Distance, disabilities and debate

After several months of public discussion, the Springfield Selectboard will move forward to yet another hearing for a proposed bylaw ordinance amendment for rooming houses, with a 1,000-foot distance provision stricken from the draft.

www.eagletimes.com

www.rutlandherald.com

2016-12-14 / Front Page Distance, disabilities and debate Springfield rooming house ordinance hearing to continue in January By TORY JONES toryb@eagletimes.com Springfield Selectboard member George McNaughton discusses a proposed zoning bylaw amendment on rooming houses during a public hearing on Monday, Dec. 12. — TORY JONES Springfield Selectboard member George McNaughton discusses a proposed zoning bylaw amendment on rooming houses during a public hearing on Monday, Dec. 12. — TORY JONES SPRINGFIELD — After several months of public discussion, the Springfield Selectboard will move forward to yet another hearing for a proposed bylaw ordinance amendment for rooming houses, with a 1,000-foot distance provision stricken from the draft. After the next public hearing, scheduled for Jan. 5, 2017, the selectboard can vote on whether or not to adopt it. “There is a potential risk” that a person could claim discrimination based on available housing due to town regulations, Selectboard member George McNaughton said at the regular Monday, Dec. 12 meeting. “I don’t buy the argument, but I get it.” Following an hour-and-a-half-long public hearing for comments on rooming house zoning bylaws, the selectboard voted 4-1,during its regular meeting to adopt the ordinance amendment as it was proposed and warned for the Dec. 12 meeting, but with deletion of two sentences. McNaughton made that motion. Selectboard Chair Kristi Morris was the sole board member opposed. The deleted section stated, “Except for one or more rooming houses that are in the same two-family or multi-family dwelling, rooming houses shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another rooming house. In determining distances between rooming houses the nearest boundary line of each relevant parcel shall be used in the measurement.” “On it’s face, it is not discriminating. The question is, is there a case out there?” McNaughton said. “There have been cases going both ways.” The amendment, approved to move forward to the next hearing, contains language on the definition of a “rooming house” and a “family unit,” and details their conditional uses in zoning districts. It also includes a section that states rooming houses are subject to approval for both Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Review by the Development Review Board. With more than 15 residents attending, including at least three identified lawyers in the audience, discussion was tense at times. Some residents expressed concern about the distance rule, which led to discussion of the distinction between rooming houses and sober houses. McNaughton said rooming houses are commercial operations, akin to bed-and-breakfasts or motels. “That’s what we are trying to regulate here,” he said. Discussion included potential legal issues that could be caused by or associated with newer proposed wording, explained by the town’s attorney Stephen Ankuda, on disabilities and the Federal Fair Housing Act. Ankuda said the town would be “much more protected” by keeping an exclusion sentence for people with disabilities, than by not doing so. Ankuda’s proposed changes would have included, following the basic definition of a rooming house, the phrase “Individual sleeping rooms rented to individuals defined as having a ‘handicap’ or ‘disability’ under the Federal Fair Housing Act … shall not be counted for purposes of this definition,” as long as the property owner submitted a statement that the room(s) would be exclusively for those with disabilities, and that off-street parking was available. Ankuda said that recent legislation and guidelines issued in November by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice, makes clear the laws pertaining to renting rooms to persons with disabilities. Those new regulations are available at the HUD website, he said. Some meeting attendees expressed concern about the potential for building owners to take advantage of regulations allowing rooms to be “reserved” for individuals with disabilities. A few audience and board members weighed in at the hearing, discussing whether or not, in their opinions, the addition of that language would help or hinder people with disabilities, and whether that language was discriminatory by adding the exclusion rule. Ankuda also said the town has to be careful not to create something that limits accommodations for people with disabilities, which he said could have a “chilling effect.” “I think we are all in agreement that right now, rooming houses are not regulated,” Morris said. “It would be nice to have something, somewhere.” McNaughton said that language proposed by the town’s attorney “drags us into a swamp,” and that the removal of the deleted section, and not including the handicap / disability exclusion, will eliminate the part of the proposed ordinance that has “a lawsuit, somewhere, associated with it.” “There are problems associated with rooming houses that have nothing to do with people with disabilities,” McNaughton said. Selectboard Vice Chair Stephanie Thompson said that it is not the selectboard’s intent to discriminate. Selectman Peter MacGillivray said that the fact that a few lawyers in the room — including two with Vermont Legal Aid — were not comfortable with the “disabilities” wording caused him to be cautious as well. “I don’t want [the town] to get sued,” he said. If the town were to be sued on the basis of discrimination, it has insurance through the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLTC), at least for the cost of defense — but as cases may vary, town officials would not know the cost until a lawsuit had been filed, Ankuda said. Jacob Speidel, an attorney with Vermont Legal Aid and also a Springfield resident, also said during the public hearing that the 1,000-foot rule language in the amendment originally warned for Dec. 12 could expose the town to liability under the Fair Housing Act. The draft amendment, as proposed and approved on Monday without that distance rule, would not provide protection against “institutionalization” of rooming houses, it would help protect against the possibility of a discrimination claim, McNaughton said. The board ultimately chose to proceed with the version that had been warned for the meeting, without the 1,000-foot distance rule. The selectboard also voted unanimously to define the removal of that regulation as a “minor” change, which allows the board to proceed with another hearing after 14 days. The next public hearing for the rooming house zoning bylaws amendment is scheduled for a special meeting at 5 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 5. http://www.vermonttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/RH/20161214/NEWS02/161219766 http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20161214/NEWS02/161219766