At a brief May meeting, the House General and Housing Committee directed legislative counsel to prepare drafting language for a housing bill memo that would incorporate universal-design language, infill/transitional-area definitions and changes to project eligibility and affordability thresholds.

The committee’s chair asked, “is this memo okay to give to our council?” and, after discussion, sought a show of assent: “I need head nods. Are we okay with this?” Committee members indicated general agreement with the memo’s instructions, while one member said, “I can’t vote for it with 1 61 or 1 69,” noting specific objections to those numbered inclusions.

Why it matters: the memo will guide legislative counsel on the bill text the committee expects to send to the full chamber. The drafting instructions address how the bill treats residential share thresholds, whether certain redevelopment can occur in mapped infill or transition areas, and reporting requirements that would name the General and Housing Committee as a recipient of required reports.

Most important actions and direction

- The committee agreed to send the drafting instructions to legislative counsel (no formal roll-call vote was recorded; members signaled approval by head nods). The chair asked staff to incorporate the committee’s edits and return a draft.

- Committee members asked counsel and staff to: clarify whether language should reference “domicile” or “residence” (and how to address so-called “sham sale” transactions); confirm how the bill treats development in floodplains; and review parking and square-footage counting rules for residential gross square footage.

Details from the discussion

- Project eligibility and residential share: the committee discussed increasing the required residential share in project-area calculations from 60% to 70% of gross residential square footage for certain project criteria. The chair said the memo reflects moving that threshold from 60% to 70%.

- Low/moderate-income set-aside language: members discussed a proposed change that would raise a low/moderate-income component from 70% to 80% for units affordable for the life of the debt. One member described this as a placeholder the committee “feels like is worth exploring,” and asked counsel to treat it as subject to later adjustment based on additional information.

- Infill/transition areas and mapping: the memo includes language describing transition or infill areas as “areas of existing or planned commercial, office, mixed-use development or residential uses” adjacent to planned growth or village areas or served by planned public water or wastewater; the committee noted mapping of such areas is already underway and likely to be complete before 2028.

- Floodplain concern: a member raised concern that earlier statutory language allowed some development in floodplains (as long as neighboring housing existed in the floodplain). The committee asked staff to confirm whether the proposed text would unintentionally expand floodplain development and agreed to consult staff identified in the transcript (Catherine Dimitrick and a person referred to as Charlie Baker) to verify intent and statutory sourcing.

- Appeals and other statutory references: members asked that appeals-language changes (cited in the transcript as H 479) be reviewed and that English-language references in appeals text be clarified; the committee also noted a provision in S 127, section 17a, referencing smoke- and carbon-monoxide-alarm requirements and said it should remain in the draft.

- Reporting and recipients: committee members asked that the General and Housing Committee be added to the list of committees that receive statutory reports tied to the bill so the committee will see implementation reports.

Other procedural notes and references

- The committee discussed including the H 169 reference (the transcript alternately referred to H 169 and H 1609/H 1 60 9) and asked counsel to ensure section numbers and bill identifiers are correctly placed in the draft.

- The memo’s draft effective-date language referenced an act taking effect July 1, 2025, with one section (section 4) effective on passage; committee members asked counsel to review and confirm effective-date drafting.

- The chair said the committee had received a separate memorandum from David White of White and Burke with suggested edits; members noted that memo had not been sent to the House Commerce Committee and asked staff to forward or flag any suggestions of consequence.

Quotes (attributed to meeting speakers)

- Committee Chair: “is this memo okay to give to our council?”

- Committee Chair: “I need head nods. Are we okay with this?”

- Committee Member 3: “I can’t vote for it with 1 61 or 1 69.”

Next steps and takeaways

The committee asked staff to have legislative counsel (referred to in the discussion as Cameron) prepare and circulate a draft reflecting the committee’s instructions; counsel was invited to the North Office for a drafting session. Committee members asked staff to clarify technical questions about domicile/residence wording, sham-sale language, how to count residential square footage (including parking/measurement questions), appeals language, floodplain treatment, and effective dates before finalizing the draft to be marked on the floor.

The discussion was procedural and directive rather than a formal recorded vote; the committee provided drafting instructions and identified issues for counsel to resolve before the bill text is finalized.