so um we're on the top of page five except in a municipality that has reported substantial municipal constraints and we will talk about that later on in this section this is the sort of opt out of everything I'm about to tell you but uh and notwithstanding any existing bylaw other than flood hazard or fluvial erosion area bylaws the following land development provisions shall apply in every municipality no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting the creation of residential lots of at least 10,890 square feet or one quarter acre within any regulatory district that allows residential uses served by and able to connect to a water system operated by the municipality or excuse me 5400 square feet or one eighth acre within any regulatory district allowing residential uses served by and able to connect to water and sewer operated by the municipality so a municipality can't prevent residential lots of one quarter acre if there's water or one eighth acre if there's water and sewer the appropriate 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 lot 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 with any district with no additional review dimensional or other controls and would be required for a single family dwelling without a second unit uh that was a lot of words so we're we're primarily talking about a duplex here so if there is water and sewer a municipality can't condition or require additional approval for duplexes then they would a single family dwelling and then d this is the parking stuff that representative hango was just referring to when a bylaw establishes a parking minimum for residential properties each residential parking space that will be leased separately from residential units shall count as two spaces for purposes of meeting the parking minimum for any proposed development with it located within a half mile of transit stop so if there is a required parking minimum and the property is located within a half mile of the transit stop and if the parking spaces are going to be leased separately from the residential unit they can count double towards meeting the parking minimum the parking space lease costs shall be reasonably proportional to the production operation and maintenance costs of the space to reduce generalized subsidy of leased spaces by other residents a municipality may condition the municipal land permit on continuation of a separate leasing of parking spaces and residential units all right so those four things were the uh provisions of the inclusive the inclusive development provisions uh chair may ask a question about that you may uh ellen how does the ad a factor in here for parking units if one of the tenants is disabled um i don't know the specific answer i'm i'm not that familiar with the ad i can tell you that the aim of this is to many towns do have parking minimums when new residential units are created uh this is talking about if you lease the space separately from the apartment as opposed to including it or the unit it can count double if you're near transit stop so if you're um if a person is intending you know potentially to use the transit stop and does not want their uh the space they don't have to lease it um i don't know if jake has anything to add to that right again i can jump in the division of fire safety regular uh overseas the um americans with disability act parking requirements i believe if you have to provide parking or if you provide parking there's uh some threshold that triggers an ad a space um so i don't think this would have any impact of that um but certainly somebody could do a housing project with no parking as is as is being done i can think of a 17 unit building in hartford for instance um that uh is on an a faker a lot and has no parking um and in that case i don't believe there would have to be the permission of an ad a space okay thank you jake well we have you um so i don't live in a town where we lease spaces um almost all of the rental units at least i'll say downtown where i live are they come with a parking lot or they come with uh a space where do we do this where where are there separately leased spaces and and is that is this contemplating something that's kind of new or is this something that's more urban than than rural um i'm i'm not familiar with leased parking spaces in vermont anyway chicago yes but um but here i haven't heard of it yeah my understanding um is that unbundling the cost of parking spaces is uh uh not new um but is not uh very typical in in vermont in part because um we have many parking minimums um and parking is generally somewhat affordable the background for unbundling parking spaces is really about uh should somebody attendant of a residential um building have to pay for a parking space that they don't need or want and if unbundling reduces the cost in their monthly rent check um for for parking that they don't need or want is that a good thing for vermonters and and so and to go back to the beginning of this is this for new construction or is this for renovating i mean if i wanted to renovate my house would i you know offer a space for lease um or is this is this for new construction yeah i'm trying to scan up here and i realize um i i believe it would only apply in the event that somebody would be pulling a zoning permit either to it could be new development or the redevelopment of an existing site so like changing a single family home into a four bedroom unit or four apartment unit okay chairman stevens there are several housing projects that i'm aware of that do lease space for municipality the new avenue in st johnsbury uses part of a municipal lot um i believe one of the projects in development in heart and um hardwick would use a municipal lot so this this um is in practice in vermont now um and i think the intent here is just if