Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ev Charging topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Condo leaders tell Senate Transportation bill’s 60‑day approval window risks safety and feasibility for EV chargers
Summary
Residents and property managers testified to the Senate Transportation Committee that H944’s 60‑day automatic‑approval rule for condominium EV chargers is impractical for many associations, citing old wiring, shared metering, fire/structural risks and high upgrade costs; witnesses urged a longer timeline and clearer reasonable‑restriction language.
Patricia McCubbin, president of the Northshore Condominium Association, told the Senate Transportation Committee that her Burlington development’s physical layout and aging electrical system make individual garage chargers difficult and costly to install. “We have 136 units on 44 acres,” McCubbin said, describing 25 residential buildings and roughly 30 garage buildings that share meters and rely on old underground wiring.
Why it matters: The committee is weighing sections of H944 that would limit condo association restrictions on EV chargers and create an automatic approval if associations fail to act within a set period. McCubbin and property managers argued the bill’s current 60‑day deadline would force rushed decisions, penalize volunteer boards and could create safety hazards if work is done hurriedly.
McCubbin said her association experimented with grant-funded chargers but that extending service across the complex would require “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to trench, rewire and add transformers. She described how garage electricity is typically metered by building — sometimes eight to 15 spaces per meter — and that the underground wiring has limited capacity, permitting only door openers, lighting and occasional tool use. “We were lucky to have the grant,” she said of a pilot installation that later expanded to 11 chargers at six sites.
Property manager Marian Cervidio, owner of ParkPlace Management Company, echoed those concerns and added that many smaller, wood‑frame buildings with underground parking lack the incoming electrical capacity or fire‑suppression infrastructure to support EV charging without substantial upgrades. “It would seem to me that leaving that decision to that group of owners would be a better solution,” Cervidio said, arguing that some associations meet only quarterly and depend on volunteer boards.
Committee members and the witnesses discussed statutory language that permits “reasonable restrictions” for safety and code compliance but also protects owners from arbitrary bans. Witnesses suggested the bill’s automatic‑approval trigger be adjusted — proposing 90 to 120 days for larger associations and longer windows for smaller or less frequently meeting boards — so requests can pass through architectural review committees, board deliberation and proper permitting.
The committee signaled it may consider a committee amendment to address the timing issue. No formal vote or committee action on the bill language was recorded during this session.
Next steps: The committee thanked the witnesses and indicated staff would draft or consider timing amendments in follow‑up meetings.
