Can a landlord charge a pet deposit in Vermont, and is there a limit?

Yes, with no statutory limit. No Vermont statute mentions a pet deposit, and Vermont caps no security deposit at all, so there is no ceiling for a pet deposit to sit under and none for it to count against.

Can a landlord charge pet rent or a non-refundable pet fee in Vermont?

Yes — no statute caps, authorizes or forbids pet rent or a pet fee. Vermont regulates no pet charge of any kind.

Does a Vermont lease have to state a pet policy?

No — no statute requires a lease to state a pet policy, and no written-rules provision governs one. No Vermont statute requires a lease to say whether pets are allowed, supplies a default when the lease is silent, limits the number of animals or bars a condition on keeping one.

Can a Vermont landlord restrict pets by breed, size or weight?

Yes. No Vermont statute limits or authorizes a landlord's breed, size or weight rule for pets; the word 'breed' does not appear in the residential rental chapter or in the fair-housing chapter at all.

Does Vermont have its own assistance-animal law for rentals?

Only through the state fair-housing act's reasonable-accommodation duty, the sole state instrument reaching assistance animals in housing; no state text sets a documentation standard. Both a statute and an administrative rule under it speak to it.

What documentation can a Vermont landlord ask for when a tenant requests an assistance animal?

No state text sets a documentation standard for an assistance animal in housing. Vermont sets no documentation rule at all, in statute or in rule.

Can a Vermont landlord charge a pet deposit or pet rent for an emotional support animal?

Under state law, yes — no state text bars a charge for an assistance animal; the federal rules alone govern it. No Vermont statute or rule bars a landlord from charging a deposit, a fee or rent for an assistance animal.

What is the penalty for falsely claiming an assistance animal in Vermont?

None — no offense, penalty, forfeiture, eviction ground or licensing sanction exists. Vermont has no offense of misrepresenting an animal as an assistance animal or a service animal, in housing or anywhere else, and no penalty for false supporting documentation.

Can a landlord charge for a pet in Vermont, and what does the law require for an assistance animal?

Verified September 21, 2026 All Vermont topics →

Vermont sets no limit on a pet deposit, pet rent or a pet fee, because it caps no security deposit at all and has no pet statute of any kind.

Cited to 9 V.S.A. § 4461 (a)–(g) and 14 more cited sources · Verified September 21, 2026

A refundable pet deposit is an ordinary security deposit: it may be kept only for unpaid rent, damage beyond normal wear and tear, unpaid charges owed directly to the landlord and the cost of removing abandoned property, it must be returned with an itemized statement within 14 days, and a landlord who misses that deadline forfeits the right to keep any of it and owes double for a willful failure. A non-refundable pet fee falls outside that section entirely and is regulated by nothing. Because the state leaves the question open and expressly lets towns adopt their own deposit ordinances, the rule a tenant actually lives under may be local. On assistance animals the statute says little and the Human Rights Commission's rules say a great deal: an assistance animal includes an animal that provides emotional support, a landlord must allow one as an accommodation to a no-pets policy, and a landlord may not demand that it be trained. Refusal is allowed only for a particular animal that is a direct threat, would cause substantial damage, would substantially interfere with others' enjoyment, would not be a reasonable accommodation, or would be an undue burden. No Vermont law bars charging for such an animal, and no Vermont law penalizes faking one. The accommodation duty does not reach an owner-occupied building of three or fewer units.