units can be built um but there isn't space for parking should we let the developer and the people that will live there that may or may not have a car decide whether it's a marketable place to build without its own parking is really what we're talking about because right now the parking often is what kills a project in a downtown area there just isn't a place to build to provide that parking sure and so the project doesn't happen but in several new projects we've seen they've provided no parking and the projects have filled up like that um and so should it be something that is a choice a market choice whether it's needed or not okay and this is again i mean if you're gonna be a half a mile from out from a transit stop your chances are you're gonna be downtown i think is is is the assumption here um and i know it's dangerous to assume but i think that's that's the focus here all right thank you ellen or john did you have a question are you done um ellen okay so those are the uh the four um inclusive development uh pieces um so then next a municipality may opt out of these requirements of subdivision one by filing a substantial municipal constraint report with the department of housing and community development the 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 the bylaws that conform to the requirements of subvision b of this um this subdivision one of the subsection b so uh subdivision one of subsection b are those four things and so if the municipality has too many constraints they can file the report with the department and not have to comply with those four things on or before january 1st 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 to the municipality's regional planning commission the state program directors for municipal water and sewer funding the vermont community development board the vermont downtown development board the vermont housing and conservation board then 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 within 60 days of the filing the department shall post all comments on the report 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 three of this subsection b and may subject the municipality to review by the commissioner of housing and community development pursuant to 43 51 of this title incentives and funding honor before july 1 2021 any municipality that requests technical assistance from the regional planning commission to update local bylaws to address the inclusionary growth as described in subdivision one of this subsection shall receive priority technical assistance through additional funding made available to the applicable regional planning commission by section 43 of six of this title or municipal funding made available through the municipal planning grant program established in 43 of six of this title and may use resources developed by the department to assist with the updates so municipalities that want to do this kind of request technical assistance from the regional planning commissions to update their bylaws and the following state funding programs shall prioritize funding in municipalities that have updated their bylaws to comply with this subsection or 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 43 of six of this title Vermont community development program under 10 vsa chapter 29 sub chapter one and the neighborhood development area tax credit a historic tax credits under 32 vsa 59 30 cc so municipalities that adopt bylaws to comply with the inclusive development provisions have access to these incentives which are prioritized they're prioritized funding under these programs there is this additional incentive which is subdivision four pursuant to 27 vsa 545 which is the next section we're about to talk about in a municipality that has adopted bylaws that comply with subdivision one of this subsection b deeds may not be restricted by covenants conditions or restrictions that conflict with the duly adopted municipal bylaws or policies this subsection shall not affect the enforceability of any existing deed restrictions so this is another incentive i'm going to talk about it a little bit more here in section three but a municipality that adopts the bylaws that conform with the inclusive development provisions new deeds can't restrict new deeds cannot conflict with these inclusive development policies and we add this language in the next section to further clarify that but this is private parties are not going to be able to adopt deed restrictions or covenants that will override the municipal bylaws related to inclusive development so that's section two so section three 27 vsa section 545 covenants conditions and restrictions of substantial public interest deed restrictions covenants or similar binding agreements added after july 1 2020 that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting land development allowed under the municipal bylaws in a mean municipality that has adopted a bylaw in accordance with 24 vsa 44 12 b1 shall not be valid so new deed restrictions covenants added after after this passes not july 1 but after that that conflict with the inclusive development provisions shall not be valid can we get an example of that either from you or from from john um jacob sure so um a lot so some of those provisions in 44 12 really focus on density so like the duplex one so a municipality that has water and sewer can't prevent duplexes a a private party cannot add a restrictive covenant to their deed saying that this land will only ever be a single family dwelling not a duplex because that would conflict with the inclusive development bylaws thank you um so this section shall not affect the enforceability of any property interests held in whole or in part by a qualified organization or state agency uh defined in 10 vsa 60 301 a including restrictive easements such as conservation