Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: We're live. Welcome

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: back everyone to the House Committee on General and Housing. It is April 7, still Tuesday, still 2026, we are back on 03/28, we're going to have two questions before we finish for the day. One is our distinguished counsel, Teitkowski, who is going talk to us about a few items, and then we'll be hearing from David McIntyre. So, Ellen, my understanding is that in response to questions, you made a change and you had a hesitation, if you want you define?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Ellen Krasnow, legislative council. I received a request for language last week. I did not watch testimony. So I think I perhaps maybe misinterpreted potentially what you were interested in,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: but I know

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: it was based on testimony from VLCT. So I have provided a document for you today, which is a proposal of pieces from S-three 28. The changes from what is in S-three 28 currently are highlighted in yellow. So, first, broadly, there's a definition being created for the term permitted. Right. Then there's also language regarding not needing hearings on bylaw amendments, and then there's language regarding areas served by sewer and water.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, and we're, I think, well, just to clarify, there are certain parts of this bill that we view as clearly ours. Third parts of the bill where maybe it's a little fuzzy, and then parts of the bill where it clearly belongs over in environment. However, having said that, there was some, when we were having the discussion of section on page eight of the Senate bill, section B is ours, but section D belongs only in Natural Resources, and that was the one that changed permitted, filed the permitted, and nonetheless, there was some concern expressed by me and also others on the committee. They're just a little worried that permitted wasn't defined and that it's such a big change, it had to be better attended to, and there was some sentiment, I think you were already gone, on the committee of, well, yeah, it's not ours, but can we see it? And I guess it's sort of a mini flyby. So, that's why so, anyway, you you did send to me, and you might wanna just put it up, we look at it. I've looked at it, and I forwarded it to one member of the committee, but not everybody. Do you wanna comment on it? The definition of permitted that you put together.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, it's posted under my name. I don't have my laptop. I pulled it from the internet because there isn't currently anywhere in our statutes a definition like this.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And I

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: started to look to see if any municipal zoning have adopted a definition, which I do think is possible. So I don't know if this is what you want the definition to say.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, you wanna read it for the committee? I'm sorry.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: So permitted means a land use structure or activity explicitly allowed within a specific zoning district, provided it complies with all district regulations. I think potentially it could say land use structure or development. Development might be a better word there than activity. Allowed is a tricky word here too. So I'm happy to think more about this, but if you have additional specificity you'd like to put in there, happy to hear.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, at this point, we're talking about anything that we send over to that committee. And you're going to be over there. So, do any members that you want to read it one more time?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, so it means land use or development, but also structure or activity, so whatever is going to be issued, a zoning permit explicitly allowed within a specific zoning district provided it complies with all district regulations.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Any comments by the members of the committee? That section is I mean, okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's a step forward, but I agree that the word allowed is almost takes

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it back to where we started. Trying to think of something different that would actually be.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. What about authorized rather than permitted or allowed?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's okay. I mean, we're just giving suggestions to you. I would say Narrows it just Yeah, authorized I think is one, but just a couple of thoughts. One is, you have allowed provided that

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: It complies with all district regulations.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, two thoughts. I think mean as long as, I know that's not a legal term, you don't mean, in other words

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: If.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, if, or something like that, that's one thought. The other is, another thing you might put in, I mean, instead of just a while or whatever, without further discretionary review is what you beat. That's the issue, isn't it? We're trying to limit discretionary review. And here, so think about that. What's your why are you giving me that little pen? I You think that narrows it too much?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: So I think what often happens is that I think the scope you're talking about I probably should just go to school to become a planner at this point because I am not well versed enough in this but I think what you're primarily talking about are the things within a zoning code that typically only go to the zoning administrator, the panel.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Actually, for conditional No, what referring to is most zoning codes, and I'm not talking about Vermont, which is where I know less, actually, if you go into the zoning code, they'll say, R1 district, and then they'll say, permitted uses, a single family house or whatever, and then they'll have conditional uses, and they'll list them, and somewhere else in the code it'll say, if it's permitted use, all that's needed is a building permit. If it's conditional use, it has to go somewhere where that code provides discretion. It could be the ZA, the zoning administrator, it could be the planning commission, it could be the DRB, it could be, you know, it depends where it is, but if the difference is discretionary versus ministerial, those are the legal terms. If it's, I'm just telling you what I think, you'll have to work on it. I think that a permitted use is ministerial. In other words, the only person left, the only review left is a check off list, it's not like the building department is, oh, I like it, oh, I don't, you know, it's not like that, it's yes or no, you know, they just have a check off list. That the legal term for that activity is ministerial versus discretionary. And discretionary is, yeah, I know that it's perfectly reasonable to have a store here, but not there, so no. There's one weird wrinkle. I don't think it's going to happen very much in Vermont, but it may be in Burlington. There are places where R1, a single family house, is a permitted use subject to design review as to color, or subject to design review as to, you know, there is some little bit of discretion, but that's all. And so, the question is, given what I was thinking when I asked you to think about this, is just, this is change you might want to nail down a little, that's all, and I, you could say, is explicitly authorized if it complies with, you know, the zoning other zoning regulations or whatever. We've not been condone them. It wouldn't be authorized. As it was specifically authorized as a permitted use as opposed to a conditional use. You could say that, you know, you could say explicitly authorized, subject only to further ministerial review rather than any discretionary review, those are the kinds of things that occurred in Egypt. Is there anyone in here who wants to express any other thoughts to counsel on this?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Above my paper in Cabbies terms.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: What he said.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, Then there's more. What was the other thing you were referring to that you didn't understand that you

