Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Affordable Housing Committee - 10/18/2021South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee Monday October 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Room 301 at 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 AGENDA This will be a both an in-person and electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Mon, Oct 18, 2021 10:30 AM - 12:30 PM (EDT) Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/affordable-housing-committee10-18-2021 You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (872) 240-3212 Access Code: 554-736-317 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1.***Call to order, agenda review, public comment, Approval of minutes from September 27,2021 AHC Meeting, announcements (15m) 2.Establish subcommittee to review zoning districts city-wide to identify additional locations for residential/mixed-use zoning (10m) 3.***Approve the FY21 Annual Report (10m) 4.***Discussion and possible action on a Resolution “IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY". (1hr 40m) 5.Adjourn ***Attachments Included September 27, 2021, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes – DRAFT Page 1 Prepared on October 1, 2021 Next meeting date/time: Monday, October 18, 2021, 10:30 a.m., City Hall or online AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE September 27, 2021, 10:30 a.m., meeting held online and at City Hall Members attending: Janet Bellavance, Leslie Black-Plumeau, Vince Bolduc, Sandy Dooley, Ariel Jensen-Vargas (left 12:12), Darrilyn Peters, John Simson, and Chris Trombly; absent: Patrick O’Brien and Minelle Sarfo-Ado; others: Jessie Baker, City Manager; Regina Mahony, CCRPC; PC liaison, Monica Ostby. AGENDA 1.Call to order, agenda review, public comment, approval of minutes (09/13/21), announcements2 Presentation of the ECOS report from Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission – Regina Mahony 3.Consider the AHC’s submission for the FY23 Policy Priorities and Strategies process4.Review and possible action on proposed LDRs from Planning Commission’s 9/23/21 meeting 5.Adjourn 1, Call to order, agenda review, public comment, approval of minutes (09/23/21) announcements Call to order: Chris called the meeting to order at 10:31 a.m. Agenda review: Darrilyn moved and Vince seconded motion to approve the agenda as proposed. Motion approved: 7-0-0 (Leslie had not yet arrived.) Public Comments: None. Approval of minutes: John moved and Vince seconded motion to approve the minutes for the 09/13/21 meeeting as drafted. Motion approved: 7-0-0 (Leslie had not yet arrived.) Announcements: Vince noted that earlier that morning he sent members an email with link to a report about transportation and CO2 emissions. He also shared that he will be hosting a table a Champlain Housing Trust’s annual luncheon on 11/5/21 at Noon (it will be virtual) and invites all committee members and others at meeting to join him. Sandy mentioned that she, Chris, and additional committee members attended the 9/14/21 Planning Commission (PC) meeting at which the PC approved these motions: (1) to require that all developments having four or more acres in most SEQ zoning districts be developed in accordance with the Conservation PUD LDRs; (2) to apply an R4 minimum density requirement on the 30% developable area of Conservation PUDs; and for lotsin existence on effective date of LDRs to allow a one-time-only carve-out of no more than two acres from a four- acre-or-more Conservation PUD as long as four acres remain after the carve-out. (PC may have approvedadditional motions at 9/14 meeting—these are only ones Sandy cited.) Ariel added that 9/28/21 PC meeting isimportant because PC will decide how PUDs will be applied to high priority natural resource parcels located outside the SEQ. Darrilyn described the PC members as “patient people.”2.Presentation of the ECOS report from Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission – Regina Mahony:Regina shared that she has been at CCRPC for ten years and knows many committee members as a result of working with committee on LDRs for Inclusionary Zoning rules for the Transit Overlay District. She gave briefhistory of ECOS report; it integrated into one report what had previously been two reports focused on land useplanning and transportation planning, respectively. The 2020 ECOS plan differs from prior plans in its emphasison effects of COVID and racial inequities. CCRPC, as an organization, has hired a consultant (CreativeDiscourse) for support in making changes to promote racial equity. She noted that while Chittenden County’spopulation is, in general, not diverse, 5,901 of the 7,069 population increase from 2010 – 2019 consists of BIPOCindividuals. Point: our population is becoming more diverse. Several disparities between whites and Blacks areshown graphically in the report. See report for details: https://create.piktochart.com/output/53463944-2020-ecos- annual-report-final. It was noted that due to measurements being derived from small sample sizes, wide marginsof error result when breaking down measures according to subgroups. In addition, some important data are notgathered—e.g. how long a household has lived in its current dwelling. Leslie mentioned that many BlackVermonters’ prior residence was in a country in which English is not the primary language. Regina thenpresented data from the recently released Building Homes Together report. Seehttp://www.ecosproject.com/wp/wp- content/uploads/2021/09/Data2020_BuildingHomesTogether_Final_20210915.pdf andhttp://www.ecosproject.