easements and historic preservation rights as defined in 10 vsa 822 so um this is this languages were not attempting to affect conservation easements that have been put on a property um that are recognized under title 10 and this section shall not affect the enforceability of any property interest that is restricted by a housing subsidy covenant as described in section 610 of this title held in holder in part by a party by an eligible applicant as defined by 10 vsa 303 or the vermont housing finance agency so uh so again we're talking about new restrictivities and covenants that are created after this goes into effect and we're not seeking to um impact existing uh conservate or or we're not seeking to impact conservation easements or um the housing subsidy covenants with the vermont housing finance agency representative hanko thank you um representative callacchi brought up earlier a housing development that's being built in south burlington and that this is just making me think that i need to ask this question if after this law passes um a developer would like to develop a piece of land and um establish covenants for buying homes in that development and that's quite that's been quite popular that um folks buy homes in development specifically because there are some restrictive language there is some restrictive language around what can and cannot be done in that development and some of it has to do with parking and some of it has to do with what the exterior of the homes look like does this affect a future housing a future new housing development like that that could potentially be built yes if the if the restriction they were going to add conflicted with the the four provisions of the inclusive development language so there wasn't anything um specifically about exteriors there was some language about parking but um more about um you know the language and inclusive development has to do with rent leasing separately so to some extent potentially um if if the deed was seeking to directly conflict to override the bylaw it would override that restriction thank you can you just quickly point me to the the page or the section with those four bylaws again those four um criteria yep it's on page it starts on page five and goes into page six thank you yep okay all right thank you all right and then section four uh report on substantial municipal constraints so honor before january 15th 2023 the department shall report back to the general assembly on any substantial municipal constraint reports that they've received the report on these reports shall address the number of municipalities that have reported substantial municipal constraints the nature of the constraints the impact on the development of housing in those municipalities and any steps the department recommends towards reducing or eliminating constraints so that is the end of the municipal uh zoning and inclusive bylaw stuff okay uh representative kalaki thank you before we move on i i just want to make sure i understand maybe from uh josh uh that you were talked about an opt-out clause and isn't well we just went over an opt-out clause for municipalities and what's missing in that from your perspective or jake i i don't know which person is the right person sure um representative clackie i'll address it first and jake probably has more detail but the opt-out provision is this municipal constraint report you know that they would say we can't comply with this because and the objection we heard is that um the priorities given to those municipalities that are able to meet these um new bylaw changes and not submit a constraint report they'll have more access to funding and will um you know be favored in a way that a municipality that has to submit this constraint report and opt-out um will not be um able to receive those funds in the same in the same uh way that that's the concern it doesn't necessarily say that um they're not they're no longer eligible for those funds it just says that if you adopt these you'll be given priority so it's uh you know if all things are equal and there isn't enough money those that have adopted it will receive the funding before those that haven't okay so so that would be an incentive right i mean i've yeah got it okay thank you and this idea of priorities of of of municipalities that sign up for these kinds of programs or that follow these particular state-based rules i mean the the elements of priorities is something that's common in the way that we do anything from downtown designation any of the neighborhood programs is that right commission that's correct i mean priorities are everywhere in all of our different funding programs as carrots as carrots all right thank you um ellen okay so the next change is in section 11 um sections 5 through 10 were deleted section 11 so this is i think could be considered a technical change so we're in we're we're in title 24 we're in the section that relates to uh village centered designations and before i'm sorry before you go before you go on i'm sorry just just to be clear the deleted sections were deleted from an earlier version of this bill yeah it was a it was a floor amendment so they um the sections did not get re-numbered because it was a floor amendment so right and so this is just this is this is information that i mean that we're not changing statute or any anything underlying we're not deleting anything that's already in law this is just language from the proposed bill as it was in the senate and the senate process says that if it's a floor amendment then we reflect it this way as opposed to what we would do in our committee yeah okay thank you yep uh right so village center designation um so what we did on page 11 really was just consolidate all of the language into one reference so village centers are eligible for the following incentives