Vermont pets & assistance animals at a glance

Which law governs	Vermont splits this page between a statute that says almost nothing about animals and a rule that says almost everything. The money and lease answers are in the residential rental chapter, 9 V.S.A. chapter 137, whose section 4461 defines a security deposit and sets the return machinery and whose section 4456a bars an application fee; that chapter contains no animal word at all. The assistance-animal answer is in the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, 9 V.S.A. chapter 139, whose section 4503 makes it unlawful to discriminate because a person relies on aids such as specially trained animals and to refuse a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services, and whose section 4504 exempts some small owner-occupied buildings. What fills in the animal rule is the Human Rights Commission's Administrative Rules, which define an assistance animal, require a housing provider to accommodate one despite a no-pets policy, and list the grounds for refusing a particular animal. Local power comes from section 4461, subsection (g), for deposits, and from 24 V.S.A. section 2291 and 20 V.S.A. sections 3546 and 3549 for dogs.
Where in the state the answers differ	The money rules and the animal rule bind different landlords, and the line is drawn by owner-occupancy and unit count rather than by place. The deposit rules reach every residential landlord in Vermont: the residential rental chapter excludes certain arrangements, such as institutional occupancy, occupancy under a contract of sale, transient lodging and a mobile-home lot, but no landlord is excluded for being small. The duty not to discriminate in the rental of a dwelling, which is what carries the assistance-animal rule, does not apply where the unit is in a building with three or fewer units and the owner or a member of the owner's immediate family lives in one of them, except that the advertising limb still binds. A reader finds which side of that line a property is on by counting the units in the building and asking whether the owner or a family member lives in one.
Which landlords are covered	Every residential landlord, for the money rules. The residential rental chapter excludes arrangements rather than landlords: institutional occupancy incident to medical, geriatric, educational, counseling or religious service; occupancy under a contract of sale; occupancy by a member of a fraternal, social or religious organization; transient hotel, motel or lodging occupancy taxed as such; occupancy by a condominium owner or a cooperative proprietary lessee; the rental of a mobile-home lot, which has its own chapter; transient residence in a campground; and general assistance or emergency rental assistance motel occupancy (section 4452, subsection (a)). There is no owner-occupied or small-landlord exclusion from that chapter, so the deposit rules bind everyone. The assistance-animal duty is narrower: it does not reach a dwelling unit in a building of three or fewer units where the owner or a member of the owner's immediate family lives in one of them, apart from the rule against discriminatory advertising (section 4504). In such a building there is no state accommodation duty, and the federal rules are what remain.
Pet deposit	Yes, with no statutory limit. No Vermont statute mentions a pet deposit, and Vermont caps no security deposit at all, so there is no ceiling for a pet deposit to sit under and none for it to count against. What decides the question is the definition: a security deposit is any advance, deposit or prepaid rent, however named, which is refundable to the tenant at the end of the tenancy (section 4461, subsection (a)). A refundable pet deposit is therefore a security deposit and carries the whole scheme with it. The landlord may keep part or all of it only for four things: unpaid rent, damage to the landlord's property other than normal wear and tear or damage from events beyond the tenant's control, unpaid utility or other charges the tenant owed directly, and the cost of removing articles the tenant abandoned. It must come back with a written statement itemizing any deductions within 14 days of the tenant leaving, or 60 days for a seasonal rental of a unit that is not a primary residence, and a landlord who misses the 14 days forfeits the right to withhold anything; a willful failure costs double the amount wrongfully withheld plus attorney's fees and costs. Two limits on the reach of that section matter here. It covers only money that is refundable, so a genuinely non-refundable pet fee falls outside it entirely. And it does not reach a mobile-home lot, which the chapter excludes.
Pet rent and pet fees	Yes — no statute caps, authorizes or forbids pet rent or a pet fee. Vermont regulates no pet charge of any kind. There is no pet-rent statute, no pet-fee statute, no ceiling and no reasonableness standard, and no general bar on non-refundable fees for one to run through. The structural point is worth stating plainly: a refundable pet deposit is a security deposit and carries the retention list, the 14-day return and the double-damages remedy, while a non-refundable pet fee and a monthly pet rent are regulated by nothing at the state level. That is not the end of the question, because Vermont expressly lets a town or city adopt its own deposit ordinance, so the rule a tenant actually lives under may be a local one. Monthly pet rent: Nothing in Vermont law addresses a recurring monthly pet charge. It is a lease term, uncapped, with no reasonableness standard. A one-time pet fee: A one-time non-refundable pet fee is outside the deposit section altogether, because that section reaches only money that is refundable to the tenant, and Vermont has no general rule against non-refundable fees. The chapter's only fee prohibition is the application-fee bar, which stops a landlord charging anyone a fee to apply for a residential unit and requires the landlord to accept a government-issued identification, an individual taxpayer identification number or a Social Security number for a background or credit check, with no Social Security number required (section 4456a, as rewritten effective July 1, 2025). That reaches application fees only.
Pet policy in the lease, and changing it mid-tenancy	No — no statute requires a lease to state a pet policy, and no written-rules provision governs one. No Vermont statute requires a lease to say whether pets are allowed, supplies a default when the lease is silent, limits the number of animals or bars a condition on keeping one. Vermont's residential rental chapter is not built on the uniform act, so it has no landlord's-rules section and no mid-term-change machinery at all: a pet clause is an ordinary lease term, changed only as the agreement allows or at renewal. No class of publicly financed housing must permit pets. The one duty that does bite is regulatory rather than contractual. The Human Rights Commission's rules require a housing provider to allow, as a reasonable accommodation to a no-pets policy, an assistance animal that is necessary to mitigate the limitations of a person's disability, and a particular animal may be refused only on the grounds the rules list.