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BHT-2021-Graphics.pdf. Basics: the goal for newhousing units over the five-year period was surpassed. Eighty-nine % of new units were built in areas planned for September 27, 2021, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes – DRAFT Page 2 growth. Goal for number of affordable housing units to be built in this period was not met (goal 700; 536 built). Household size is shrinking so we need more housing units to house a lower number of people than when households were larger. Most recently measured vacancy rate is 0.9%. This is much lower than widely accepted “healthy” vacancy rate of 5%. Report shows that in the county 3,659 housing units were built in 2016-2020 period, 2,647 housing units were built in the 2011-2015 period. Regina noted that the $35 million bond for housing that Legislature approved during this period helped fund the affordable housing that was built. Leslie noted that fewer housing units were built in South Burlington in the 2010-2019 decade (about 1,000 total built) than were built in the 2000-2009 decade (about 1,600 built). Discussion switched to how communities can use the ARPA funds they receive to increase availability of affordable housing. SoBu anticipates receiving $5.6 million. Suggestions: use some of the funds to hire a diversity officer for the City, use money to support affordable housing directly, need rules that promote/require variety of housing types in developments, also need redevelopment of unoccupied buildings, have attendees at 9/30 meeting of local housing staff and volunteers discuss how ARPA funds can be spent on affordable housing, (John) follow through on our workplan goal of reviewing zoning to identify areas where rules need to allow higher density and mixed use of buildings, define housing as an economic opportunity, and review data on SOV (single-occupancy vehicle) miles traveled in county towns. 3.Consider the AHC’s submission for the FY23 Policy Priorities and Strategies process: Jessie explained thatthe City Council will be reviewing the policy priorities submitted by City staff and committees/boards at a retreaton October 30. The outcome will determine focus of work and goals for staff and volunteer groups for FY23. Thiswill be an annual process. Members agreed to add block in description column naming exploration andrecommendations to City Council regarding how to use local ARPA funds for affordable housing to thecommittee’s spreadsheet. Question came up, again, about how to align our proposed LDR-related work with thePC’s work. Monica mentioned that, post-Interim Zoning, PC will work on Infill and Redevelopment (IRD) PUDrules. Suggested that Regina do a presentation for PC. Focusing on ARPA funds is important. Jessie noted thatthere may be an advocacy role for AHC to local legislators re spending ARPA funds for affordable housing. Janet proposed inventory of vacant commercial spaces. Members see that as part of the “Identify options. . . “ priorityon the spreadsheet. Motion: Sandy moved and Darrilyn seconded that the committee accept the spreadsheet asdrafted with one addition: explore and make recommendations for using local ARPA funds to increase supply of affordable housing. Motion approved: 7-0-0. 4.Review and possible action on proposed LDRs from Planning Commission’s 9/23/21 meeting: Sandy sharedthat change to exempt conversion of residential unit to licensed child care facility from housing preservation rulesdoes not address what happens if child care facility closes and what had been a residential unit is not convertedback to residential use and that she had brought this concern to PC’s attention. Both PC and staff share this concern and plan is to add something to address this potential situation to the rule package during the publichearing process. Darrilyn wants committee to articulate what it means by “missing middle”: middle incomehouseholds or missing middle housing types? To be discussed further. Note: Chris testified at 9/14 PC meeting that he means missing middle housing types. Sandy raised subject of committee’s plan to propose differentmaximum income and housing price levels for Inclusionary Housing units in the SEQ. Should we raise thissubject with PC and offer to develop a proposal? After discussion, members agreed that this is a complexity that needs more time than is left in Interim Zoning period. Sandy will discuss with Patrick. Main thing is to follow theInterim Zoning process, especially relating to citywide Inclusionary Zoning, requirement for Conservation PUDs inmost of SEQ, minimum R4 density in 30% portion of Conservation PUDs, possibility of allowing mini-TND PUDsin the 30% portion of Conservation PUDs, and attention to limits on density (e.g. R6) and number of units in asingle building. Members were encouraged to attend 9/28/21 PC meeting, preferably in person. 4a. Set dates and times for next two meetings: By consensus, members agreed to meet as follows: October 18, 2021, 10:30 a.m. and November 1, 2021, 10:30 a.m. This discussion included agreement to call a special meeting before the October 18th meeting, if necessary. 