The No-Pets Policy, the Voucher, and the Two-Per-Bedroom Rule

Treat the dog as an assistance animal, not a pet - and waive the pet provisions as a reasonable accommodation.

• Under the federal Fair Housing Act and Vermont's fair housing law (9 V.S.A. chapter 139), an assistance animal needed because of a disability is not a pet. The no-pets clause, the $500 pet fee, and the $50 monthly pet rent do not apply. The owner may not charge a fee or deposit for the animal, though the tenant remains liable for actual damage.
• Documentation: when the disability or the need is not apparent, the owner may require reliable confirmation from a health care or other provider who is familiar with the situation. You may not demand medical records, ask the applicant to describe her diagnosis, or require a specific form or a particular type of provider.
• No breed or size restrictions may be imposed on an assistance animal as a condition of the accommodation.
• Conduct rules still apply: if the animal is uncontrolled, poses a direct threat, or causes damage, handle it as a conduct issue with documented facts - not by retroactively invoking the no-pets policy.
• Document the request, the supporting letter, and the written approval in the tenant file.

A blanket "no vouchers" policy is unlawful in Vermont.

• Vermont's fair housing statute prohibits discrimination on the basis of receipt of public assistance, which covers Section 8 housing choice vouchers. The owner's stated reason - that inspections are inconvenient - is not a defense; the policy has a disparate impact on protected households and is discriminatory on its face.
• Refusing to rent, or steering Maria to a different building or unit, because of the voucher would be a violation exposing the owner and you as the agent to complaints, damages, and civil penalties, plus licensing consequences for you.
• What screening may look like: uniformly applied written criteria - rental history, references, criminal history screened per HUD guidance, and ability to pay. Ability to pay must be assessed counting the voucher's rent portion; refusing to count the subsidy, or applying a minimum-income ratio to the tenant's portion only, effectively excludes voucher holders and is not defensible.
• Do not quote a different rent, a different deposit, or different terms to Maria. Keep the criteria and the outcome in the file.

Not automatically, and not on those facts.

• Occupancy standards that exclude families with children can be familial-status discrimination. HUD treats two persons per bedroom as a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, not a license to exclude; the standard must be applied uniformly to all households and must fit the unit.
• Refusing five people in a two-bedroom unit is defensible only if the limit rests on legitimate factors - actual square footage, the building's septic or sewer capacity, and any local housing or health ordinance - and is applied to every applicant the same way. Here the owner's rule allows four and rejects five, a one-person difference; you need the square footage and any local code citation documented.
• Do not treat the rule as a conclusion. Check the unit's size and any Burlington ordinance; consider whether a three-bedroom is available and offer it neutrally - but never steer the family away from the two-bedroom because of the children.
• If the decision is to deny, put the objective basis in writing and keep the record, because the burden will be on the owner to show the standard is reasonable and uniformly applied.