Breed, size and weight restrictions	Yes. No Vermont statute limits or authorizes a landlord's breed, size or weight rule for pets; the word 'breed' does not appear in the residential rental chapter or in the fair-housing chapter at all. Vermont also has no statute stopping a town from passing a breed-specific dog ordinance. It does the opposite: it hands dog regulation to municipalities, which may regulate the keeping, licensing, leashing, muzzling, restraint, impoundment and destruction of dogs, and whose voters may even authorize ordinances inconsistent with the state's vicious-dog procedure. For an assistance animal the position comes from the Commission's rules rather than from a breed statute: the animal may be refused only on the listed grounds, and breed is not one of them, a point the Supreme Court's only decision in this area echoes in recording that a direct-threat finding may not rest on a dog's breed or size.
Assistance animals: the state instrument and who it binds	Only through the state fair-housing act's reasonable-accommodation duty, the sole state instrument reaching assistance animals in housing; no state text sets a documentation standard. Both a statute and an administrative rule under it speak to it. Two clauses in the statute carry the housing answer, and neither mentions money. It is an unfair housing practice 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; the same paragraph requires an owner to permit reasonable modifications of the premises at the disabled person's expense and lets the owner, if reasonable, require an agreement to restore the premises afterward, adding that the owner may not require an additional security deposit 'for this purpose' — words that belong to the restoration agreement, not to the animal (section 4503, subdivision (a)(9)). And it is an unfair practice to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when they may be necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit, including public and common areas (subdivision (a)(10)). The Commission's rules turn that into an animal rule. A housing provider must allow, as a reasonable accommodation to a no-pets policy, an assistance animal necessary to mitigate the limitations of the person's disability (rule 48), and no person may refuse to permit the use of an assistance animal at the dwelling, whether or not it has received special training, unless the particular animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others, would substantially interfere with others' reasonable enjoyment of the housing, would not constitute a reasonable accommodation, or would be an undue burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the dwelling (rule 49). Who it binds: Not every landlord. The unfair-practices section does not apply to the rental of a dwelling unit in a building with three or fewer units where the owner or a member of the owner's immediate family lives in one of them, provided any notice, statement or advertisement about the unit still complies with the rule against discriminatory advertising (section 4504, subdivision (2)). So in a Vermont owner-occupied duplex or triplex there is no state accommodation duty for an assistance animal at all, though the federal rules remain and the advertising limb still binds. The same section preserves a landlord's right to establish and enforce legitimate business practices necessary to protect and manage the rental property, such as the use of references, but says that limb may not be used as a pretext for discrimination. The deposit rules, by contrast, bind every landlord. Enforcement of the animal rule runs either to the Human Rights Commission or straight to the Superior Court, and starting or finishing a Commission investigation is not a precondition to suing (section 4506). The rule's currency: The Administrative Rules of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, rules 1, 41, 48 and 49, as published in both files the Commission issues on its own site, hrc.vermont.gov: the current file, whose running footer reads 'HRC Administrative Rules, Reformatted 6-26-26', and the Commission's earlier published text, which the Commission dates to 2014 and whose animal rules are identical word for word. Neither file prints a filing number, an adoption date or an effective date, and Vermont's consolidated code of rules is served by a commercial publisher whose pages do not open to an ordinary request, so the rules' citation in that compilation and their adoption date are not stated here. That is a gap to close at the next check, not a doubt about the text: both of the Commission's own publications carry the same words.
What counts as an assistance animal	The statute defines nothing here and the rules define everything. In the statute the only animal phrase is 'specially trained animals', which appears undefined in a list of aids beside attendants and wheelchairs (section 4503, subdivision (a)(9)); the definitions section of the chapter names no animal term, and the separate public-accommodations section uses 'service animal' without defining it. The Commission's rules supply the terms. An assistance animal 'means an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that ameliorates or mitigates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability', and assistance animals are permitted as a reasonable accommodation in housing while being permitted in places of public accommodation only at the entity's discretion (rule 1). A service animal is a dog or miniature horse meeting stated qualifications that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks mitigating the limitations of the person's disability, and includes service dogs used by firefighters, law enforcement and other rescue personnel (rule 1). The split matters: in housing an animal kept for emotional support is inside the definition, while for a place of public accommodation an assistance animal that is not a dog or a qualifying miniature horse does not qualify as a service animal and may be excluded (rule 41).
Documentation a landlord may request, and what a certifier must meet	No state text sets a documentation standard for an assistance animal in housing. Vermont sets no documentation rule at all, in statute or in rule. Nothing says what a landlord may ask, who may write supporting documentation, what that person must have done first, whether an online certificate counts, whether a particular form may be required, whether medical records may be demanded, or how quickly a landlord must answer, and no Vermont law places any duty on the person who writes a letter. One slot is filled, and it is filled the other way: the Commission's rule forbids refusing to permit the use of an assistance animal at a dwelling 'whether or not the assistance animal has received special training', so a landlord may not insist on proof of training. Where the request turns instead on the particular animal's behavior, the rule's listed grounds are what the landlord must show.
