HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_OBrien_pub comments1
Paul Conner
From:Sandra Dooley <dooleyvt1@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, June 26, 2020 3:11 PM
To:Marla Keene; Paul Conner
Subject:EXTERNAL: request regarding O'Brien Farm Road Development Preliminary Plat application
#SD-20-16
Attachments:2020-HousingDiscriminaComplete062520.docx
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello Marla and Paul,
I am uncertain as to whom I should direct this request, so I am sending it to both of
you. My request is for one of the City Attorneys to research what appears to be a legal
issue with respect to a proposed policy for the O'Brien Farm Road Development
Preliminary Plat application #SD-20-16 and issue a legal opinion relative to this
proposed policy. I explain the basis for this request below.
I participated in the May 19th DRB meeting which included a public hearing on the
O’Brien Farm Road Development. According to Evan Langfeldt’s testimony during the
public hearing, the cost of access the development’s pool for residents of market rate
units will be “baked into the individual units rents. Functionally, this cost will be
invisible to market rate renters because it will be included in everyone's rent whether or
not they want to use the pool. At the hearing, Evan testified that the residents of the
affordable units in the building to be built and managed by Champlain Housing Trust
would not have access to this pool.
In a subsequent conversation with Evan, I learned that the situation vis-à-vis the
market rate renters is unchanged; however, the affordable unit renters will have access
to the pool if they pay a monthly fee. Evan said it is too early to provide an estimate of
what this fee might be. Essentially, the means of access to the pool is different for the
two groups of renters—the market rate renters will have the cost included in their rent
and the affordable unit renters will have to request access and pay a monthly fee.
The fact that the groups are treated differently is problematic to me, especially in light
of the goals of inclusionary housing and communities. Below is a hypothetical example
of how this policy might affect residents.
2
Example: two 8-year-old boys live in the development--one in a market rate building
and the other in the CHT building. They go to school together. They have become
friends. The boy living in market rate building asks Mom if he can invite friend in CHT
building to go swimming with him. Mom, unaware of different policies for access, says
“Sure.” Boy in market rate housing invites boy in CHT building to swim in pool with him
(plan is for market rate boy’s Mom to be at pool with them). Boy in CHT building asks
Mom if he can go swimming with friend in market rate building. Mom says, "I'm sorry
but we cannot afford to pay the monthly fee to use the pool." Boy in CHT housing
declines invitation saying he cannot use pool because family cannot afford to pay fee
for pool access. Not being able to spend time together at the pool, the boys’ friendship
dwindles over time.
Not being clear on how South Burlington’s Inclusionary Zoning regulations apply to this
situation, I took a look at the Vermont statute relating to “fair housing practices.”
Attached is what I found. I underlined the parts that seem relevant to the proposed
policies. Based on my knowledge of individuals and families that rent from CHT, it is
highly likely that some folks that rent affordable units in the CHT building will be
“recipients of public assistance.” Because of this, I believe one could make a strong
argument that the different polices for access to the pool proposed for residents of
market rate rental units and residents of affordably priced rental units constitute an
unfair housing practice.
As you know, I am not a lawyer. Moreover, I did not consult one in reviewing this
statute. However, before retirement, the majority of my career in public service (State
of Vermont) involved drafting regulations and statutory changes relating to programs
that my department administered. I followed these drafts through to adoption (in the
case of regulations) or enactment (in the case of statutory changes), as applicable. As
a result, I have more than the average non-lawyer’s experience in figuring out how a
law might apply. This is not to say that my assessment of this situation, stated above,
should be viewed as dispositive.
Because there appears to be a question of whether the proposed policies for access to
the pool comply with state law relating to fair housing practices, my thought is the best
next step is to request that one of the City Attorneys explore this situation and render
an opinion.
Making this request is the purpose of this email. As I said to Evan, I recognize the
constraints and challenges in developing housing in Chittenden County. On the other
hand, I see investments that make a housing development truly inclusionary as ones
that will yield significant returns in terms of the health and vitality of the community
(including the specific development) and the enhanced human capital that flow from
them (i.e. the investments).
3
I would appreciate your letting me know whether my request is being acted upon
affirmatively.
Have a good weekend.
Best regards,
Sandy (Dooley)
(Cite as: 9 V.S.A. § 4503)
§ 4503. Unfair housing practices
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person:
(1) To refuse to sell or rent, or refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of,
or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling or other real estate to any
person because of the race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,
marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, or disability of a person,
or because a person intends to occupy a dwelling with one or more minor
children, or because a person is a recipient of public assistance, or because a
person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
(2) (emphasis added) To discriminate against, or to harass any person in
the terms, conditions, privileges, and protections of the sale or rental of a
dwelling or other real estate, or in the provision of services or facilities in
connection therewith, because of the race, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, age, marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, or disability
of a person, or because a person intends to occupy a dwelling with one or
more minor children, or because a person is a recipient of public assistance,
or because a person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
(3) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published
any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a
dwelling or other real estate that indicates any preference, limitation, or
discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,
marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, or disability of a person,
or because a person intends to occupy a dwelling with one or more minor
children, or because a person is a recipient of public assistance, or because a
person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
(4) To represent to any person because of the race, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, age, marital status, religious creed, color, national
origin, or disability of a person, or because a person intends to occupy a
dwelling with one or more minor children, or because a person is a recipient of
public assistance, or because a person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or
stalking, that any dwelling or other real estate is not available for inspection,
sale, or rental when the dwelling or real estate is in fact so available.