5.Adjourn: At 12:33 p.m. Vince moved and John seconded motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved: 6- 0-0 (Ariel and Leslie no longer present). Affordable Housing Committee FY2021 Annual Report Mission The Affordable Housing Committee’s mission is to increase the availability of safe and affordable housing in the city, particularly for households with incomes no greater than 80% of the median for the region. To this end, it provides guidance and policy recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council, educates the community about housing needs, and collaborates with regional municipalities and housing partners. For additional information, please visit: https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/government/city_committees_boards/affordable_hous ing_committee.php Members FY2021 Members: Chris Trombly, Chair; Sandra Dooley, Vice-Chair; Leslie Black-Plumeau; Vince Bolduc; Patrick O’Brien; John Simson; and Mike Simoneau. THANK YOU to Mike Simoneau for your service to promote affordable housing in South Burlington. FY2022 Members: Effective July 1st, 2021, the membership was expanded to 10 members. Name Term Janet Bellavance 2024 Leslie Black-Plumeau 2024 Vince Bolduc 2023 Sandy Dooley, Vice-Chair 2022 Ariel Jensen-Vargas 2024 Patrick O'Brien 2023 Darrilyn Peters 2024 Minelle Sarfo-Adu 2022 John Simson 2022 Chris Trombly – Chair 2023 1 Work Summary Committee met 22 times in the fiscal year 2021. Policy recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council: ●Motion to the Planning Commission recommending expansion inclusionary zoning city-wide, requiring a percentage of new development is for perpetual affordable housing. ●Motion to City Council to adopt “The Case for Housing Report” regarding the remaining suitable 4+ acre parcels of land for housing. ●Motion to City Council in opposition of sewer ordinance that would prohibit the development of new housing in the city ●Motion to City Council in support of affordable housing to be built at Eastview (O’Brien Farms). ●Motion to City Council in Support of Long family development at 1720 Spear St which would include voluntary perpetual affordable housing. ●Motion to City Council and memo to Planning Commission in support of TND and Conservation PUDs in ways consistent with Comprehensive Plan and fair housing standards. ●Motion to City Council to endorse the inclusionary housing development as 255 Kennedy Drive as part of the O’Brien Farm master plan. Educates the community about housing needs: ●The affordable housing committee and the South Burlington Library co-sponsored a book discussion series on “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America,” by Richard Rothstein. The book traces how federal government housing programs and policies, from the New Deal through the sixties, and on to today, have prevented or discouraged African Americans from owning their own homes. The result has been a significant wealth gap between the races. The discussions were led by Jessica Hyman, director of the Fair Housing Project at the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity. ●Received and discussed presentation from Minelle Sarfo-Adu regarding African Americans facing discrimination in housing. 2 ●Discussion to repurpose city-owned land at 575 Dorset St to be used for additional perpetual affordable housing. ●Welcome package delivered to the new City Manager regarding prior Affordable Housing work and future initiatives. ●Discussion of “Gray to Green Communities, addressing affordable housing and sustainability” and how to apply similar concepts in SB. Collaborates with regional municipalities and housing partners ●Received periodic updates from Director of Planning and Zoning ○Different building types for new land development regulation ○Proposed changes to the environmental protection standards ○Proposed Conservation and Traditional Neighborhood Planned Unit Development (PUD). ○Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) state regulations ●Participated in the Chittenden County Regional Planning Committee workgroup regarding a possible change to Interstate 89. Guest speaker from SBBA regarding exit 12B. Motion passed to City Council to support the greater weight of economic development opportunities that would improve housing affordability. ●Attended Chittenden County Regional Planning Housing Convention to stay informed on housing policy and initiatives in the area. ●Received an update from the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation on wetlands in South Burlington. ●Site visit by several members to the Habitat for Humanity project on Hinesburg road. Follow up discussion about the construction costs and fees impacting affordable housing development, such as non-profits like Habitat for Humanity or for-profit developers to perpetual affordable homes. 3 FY2022 Goals and Priorities 1.Increase funding to the Housing Trust Fund. Explore funding mechanisms and make recommendations to the council. 2.Identify options for buying or developing existing city-owned land to develop additional perpetual affordable housing. Work with staff to review options for buying or developing existing city-owned land. 3.Articulate connections between dense housing development and climate change solutions. 4.Review zoning districts city-wide to identify additional locations for residential/mixed-use zoning. 5.Identify regulatory barriers and added costs of developing multi-unit buildings and propose ways for SB to address them. Could include waiver or reduction of city impact and permit fees for perpetually affordable developments. 6.Identify regulatory barriers and added costs of redeveloping areas of SB and propose ways to address them 7.Recommend an equity, diversity, and inclusion statement and related implementation steps to the council. 8.Propose an impact assessment checklist for Council consideration. 9.Affording Housing Committees receive staff support. 