Charges for an assistance animal	Under state law, yes — no state text bars a charge for an assistance animal; the federal rules alone govern it. No Vermont statute or rule bars a landlord from charging a deposit, a fee or rent for an assistance animal. The words that are usually quoted for the opposite proposition do not say it: 'the owner may not require an additional security deposit for this purpose' is the last clause of a sentence about an agreement to restore the premises after a physical modification, and 'this purpose' is that restoration, not an animal (section 4503, subdivision (a)(9)). The Commission's rules contain no money clause at all; the only fee they mention is a mediator's fee. So a pet deposit or pet fee demanded for an assistance animal is tested as a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation, under the rule that requires the accommodation to a no-pets policy and the rule that lists the grounds for refusing a particular animal, rather than under any charge bar. The federal rules are on the federal section of the 50-state page.
Damage caused by an assistance animal	No state text addresses damage caused by an assistance animal in housing.
Misrepresenting an assistance animal	None — no offense, penalty, forfeiture, eviction ground or licensing sanction exists. Vermont has no offense of misrepresenting an animal as an assistance animal or a service animal, in housing or anywhere else, and no penalty for false supporting documentation. The criminal chapters on animals, on discrimination and on frauds contain no such offense; the only provisions using the word 'misrepresent' concern livestock registration, home-improvement fraud and an identity-theft exception. Nothing penalizes the person who writes a letter, and no licensing board has a duty about one. The only animal offense in Vermont's criminal code runs the other way: interfering with or being cruel to a guide dog is punishable by up to two years in prison or a $3,000 fine, or both, with a civil penalty of $100 for a first and $250 for a later instance of continuing to interfere after notice, and restitution covering veterinary costs, temporary replacement assistance and the replacement value of an equally trained dog.
Can cities add their own rules	Yes, within the powers state law names in this row. Vermont preempts nothing and authorizes in two places. On money, a town or city may adopt its own ordinance governing security deposits on dwellings, so long as it is supplemental to and not inconsistent with the state's minimum protections, does not limit how the deposit is held, and it may add interest and a local board of review (section 4461, subsection (g)). On dogs, municipalities may regulate the keeping, licensing, leashing, muzzling, restraint, impoundment and destruction of dogs and other domestic pets, and a town's voters may authorize ordinances inconsistent with the state's vicious-dog procedure. There is no breed preemption, no landlord-tenant preemption clause and no fair-housing supersession clause anywhere in Vermont law. That combination matters more here than in most states: because Vermont sets no deposit cap and no pet-charge rule of its own, the rule that actually governs what a tenant pays for a pet may be entirely local. Burlington has used the deposit power, and its ordinance and a cap in Brattleboro are recorded on the deposits page; no Vermont city page is published here yet. Another express grant: A town or municipality may adopt an ordinance governing security deposits on dwellings. The ordinance must be supplemental to and not inconsistent with the minimum protections of the state section, may not limit how a security deposit is held, may authorize the payment of interest on a deposit, and may give a local housing board of review power to hear and decide deposit disputes at a landlord's or a tenant's request, subject to review. Because the state sets no cap and no pet-charge rule, this is the clause under which a local pet-money rule exists. Text: 9 V.S.A. § 4461(g). Localities may regulate the keeping or licensing of animals: Towns, cities and incorporated villages have express power to regulate the keeping of dogs and to provide for their licensing, leashing, muzzling, restraint, impoundment and destruction, and the legislative body of a city or town may by ordinance regulate the licensing, keeping, leashing, muzzling, restraint, impoundment and destruction of domestic pets and their running at large, with a carve-out for a registered working farm dog. A municipality's voters may also authorize ordinances that are inconsistent with the state's vicious-dog procedure, in which case those ordinances apply. Text: 24 V.S.A. § 2291(10); 20 V.S.A. §§ 3546(e), 3549.
Housing classes with their own pet rule	No manufactured-home park, publicly financed, public-housing or senior-housing rule departs from the answers above
Insurance and dog breeds	No statute restricts an insurer's use of dog breed in underwriting
How state law refers to the federal rules	Vermont's law reaches federal law in one place, and it is not the housing side. The fair-housing chapter states that its provisions establishing legal standards, duties and requirements with respect to persons with disabilities in places of public accommodation, other than the provisions about remedies, are intended to implement and be construed consistently with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the regulations under it, and are not intended to impose additional or higher standards (section 4500, subsection (a)). The housing provisions carry no such clause, so the state's housing duty stands on its own words and on the Commission's rules. No Vermont statute or rule adopts a federal notice or letter. The federal section of the 50-state page carries the federal layer.
Changes already signed into law	No signed act is waiting to change these answers
Leading court decisions	Gill Terrace Retirement Apartments, Inc. v. Johnson, 2017 VT 88, 177 A.3d 1087 (Supreme Court of Vermont; residential setting; bears on the assistance-animal rule): A tenant's eviction from a retirement apartment complex was affirmed on her violation of the no-pets policy, the court holding that she was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation for the particular emotional support dog she kept. The landlord had accepted that she had a disability and a disability-related need for an assistance animal and had refused only that dog, on findings that it reared up, lunged and bared its teeth, that the tenant had described it as aggressive toward people and dogs, and that she might not be able to control it. The court set out the accommodation framework, stated that a refusal must rest on objective evidence of the individual animal's conduct, and recorded that such an assessment may not be based on a dog's breed or size or on speculation or fear. It is Vermont's only appellate decision on an assistance animal in a tenancy, and it confirms that the answer runs through the accommodation duty rather than through any charge or documentation rule.