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I didn't understand well, so the next section after that is about bylaws not needing to go through the public hearings. That was taken up last year.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, it came out of the House, but then it was taken out of the Senate. Yes,

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: because it is So currently in statute, when a new change is proposed to the bylaws, there needs to be at least one public hearing at the Planning Commission and then at least one at the legislative body. The changes that are required through the statutory amendments, while some of them are very specific, others of them do require the planning commission or whichever body is in charge to make decisions based on what the language says on how it will conform to what the town already has and what it will look like on the ground. So while it is true that until the bylaws are updated, the statute controls some of these things can't be automatic because of the decisions that need to go into them. Whether or not you want to have a public hearing on that, some of them can't be automatic and I think that was the concern last year.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Comments, thoughts? She's referring to, remember, we had testimony from the League of Saudis in Taub, they have a proposed amendment which says, notwithstanding the section of any other law on the contrary, for bylaw amendments that are required to comply with amendments to this chapter, no hearings are required to be held on the bylaw amendments, and what I think and my understanding you're saying is it's not like every change that was mandated by the Home Act is just automatic. There is discretion as to how you comply.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And that was the concern.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: That was my memory of it last year.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So, what's our decision for the committee?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We have two possibilities that I could see. Well, and one of them isn't trying to write our way around this. One would be to leave it as the league proposed it, with the idea that it authorizes them to do without hearings, and if they want to hold a hearing, they can hold a hearing.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, that's fine.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The other is to take it as not to do it. Any opinion by this committee?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I don't know, it makes sense.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No hearings are required, Doesn't mean they can't have one. True. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But do we want the actually, do you Gayle, anyone? Who decides whether

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It would be the locals.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. So the differences between two languages, one specifies

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: One, they're complaining that it's rather cumbersome if it's automatic and they have

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to go

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: through it. Mhmm. And our counsel is saying, you know, there are some that are not that easy. I mean, there is discretion that there could be various ways to comply.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And that's the case in which they should have?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And that's the case where theoretically there should be planning commission hearings and whatever.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But that's up to them.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That would be if we put this in there, then that would be up to them.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: I like the idea of the local control.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Keep them to discretion. Alright. It seems like there's not any.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so the question is, where would we put this if we wanted to? Do you have any idea? Yeah, it

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: could either I put it in 40Fourforty1, it could also go in 40Fourforty2.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Wait, you speak English to me? What section of the bill?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: I'd put it in the section of the bill that the document you have in front of you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, which one?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: It's currently proposed as section nine, although Section nine.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, okay, I'm sorry. Okay.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: The bottom of page four and page five.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Currently,

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: the Planning Commission's procedure is in 04/1941.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay, no, no, I Okay, I'm sorry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I just can't remember the section numbers. I'm talking about section numbers. Know, you live by the code section numbers. So,

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: and this wasn't in 03/20 as proposed, but it's near the area.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's gonna be in section five?

[Unidentified Person (Member or Staff)]: No, on page four or five.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Page four or five.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Section nine.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, nine, it would be in section nine.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it could be a different number, but yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, well, that's Okay, hearing the committee, what I'm going to do, the way I left it with the chair of environment, is I told her I would transmit to her the sections that we were not dealing with and any comments that we had, and I will transmit to her that this would ordinarily go in section nine.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, so there is nothing in 328 already that would address this? This Yes, I a new section.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Where do you think it would go?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: I put it in section nine. Yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in section nine. Okay, and then I'll just tell her that here's this language and that the sense of our committee was that, you know, blah blah blah, and the counsel said blah, and we think blah, okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And she'll go blah?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, whatever she does, she does.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Alright, that sounds good.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Was there anything else? There was another section.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so the next section after that, section 10. So, I was just actually watching the testimony because I didn't fully understand what the LCT was proposing in their show. So I put literally what they had on the slide, but listening to the testimony, it sounds like actually they're proposing to amend a number of sections in Title 10 with the reference to the definition of area served by stormwater. Right. So, proposal, I just have it in one section, but it seems like it's probably going to be in a number of other sections, actually.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: As I remember, their point was, if you're gonna go at such lengths here to define what it means served by sewer and water, reference that section in other places where served by sewer and water matters. Okay. Any objection? Anybody want me to comment on that any further when I make a letter of transmit? Okay. Any further questions of our counsel? Do have anything else?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: I am still digesting this provision. I think what they're proposing, though, is to amend the interim housing exemptions under Act two fifty to use this definition, and I do think it's possible that that would change the area that's eligible for that exemption. I don't know to what extent

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: In other words, the definition of sewer by sewer and water

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know how much they line up exactly.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: In other words, they might not all be the same. Yes. Okay. Alright. Got it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I like it. You can put that in

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the Okay. Okay. I got it. I know what to say.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Typo is on the last page

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that were fixed.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Page. On page seven. It's a very small grammatical issue.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Where is that?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: It's highlighted in yellow.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm sorry, my draft, I just have it passed by the Senate. Is there

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay. Oh, so it was in the language on

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is there another draft? It's in

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: what I sent you. It's just a small section eight.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, section eight. Okay. Yeah.

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Language is already there for the community investment program.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, alright, I'm not even going to say that much louder.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'll tell them.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Any final questions of our council?

[Ellen Krasnow (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thanks a lot.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We'll see again. Really? I don't know. Ever?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Alright. Now we are a little early.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: At 03:00 we are going to have a five minute break.