(5) To disclose to another person information regarding or relating to the
status of a tenant or occupant as a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or stalking
for the purpose or intent of:
(A) harassing or intimidating the tenant or occupant;
(B) retaliating against a tenant or occupant for exercising his or her
rights;
(C) influencing or coercing a tenant or occupant to vacate the dwelling;
or
(D) recovering possession of the dwelling.
(6) To discriminate against any person in the making or purchasing of
loans or providing other financial assistance for real-estate-related
transactions or in the selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real
property, because of the race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,
marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, or disability of a person,
or because a person intends to occupy a dwelling with one or more minor
children, or because a person is a recipient of public assistance, or because a
person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
(7) To engage in blockbusting practices, for profit, which may include
inducing or attempting to induce a person to sell or rent a dwelling by
representations regarding the entry into the neighborhood of a person or
persons of a particular race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,
marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, or disability of a person,
or because a person intends to occupy a dwelling with one or more minor
children, or because a person is a recipient of public assistance, or because a
person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
(8) To deny any person access to or membership or participation in any
multiple listing service, real estate brokers' organization, or other service,
organization, or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings,
or to discriminate against any person in the terms or conditions of such
access, membership, or participation, on account of race, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, age, marital status, religious creed, color, national
origin, or disability of a person, or because a person is a recipient of public
assistance, or because a person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or
stalking.
(9) To discriminate in the sale or rental of a dwelling because a person
relies upon aids such as attendants, specially trained animals, wheelchairs, or
similar appliances or devices but the owner shall not be required to modify or
alter the building in any way in order to comply with this chapter. An owner
shall permit, at the expense of the person with a disability, reasonable
modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person
with a disability if the modifications are necessary to afford the person full
enjoyment of the premises. The owner may, if reasonable, require the person
to agree to restore the premises to the condition that existed before the
modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted, but the owner may not
require an additional security deposit for this purpose.
(10) To refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies,
practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford
a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit,
including public and common areas.
(11) To fail to comply with provisions or rules pertaining to covered
multifamily dwellings, as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 2900(4) and pursuant to 20
V.S.A. chapter 174.
(12) (emphasis added) To discriminate in land use decisions or in the
permitting of housing because of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
age, marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, disability, the
presence of one or more minor children, income, or because of the receipt of
public assistance, or because a person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or
stalking, except as otherwise provided by law.
1
Paul Conner
From:John Killacky <JKillacky@leg.state.vt.us>
Sent:Monday, July 6, 2020 11:03 AM
To:Evan Langfeldt
Cc:Paul Conner; Matt Cota; mkkeene@sburl.com; Chris Donnelly
Subject:EXTERNAL: Re: O’Brien Farm Development
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Evan,
Thanks for the conversation and clarification that CHT will be handling this for the tenants and will speak to this at the
meeting.
John
Representative John Killacky
Chittenden 7‐3
From: Evan Langfeldt <evan@obrienbrothersvt.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 9:06:16 PM
To: John Killacky <JKillacky@leg.state.vt.us>
Cc: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>; mcota@sburl.com <mcota@sburl.com>; mkkeene@sburl.com
<mkkeene@sburl.com>; Chris Donnelly <Chris.Donnelly@champlainhousingtrust.org>
Subject: Re: O’Brien Farm Development
John,
I would be pleased to discuss this with you directly if you’d like. There is zero intent to exclude the inclusionary units
from use of the pool. The discussions we have had with Champlain Housing Trust have been clear on this and we are in
agreement with them on how it would operate. There is a portion of the rent for the market rate units which will
directly go to the cost of the pool. That number is not yet determined the same way we don’t currently have every last
cost of other elements of the building defined yet. We are in preliminary plat so there is still much fine tuning to be
done. However, the goal is to be able to offer an amenity for those that choose to use it without requiring the cost of it
to be included in the inclusionary units’ rent which could be problematic to their affordability calculation. But the
inclusionary units will have the same opportunity to use the amenities for a fee, just as the market rate units will be
paying for it.
Again, I’m happy to discuss. But to suggest that this financial arrangement for the cost of an amenity is somehow
comparable to apartheid is an enormous mischaracterization, and I would ask for the courtesy of a conversation before
you make assertions such as that, particularly considering O’Brien Brothers’s long track record of being a local leader in
developing, owning and operating high quality low income housing in South Burlington and Burlington.
I’d be pleased to have a call with you tomorrow. My cell is 802.999.9304.
2
Best regards,
Evan
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 5, 2020, at 5:53 PM, John Killacky <JKillacky@leg.state.vt.us> wrote:
Paul and Matt,
I write with concern about not creating an inclusive community’s by having the market rate units include
fees to use the pool, but having the affordable units managed by Champlain Housing not have access to
the pool unless these residents pay a monthly fee.
Do we really want the economically disadvantaged kids at the fence looking at the other residents play
and frolic in the pool. This kind of apartheid situation would not indeed foster an inclusive community.
I do hope you can share my concerns with the DRB and please let everyone in the community gathered
within this development benefit.
John
Representative John Killacky
Chittenden 7‐3