Cite this page: "Landlord Atlas, Vermont Pet & Assistance Animal Laws (verified September 21, 2026), landlordatlas.com/laws/pets/vermont/" — free to cite and quote with a link (how these records are verified). Everything above is cited in the citations section below.

Vermont assistance-animal documentation at a glance

The state's instrument sets no documentation standard, so every row below reads not stated unless a slot is addressed elsewhere in state law; the federal rules further down this page apply on top. The full text of each slot, with its section, is in the table above.

Slot	What the state's text says
Who may certify, and on what test	Not stated
The certifier's minimum relationship period	Not stated
Telehealth	Not stated
Online registration or certificate	Not stated
Form	Not stated
Medical records	Not stated
Written answer from the landlord	Not stated
Annual re-evaluation	Not stated
Proof of vaccination or licensing	Not stated

Federal law on pets and assistance animals, in every state

The federal layer for the pets and assistance-animals topic, carried once for the whole site. It is a dated history rather than a single rule: the Fair Housing Act's accommodation duty has not changed since 1988 and the regulation under it has never contained the word animal, while the HUD guidance that most writing on this subject still quotes was withdrawn in September 2025, permanently rescinded in May 2026, and replaced by an enforcement position that governs HUD's own cause determinations and nothing else. Every row names who it binds, and most of the rows that carry real figures bind only federally assisted, public or rural-development housing. No state record restates these rows; a state record says only where its own law references or extends them. Each row below says who it binds before it says what it does. The full text of each row, with its citations, is on the 50-state page.

Every housing provider the Fair Housing Act covers: Fair Housing Act: the reasonable-accommodation duty and who it reaches (in force).
Every housing provider the Fair Housing Act covers: HUD's reasonable-accommodation regulation, and the absence of any animal rule in it (in force).
Every housing provider the Fair Housing Act covers: Charging for an assistance animal: the two general clauses the question runs through (in force).
No one — withdrawn guidance: HUD's 2013 service and assistance animals notice: withdrawn September 17, 2025 (withdrawn).
No one — rescinded guidance: HUD's 2020 assistance animals notice: withdrawn September 17, 2025 and permanently rescinded May 22, 2026 (rescinded).
No one — it states HUD's own enforcement position and binds no landlord or tenant: HUD's May 22, 2026 enforcement memorandum: what HUD will and will not pursue (an enforcement position, not law).
No one — no rule has been proposed: The rulemaking the May 2026 memorandum promises: not proposed (not proposed).
Public entities and public accommodations, not housing providers as such: The Americans with Disabilities Act definition of a service animal, which HUD now borrows in part (in force).
Owners of federally assisted rental housing for the elderly or for persons with disabilities: Pets in federally assisted housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (in force).
Public housing agencies: Pets in public housing that is not designated for the elderly or persons with disabilities (in force).
Recipients of federal financial assistance for housing: Section 504: HUD-funded housing and the duty to modify housing policies (in force).
Owners of Rural Development multifamily housing: Rural Development multifamily housing: a pet deposit cap and no deposit for an assistance animal (in force).
The parties to the case: United States v. Five Properties, LLC: the open federal case on an emotional support animal (litigation).
The parties to the case: Henderson v. Five Properties, LLC: the closed private case, and how far it reaches (litigation).
No one — no such federal duty exists: Breed, size and weight limits on an assistance animal: no federal rule either way.

