Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Elder Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses zoning incentives and model language to encourage continuing-care retirement communities in rural Vermont
Summary
Committee members asked a member to research model zoning language and witnesses to inform bills that would encourage continuing-care retirement communities (CCRCs), discussed jurisdictional committee review and possible incentives such as Act 250 exemptions or engineering assistance, and emphasized rural applicability.
During the same markup session, members discussed ways to encourage development of continuing-care retirement communities and mixed-age or mixed-use housing that would serve older Vermonters, and asked a committee member to take the lead on drafting model zoning language and identifying witnesses.
Committee leadership asked Dan to research relevant witnesses and background and return with options for model language that could be presented to other committees with jurisdiction over zoning and Act 250. "I would love it if you would be willing to take the lead on maybe figuring out some witnesses that we can kind of do some discussion about what would be needed, for things like model language, for zoning to encourage the development of these continuing care retirement communities," the Committee Chair said.
Members discussed jurisdictional issues: zoning and Act 250 changes would likely involve other committees and were not within the sole purview of the Human Services committee. Representative Lawley's testimony and earlier conversations suggested cross-committee work would be necessary: the environment and other committees might view zoning changes differently and could adjust proposed language to fit their jurisdictions.
Committee members stressed rural applicability. Several members noted small-scale projects (for example, six-unit developments) might be appropriate for smaller towns and that model language should consider differing scales and municipal services. Incentives suggested included permitting or regulatory advantages (an Act 250 point or exemption was discussed as a "carrot"), technical assistance such as engineering support, and scoring or "extra points" in permitting for projects that include affordable units for older adults or people with disabilities.
Members also cited local planning efforts and grants that some towns have used to examine housing options and suggested that a set of model options could be packaged as resources for towns updating town plans. The committee did not vote on specific statutory language; members agreed on assignments to return with possible witnesses and draft model language for future testimony and cross-committee review.
No formal actions or votes were recorded during the discussion; the assignment to Dan was described as a staff/committee direction rather than a formal motion.
