Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shelters Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Human Services reviews amendment changing municipal zoning review for emergency shelters
Summary
The Vermont House Human Services Committee examined a proposed amendment (draft 4.1) that would change how municipalities may regulate emergency shelters under 44 V.S.A. chapter 117, prompting questions about access to services, low-barrier shelters and local control. The committee took an informal straw poll and did not take formal action.
MONTPELIER, Vt. — The House Human Services Committee on May 14 reviewed a proposed amendment (draft 4.1, posted May 14) that would alter municipal zoning authority over emergency shelters under 44 V.S.A. chapter 117, raising concerns that some towns could confine shelter zoning to small, poorly located districts and thereby limit access to services.
The amendment would remove the current listing of “emergency shelters” from the general municipal-zoning restrictions in 44 V.S.A. §4413 and create a distinct provision requiring each municipality that has zoning to identify at least one district where an emergency shelter may be regulated only with respect to physical aspects listed in subsection 1 — size, height, building bulk, yards, setbacks, density, parking, traffic, noise, lighting, landscaping and screening — and subdivision 3 (hours of operation). Outside that district, municipalities would be allowed to regulate “all other aspects” of an emergency shelter, including operational matters such as staffing or services, if they choose.
Ellen Jachowski, Office of Legislative Council, summarized the proposal and the current statute, saying, “What it is proposing to do is … strike it from this list, but add additional language, basically making its own category.” Jachowski clarified that the amendment does not change the statutory definition of “emergency shelter” and that the statutory change adopted two years ago remains in effect: emergency shelters had been placed on the limited‑regulation list to prevent municipalities from using zoning to deny needed projects.
Representative Kate Logan, who helped lead the 2023 change, told the committee the policy question centers on low‑barrier shelters. “The issue that we’re facing, this primarily centers around low barrier shelters,” Logan said, citing concern that municipalities could site low‑barrier shelters in locations without access to day services or transit and still avoid regulatory scrutiny in the district the municipality designates.
Committee members raised specific concerns that the amendment could re‑enable restrictive siting practices. Several witnesses and members described the current effect in some towns: municipalities have complied with the earlier statute by designating one small zone where emergency shelters are allowed with limited review while subjecting other zones to stricter review or exclusion. Representative Logan said Burlington has eight shelters and has rezoned emergency‑shelter uses into a few limited districts; she said the city council sought this amendment to allow conditional review in residential districts for certain kinds of shelters.
Committee members asked whether the amendment would permit municipalities to exclude particular populations (for example, people with disabilities or behavioral health needs). Jachowski responded that while towns may attempt such limiting conditions, they remain bound by federal and state nondiscrimination laws, including accessibility requirements, and that those legal limits could constrain zoning choices.
Members also discussed the statutory limit on regulating hours of operation. Jachowski pointed to subdivision 3 of the statute and explained that regulating daily or seasonal hours of operation counts as interfering with the intended functional use in the limited‑regulation district.
No formal motion or vote was taken. The committee conducted an informal show‑of‑hands straw poll on whether members supported the amendment; the chair said she would record that she voted “no for now” and that members expressed varying views and a desire for more analysis. Committee leadership said the language could be offered as an amendment to H.91 or be placed in a separate bill for further consideration.
The discussion made a consistent distinction between policy options, committee direction and formal action: members raised questions and cautions, but recorded no binding direction to staff and took no formal vote on the measure.
Next steps: the committee will continue to monitor H.91 and related amendments, and members signaled interest in additional study of where low‑barrier shelters should be sited and how zoning language might avoid creating de‑facto exclusionary districts.