Notes and caveats

No cap, and nothing to count against — Vermont caps no residential security deposit, so a pet deposit has no ceiling of its own and no general ceiling to sit inside. A refundable pet deposit is simply part of the security deposit and carries the closed list of allowed deductions, the 14-day itemized return and the double-damages remedy. Those rules are on the security-deposits page.
A non-refundable pet fee is outside the deposit rules — The deposit section reaches only money that is refundable to the tenant, so a genuinely non-refundable pet fee is not caught by it, and Vermont has no general rule against non-refundable fees. Nothing at the state level limits such a fee or a monthly pet rent.
The rule may be local — Vermont expressly lets a town or city adopt its own ordinance governing security deposits on dwellings, so long as it adds to rather than cuts into the state's minimum protections. Because the state sets no cap and no pet-charge rule, the operative rule on what a tenant pays for a pet can be entirely local. Burlington's ordinance and a Brattleboro cap are noted on the deposits page.
No duty to state a pet policy — No statute requires a lease to say whether pets are allowed, supplies a default when it is silent, or limits the number of animals. Vermont's residential rental law has no landlord's-rules section and no mid-term-change machinery at all, so a pet clause is an ordinary lease term that changes only as the agreement allows or at renewal.
The assistance-animal rule is in the Commission's rules — The statute mentions only 'specially trained animals' in a list of aids and requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices and services. The Human Rights Commission's rules define an assistance animal to include one that provides emotional support, require a housing provider to allow one as an accommodation to a no-pets policy, and list the grounds on which a particular animal may be refused.
Training may not be demanded — The rule forbids refusing to permit an assistance animal at a dwelling whether or not the animal has received special training. A landlord's objection has to be about the particular animal: that it is a direct threat, would cause substantial physical damage, would substantially interfere with others' reasonable enjoyment, would not be a reasonable accommodation, or would be an undue burden or fundamentally alter the dwelling.
Housing and public places point opposite ways — In housing an animal kept for emotional support is inside the definition of an assistance animal. For a place of public accommodation the rules say that an assistance animal other than a dog or a qualifying miniature horse does not count as a service animal and may be excluded. The two answers are different on purpose.
No state rule on charging for an assistance animal — Vermont has no bar on a pet deposit, fee or rent for an assistance animal. The words often quoted for the opposite view belong to a sentence about restoring the premises after a physical modification, not about an animal. A charge is challenged instead as a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation.
Small owner-occupied buildings — The duty not to discriminate in the rental of a dwelling, which is what carries the assistance-animal rule, does not apply where the unit is in a building of three or fewer units and the owner or a member of the owner's immediate family lives in one of them, apart from the rule against discriminatory advertising. The deposit rules still bind that landlord.
Damage — Vermont sets no animal-specific damage rule. The ordinary deposit rule governs: the landlord may keep part of the deposit for damage to the landlord's property unless it is normal wear and tear or the result of events beyond the tenant's control, and normal wear and tear excludes damage from negligence, carelessness, accident or abuse of the premises by the tenant, the household or their guests.
Nothing penalizes faking it — Vermont has no offense of misrepresenting an animal as an assistance or service animal and no penalty for false documentation, for the tenant or for anyone who writes a letter. The one animal offense in the criminal code runs the other way, against a person who interferes with or harms a guide dog.
Breed, size and weight — No Vermont statute limits a landlord's breed, size or weight rule, and Vermont does not stop towns passing their own dog ordinances; it expressly gives them that power. For an assistance animal, breed is not among the grounds on which the particular animal may be refused.
Mobile-home lots — A mobile-home lot rental is outside the residential rental chapter, and the mobile home park chapter contains no pet or animal rule, so neither the pet answer nor the deposit rules reach a lot tenancy by their own terms. The manufactured-home page carries what does.
Insurance — Vermont has no statute barring an insurer from underwriting on a dog's breed. The five insurance chapters where such a rule would sit contain no breed, dog or animal word.
Federal rules — The Fair Housing Act, the federal housing regulations, the rules for assisted and public housing and the status of the federal assistance-animal materials are on the federal section of the 50-state page. Vermont's own statute ties itself to federal disability law only for places open to the public, not for housing.
Legislation — No act between 2023 and 2026 touched pets in rentals, assistance animals in housing, pet deposits, pet fees or breed. The 2025 housing act rewrote the application-fee ban effective July 1, 2025 and contains no animal word. Nothing is pending: the two-year session ended May 29, 2026 and the next begins in January 2027.

Common questions: Vermont pets & assistance animals

Each answer is the verified value from the table above, restated as a direct answer. Free to quote with a link to this page.