and benefits and we struck all of the language but we didn't remove any of it we made it into a more succinct statement so they're eligible for the downtown and village center tax credit program in 32 vsa uh 59 30 a a x sequence so that's just more of a condensing that happened we're not we're not getting rid of any of these they're just being condensed into this single reference and then next uh we have a couple of sections related to tax credits so in the we're in the village center tax credit program now so what we're doing in section 13 is we're adding neighborhood development areas to the uh two areas eligible for qualified buildings under the his the downtown and village center tax credit program so qualified build so buildings that would qualify for the tax credit currently can only be located in a downtown or village center and now we're adding neighborhood development areas um to that also i'm sorry to jump in but was there a definition of neighborhood development area that i missed oh um we haven't talked about but there are five designation programs that a municipality can apply for they are designated downtown village centers and new town centers as well as growth centers and neighborhood development areas so uh these are programs that you can apply to have your area designated in your municipality um there is an entire statute that is um not in this bill that lists the requirements as well as the incentives that that one town gets when they get this designation um so this is it's not here specifically uh but it is in statute and it's a pretty long-standing program and this is just adding another incentive that now if you're if your community has received its designation as a neighborhood development area you can also qualify for this um this tax credit program but only these three designated downtown village center or neighborhood development area not the other two that you mentioned correct thank you and just as the time check it is 1240 i'm this is the last i have one more thing to touch on okay great thank you yep um yeah so we add neighborhood development area and then on page 13 we add the reference again neighborhood development area and then also on page 13 we add a new type of project that will be eligible for this tax credit program so it's a qualified flood mitigation project so that means a combination of structural and non-structural changes to a building located within an area subject to the river corridor rule or within the flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA that reduces or eliminates flood damage to the building or its contents the project shall comply with the municipality's adopted flood hazard or river corridor bylaw if applicable and a certificate of completion shall be submitted by a registered engineer architect qualified contractor or qualified local official to the state board improvements to qualified buildings listed or eligible for listing in the state or national historic register a state or national register of historic places shall be consistent with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation as determined by the vermont division of historic preservation so this section we are we're in this downtown and village center tax credit program it's an established program and now we're adding a new type of project that the tax that can receive this tax credit so a qualified flood mitigation project can now be eligible for a tax credit and that's it because then the next the last section I have is section 13a and that adds the project so it says flood mitigation tax credit the qualified applicant of a qualified flood mitigation project shall be entitled upon approval of the state board to claim against the taxpayers state individual income tax state corporate income tax or bank front franchise or insurance premiums tax liability a credit of 50 percent of a qualified of qualified expenditures up to a maximum of maximum tax credit of $75,000 so this is a new tax credit available for flood mitigation and I'm not an expert in this so I was going to turn to josh to commissioner handford and say is this the kind of tax credit or addition to this program that needs review by the ways and means committee um or does this fit under your existing budget for tax credits this fits under existing budget it's been in the works for a while and you know has been vetted by all the environmental communities and the river staff and you know this is for existing properties you know we're not going to be moving berry we're not going to be moving many of our historic downtowns that are in these flood prone areas this is just allowing these private owners to access some of these tax credits to do some flood mitigation work and be eligible for for for this tax credit in addition to all the other sort of eligible tax credit purposes the previous expansion into the neighborhood development areas that's one where ways and means and a few others have said you know that that that could be a rather large expansion of the program you know so you know the program may need more resources you know so you're not you're already over over subscribed two to one and now you're moving into neighborhoods that's fair but it's also fair that these neighborhood development areas are usually small rings around our historic downtowns and village centers and you know those neighborhoods represent the housing stock and they should have access to these credits to improve the housing stock make accessory dwelling units and that we would of course like more resources to to fund more projects but it should be included and right now there's only six designated neighborhood development areas maybe it's seven but because there is really not much financial incentive for municipalities to go after that designation as it's designed now once they