Can a landlord charge a pet deposit in Vermont, and is there a limit?: Yes, with no statutory limit. No Vermont statute mentions a pet deposit, and Vermont caps no security deposit at all, so there is no ceiling for a pet deposit to sit under and none for it to count against.
Can a landlord charge pet rent or a non-refundable pet fee in Vermont?: Yes — no statute caps, authorizes or forbids pet rent or a pet fee. Vermont regulates no pet charge of any kind.
Does a Vermont lease have to state a pet policy?: No — no statute requires a lease to state a pet policy, and no written-rules provision governs one. No Vermont statute requires a lease to say whether pets are allowed, supplies a default when the lease is silent, limits the number of animals or bars a condition on keeping one.
Can a Vermont landlord restrict pets by breed, size or weight?: Yes. No Vermont statute limits or authorizes a landlord's breed, size or weight rule for pets; the word 'breed' does not appear in the residential rental chapter or in the fair-housing chapter at all.
Does Vermont have its own assistance-animal law for rentals?: Only through the state fair-housing act's reasonable-accommodation duty, the sole state instrument reaching assistance animals in housing; no state text sets a documentation standard. Both a statute and an administrative rule under it speak to it.
What documentation can a Vermont landlord ask for when a tenant requests an assistance animal?: No state text sets a documentation standard for an assistance animal in housing. Vermont sets no documentation rule at all, in statute or in rule.
Can a Vermont landlord charge a pet deposit or pet rent for an emotional support animal?: Under state law, yes — no state text bars a charge for an assistance animal; the federal rules alone govern it. No Vermont statute or rule bars a landlord from charging a deposit, a fee or rent for an assistance animal.
What is the penalty for falsely claiming an assistance animal in Vermont?: None — no offense, penalty, forfeiture, eviction ground or licensing sanction exists. Vermont has no offense of misrepresenting an animal as an assistance animal or a service animal, in housing or anywhere else, and no penalty for false supporting documentation.

Citations

9 V.S.A. § 4461 · (a)–(g) (verified 2026) Official source
9 V.S.A. § 4451 · (5), (7) (verified 2026) Official source
9 V.S.A. § 4452 · (a)(1)–(8) (verified 2026) Official source
9 V.S.A. § 4456a · (a), (b) (verified 2026) Official source
9 V.S.A. § 4500 · (a) (verified 2026) Official source
9 V.S.A. § 4502 · (b) (verified 2026) Official source
9 V.S.A. § 4503 · (a)(9), (a)(10) (verified 2026) Official source
9 V.S.A. § 4504 · (1)–(5) (verified 2026) Official source
9 V.S.A. § 4506 · (a)–(d) (verified 2026) Official source
24 V.S.A. § 2291 · (10), (21) (verified 2026) Official source
20 V.S.A. §§ 3546, 3549 · § 3546(e), § 3549 (verified 2026) Official source
13 V.S.A. § 355 · (a)–(d) (verified 2026) Official source
Administrative Rules of the Vermont Human Rights Commission · Rules 1, 41, 48, 49 (verified 2026) Official source
Rules of the Vermont Human Rights Commission · Rules 1, 41, 48, 49 (verified 2026) Official source
2025 Acts and Resolves No. 69 · §§ 10, 11, 13, 25 (verified 2026) Official source

How this record was verified: Direct reading of the Vermont Statutes Online on the General Assembly's own host, which states at the head of every chapter that the text includes the actions of the 2025 session and that it is an unofficial copy provided as a convenience, so every value was confirmed against the credit line printed at the end of each section and against the official acts feed. Fifteen chapters were pulled whole and read: 9 V.S.A. chapter 137 (Residential Rental Agreements), chapter 139 (the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act) and chapter 141; 10 V.S.A. chapter 153 (Mobile Home Parks); 13 V.S.A. chapters 8, 31 and 47; 20 V.S.A. chapters 193 and 194; 24 V.S.A. chapter 61; and 8 V.S.A. chapters 105, 113, 128, 129 and 135 for an insurance breed rule. The Vermont Human Rights Commission's Administrative Rules were read in full from both files the Commission publishes on its own site, and the two texts of the animal rules are identical. Enactments were checked from the General Assembly's own act rolls for both bienniums, 185 acts for 2023 to 2024 and 179 for 2025 to 2026, together with both compilations of acts affecting statute sections, 3,793 and 2,705 rows, filtered by title and chapter; the one act that touches the chapters carrying values, 2025 Act 69 effective July 1, 2025, was read in full as enrolled and contains no animal word. The Secretary of State's service for proposed rules was read and carries no Commission filing. The state opinion archive was searched twice and one decision, Gill Terrace Retirement Apartments, Inc. v. Johnson, 2017 VT 88, was read in full from the Judiciary's own opinion file.

What was read to state each absence on this page:

The landlord-tenant chapter: 9 V.S.A. chapter 137 (Residential Rental Agreements) pulled whole and read from end to end, with sections 4451, 4452, 4456a and 4461 read for every value and the credit line at the end of each quoted; section 4461's credit line ends at 2007, No. 176 (Adj. Sess.), § 45. The chapter contains no occurrence of pet, pets, animal, animals, dog, dogs, cat or cats, and no disability word either. 9 V.S.A. chapter 141 and 10 V.S.A. chapter 153 (Mobile Home Parks) were also pulled whole; the park chapter contains no pet or animal word, and a mobile-home lot is in any event outside chapter 137 by its own exclusion list.
The civil-rights, fair-housing or disability-rights title: 9 V.S.A. chapter 139 (Fair Housing and Public Accommodations) pulled whole and read from end to end, with sections 4500, 4501, 4502, 4503, 4504 and 4506 read in full and their credit lines quoted; the most recent act touching section 4503 is 2025, No. 69, § 13, effective July 1, 2025, which inserted harassment language and left the animal and accommodation paragraphs untouched. The chapter's only animal text is the public-accommodations section and the phrase 'specially trained animals' in the unfair-practices list; the terms 'assistance animal', 'support animal' and 'emotional support' appear nowhere in it, and neither does 'breed'.
Health, professional-licensing and criminal titles: No Vermont provider duty exists to read: no statute and no rule names a clinician in connection with an animal letter, and the Commission's rules impose none. The criminal code was read whole in three chapters: 13 V.S.A. chapter 8 (Humane and Proper Treatment of Animals), chapter 31 (Discrimination) and chapter 47 (Frauds). None contains 'service animal', 'assistance animal' or 'emotional support'. The three uses of 'misrepresent' in the frauds chapter were each read in place and are about misrepresenting livestock for a herd register, home-improvement fraud and an age exception in the identity-theft section. The sixteen guide-dog references in the animals chapter are all in the section on interference with or cruelty to a guide dog. The animal-control title was read whole in 20 V.S.A. chapters 193 and 194, whose only 'breed' references are to pets kept for breeding purposes. For the insurance row, 8 V.S.A. chapters 105, 113, 128, 129 and 135 were pulled whole and contain no occurrence of breed, dog or animal; the remaining insurance chapters, which cover life, health, dental, credit, fraternal, workers' compensation and captive insurance, were not read.
Administrative code: Vermont's consolidated code of rules is published by a commercial service that serves only a script shell to a direct request, so the code itself could not be read, and the Secretary of State's own rules service carries proposed filings only and shows no Human Rights Commission filing among the thirty most recent. What was read instead, in full, is the Commission's own publication of its Administrative Rules on its own official site: both files, twelve pages of rules in the current one, with rules 1, 41, 48 and 49 quoted. The animal rules are word-identical in the two files. Neither prints a filing number, an adoption date or an effective date, so the rules' citation in the consolidated code and their adoption date remain to be read.
Local-government and animal-control titles: 9 V.S.A. § 4461(g) read in full with its credit line; 24 V.S.A. chapter 61 pulled whole for the municipal powers section, including subdivision (10) on regulating the keeping of dogs and subdivision (21) on animal-welfare ordinances; 20 V.S.A. §§ 3546 and 3549 read for the town dog-ordinance powers and the voter-authorization clause. Chapters 137 and 139 were read for a preemption or supersession clause and have none.
The terms searched and where: Terms run over 9 V.S.A. chapters 137, 139 and 141, 10 V.S.A. chapter 153, 13 V.S.A. chapters 8, 31 and 47, 20 V.S.A. chapters 193 and 194, 24 V.S.A. chapter 61 and 8 V.S.A. chapters 105, 113, 128, 129 and 135, each pulled whole as running text: pet, pets, pet deposit, pet rent, pet fee, household pet, animal, animals, dog, dogs, cat, cats, guide dog, hearing dog, service dog, service animal, assistance animal, support animal, emotional support, companion, breed, weight, size, deposit, fee, nonrefundable, registration, certificate, reasonable accommodation, specially trained and disability. In the residential rental chapter every one of the animal and disability terms returns nothing. In the fair-housing chapter the only hits are the public-accommodations animal clause and 'specially trained animals'. Every hit elsewhere was read in place and is accounted for above. The General Assembly's own keyword search was used only for discovery, because it scores words separately rather than matching a phrase and so cannot establish a negative.