have access to this tax credit and property owners realize there's some help for them to to reinvest in their properties you know make code improvements and whatnot they might you know encourage more municipalities to go through the effort of that designation process to allow their their property owners access to this resource so I know it's in order to personalize this again to a degree Randall Street in Waterbury at one point was considering uh there was a there was an amount of money from FEMA available that would help people lift their houses up if and it was a some 75 to 25 match or something like that but we're talking about a pretty serious chunk of change that it would have cost any of the individual homeowners to live is this the type of flood mitigation that project that may have that may have qualified for this tax credit whereas if I had to pay $75,000 for you know as my match to to get my house lifted above the flood zone that that this would have given me a 50% tax credit I believe so and there's a lot of other less intrusive and less expensive measures you know for flood mitigation as well you know moving all the utilities up from the basement you know filling part of the basement having gate there's there's lots of other things besides completely jacking up your home and adding five feet to the foundation but in general yes in Waterbury is a perfect example downtown Berry is a perfect example of you know historic neighborhoods that are in dangerous places and any help to the residents to mitigate those properties would be beneficial from just a pure expenditure of of you know public resources go into fixing those properties when they're damaged anyways let's put the effort up front and give someone incentive to do this on their own is the thinking here and it's like I said this has all been vetted with the environmental community and the river corridors folks this is not talking about building new in the floodway if this is yeah we prefer to think potentially dangerous thank you yeah the representative triano so josh you may be familiar there's a bordered up motel in lindenville it would actually be likely be in a in what you just called a ring around the downtown designation this building could probably house 30 or 40 individuals but it is in in the flood plain and you know I often asked why nothing was happening with this building and that's what I was told so would that sort of a and it's privately owned so would that sort of a situation apply to this section would he be eligible or they he or she would the owner be eligible for some sort of tax mitigation you know without knowing the specifics I can't say for certain but it sounds like it if they were in one of these designated zones and they wanted to do flood mitigation work you know the other benefit that you know could could be pursued is the neighborhood designation area if there's more housing that should be developed in that area you know some of the regulatory in act 250 and others that they come with or we hope come with some of these designations you know helps reduce the expenses to carry out a change of use like that say if it is a motel and they're changing it into permanent housing you know that's the sort of thing that usually triggers act 250 and that if it was in a designated neighborhood development area or downtown that was exempt from act 250 for housing development then that would be another advantage of these designations to reduce the development cost because you've gone through the proper planning and you have identified your needs and you're making this investment in the areas where we want the growth to happen anyway so the benefits are you have less permits to get less you know pre-development work to prove that it's acceptable development pattern so if I were to go to the lindenville planning office and speak to them about it that would give me some more information I suppose on what the designation is and what the possibility it's a real eyesore and it's really a shame that it can't be used for something that yeah well I mean we can give you maps and show you you know all the different designation rings for lindenville and see if it falls in something naturally we can send you our you know our our designation map and our atlas that shows what's there now okay thank you great so ellen is the rest of this david's work is that is that where we are right now uh yes with one very small exception that I forgot on the very last page so on the very last page we have the effective deeds but we also have this implementation section so incentives and funding established under 4412 so that's the we have the incentives for the inclusive development shall be immediately shall be available immediately to municipalities that adopt bylaws to comply with the inclusive development prior to the effective date so the as you'll see below in the effective date the inclusive development sections don't take effect until july 1 2023 so they're pushed out three years but municipalities that adopt bylaws to comply with them before then can have access to the incentives and priority funding immediately so the practical effect of this is to say to municipalities you have two and a half years to figure this out or to accept it the way that this is written any town or municipality that approves of it before then is allowed access but basically the deadline is to accept these changes is 2023 yes so so the the senate sort of saw it as a a mixture of there is a mandatory this this program is mandatory but for three years it's voluntary and the sooner you comply the sooner you have access to these incentives but that that but that they need to comply with these they need to figure out a way to make according to this they have to figure out a way to make their bylaws comply with statute before the 23rd I mean there's no there's no so it's quasi voluntary or it's temporarily voluntary is what is what this bill is saying and that and that one of the issues that was brought up by VLCT and by Commissioner Hanford is that is that being quasi voluntary isn't quite acceptable yet to for the whole bill so all right let's I mean committee it's 1252 I want end on time today are there any further so first of all thank you Ellen thank you Josh thank you Jacob I think we'll need your assistance and interpretation you know I mean we'll check I'll have Ron check with Jacob in particular but in term if he's the primary zoning interpreter for this bill then we'll keep checking with with him Jacob with you with your availability when we need you to take us through so my understanding is that for the most part the I'll I'll just ask the administration I'll ask other advocates later but for the most part the administration's main concerns are with section two and to be to be particular in particular I'll hesitate I'll hesitate on the hamlet part of it so we will definitely you know keep an eye on that as we move forward with with our testimony on the bill we will yeah and just one other quick note you're right it's mainly section two particular be the League of Cities and Towns and planners have sort of let us know that a accessory dwelling component of section two they're generally in supportive support of so there's nuances in in this there's there's lots of this that people really like but there's just a concern about the forcing of communities to do it because when this was first proposed you know in our department was the one working with everyone proposing this there was money associated with this to help municipalities go through this process do this work direct support that was stripped and when that sort of happened we really lost a lot of our partners in their support and that and that money was and how much money was that oh I think in total is about 250 000 um jaco would probably know offhand but it was sort of maybe ellen knows directly offhand these and these are for planning grants right these are just they were they were planning grants for both regional planning commissions to help small communities do this work um more municipal planning funding directly for these bylaw changes so it wasn't something they had to compete with themselves for other interests that communities had but to actually help them do this work and so this is money that this is money that would have come um let me guess from maybe the property transfer tax i can't recall i think it was a planning portion of it i think it i can't recall exactly if that was the the stream no i i it's it's part and parcel of the largest conversation that we have in this committee about that about that tax um the municipal planners also get shorted as well as the housing um fund so all right um committee any anything else before we head out for the day um again we have a 330 invitation to be a participatory to have a joint hearing with appropriations i believe that's scheduled to be no more than an hour so if you are there i mean it would be nice to have a quorum there if you can be there that would be great um and if we have to be so that if we have to vote on something while we're meeting with appropriations then we will um i'm gonna hold off further conversation on the military portion of the budget until tomorrow we'll we'll review that again when the folks from the guard are here we are gonna have to have a couple of different conversations with the guard and there's there are several topics that came up in the last two months um some of which is scheduled for tomorrow but um you know there's a deployment there's the um scholarships there's the um discussion about the diversity officers ongoing still um but the guard would also like to share um access to some of the new hires that they made that they feel like handle some of the questions that were raised by the by the diversity officer bill um and uh then there's a question that's come up from constituents of specifically of represented walls but also across the state just about the questions of the relationship between the guard and the use of the military or special forces in in um quelling protests as we saw in Portland earlier this year um the guard like an opportunity to also to address that as well just to let us know and let Vermonters know what their standing is when it comes to how they're able to be used um so um but that's going to be spread out over a couple different meetings we're not going to get to that in an hour and a half this week so um not seeing anybody's hand up um oh are you saying goodbye john or are you raising your hand no i want people to know in the chat ron put in that the the invi the zoom invitation for the 330 meeting hasn't come out yet it's coming out at about three o'clock so Teresa's going to send that later so none of us have that zoom link yet okay um and um yeah and so Representative Hango I just want to make sure that we you know acknowledge that there's still the question about all a section two um but specifically with the sections that you know you're again you're more aware of than than most of us are um we will be hearing the list of witnesses on this bill in the senate was pretty substantial and I don't think we have time for 30 witnesses but um I think for this bill again there's there's other things that that will happen with this but this getting this section done and getting focusing on where the main concerns are is is really what's next on this bill so um I'm sure that you'll remind us it well it's pretty simple there's a there's section two so we'll start with section two and go through that when when we um meet on this next so thank you everybody good to see you and um we'll see you at 330 thanks