4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON RESOLUTION REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Whereas, the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan vision calls for the City to be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life; Whereas, compared to VT’s other core towns of Burlington and Winooski, South Burlington has the highest median household income ($73,065) and homeownership rate (60%). In addition, it has the lowest number (639) and percentage (2.5%) of Black/African American residents. Though South Burlington’s population is 2.5 times greater than that of Winooski, Winooski’s population includes 730 Black /African American residents while South Burlington’s includes 639 (Sources: Vermont Housing Data website and Census 2020) Whereas, while the vacancy rate widely considered necessary for a healthy rental market is 5.0%, Chittenden County’s current rental vacancy rate is 0.9%, thus, resulting in significant upward pressure on rental costs; (Source: CCRPC Building Homes Together) Whereas, the Grand List assessed value increased an average 29 percent for residential properties from 2006 to 2021; Whereas, the City of South Burlington is located within five miles of the State’s largest employers. Whereas, infrastructure, such as water, sewer, and heating fuel, necessary for residential development at a lower cost is already in place in much of the City’s Southeast Quadrant; Whereas, more homes were created and occupied in South Burlington in 2000-2010 than in 2010-2020 (Source: Census 2010 and 2020). Whereas, cars and trucks account for the majority of Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions — about 45%, according to the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Whereas, households should spend no more than 45% of their income on combined housing and transportation costs Whereas, experts have linked Franklin and Grand Isle counties’ population growth (about 4.5% over the past decade) to sprawl from Chittenden County — which grew 7.5% — as people opt for longer commutes in exchange for more affordable housing. Whereas, because the proposed environmental protection standards proposed in Article 12 are based on professional scientific review, they merit support notwithstanding the fact that they increase to the portion of South Burlington land removed from potential development 41% to 50% across the entire City and from 63% to 67% in the Southeast Quadrant; and double the wetlands buffer from 50’ to 100’; Whereas, the proposed regulations for SEQ Sub-Districts SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, and SEQ-NRN require that all applications involving four (4) or more acres of land be developed as a Conservation Planned Unit Development and this requirement does not apply elsewhere in the City; Whereas, in all other zoning districts in situations in which a Planned Unit Development is required, development as a Conservation Planned Unit Development is elective as long as at least 50 percent of the parcel area (less hazards) comprises level 1 resources as defined in Article 12; Whereas, density less than three to four units per acre often results in suburban sprawl, developments with a density of four or more units per acre support healthy communities because these density levels support traditional neighborhood development with multiple housing types that provide opportunities to build affordable housing; Whereas, the “Case for Housing Report”, prepared for the Affordable Housing Committee and shared with the City Council, identified only 15 parcels in the City containing five or more acres and being suitable and zoned for residential development; Whereas, the proposed change to the City’s land development regulations to expand inclusionary zoning citywide merits strong support because it is a change that will produce a modest but significant increase in the supply of perpetually affordable housing when developments including 12 or more dwelling units are built; Therefore, consistent with its opposition to inequitable and exclusionary zoning regulations and support for zoning regulations that will give property owners throughout the City comparable options in developing their land and reduce existing and growing household income inequality among City neighborhoods, be it resolved that the Affordable Housing Committee requests the Planning Commission to modify the proposed regulations as follows: 1. Allow owners of property located in the Southeast Quadrant the choice of Planned Unit Development options for developing their land that would apply if the same land were located outside the Southeast Quadrant. 2. Provide regulatory incentives for the use of the Traditional Neighborhood Development Planned Unit Development option in all situations in which four or more acres of the parcel to be developed are eligible for residential development. 3. Allow the proportion of a Conservation Planned Unit Development that is to be conserved to range from 50 percent to 70 percent to enable the property owner to take full advantage of the density maximum permitted under the Conservation Planned Unit Development regulations. 4. Remove the proposed change in zoning from Southeast Quadrant to Natural Resource Protection for parcels south of Nowland Farm Road and west of Dorset Street in the Southeast Quadrant because this proposed change is not supported by scientific research and recommendation. In addition, by adding a significant number of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to the TDR inventory, this proposed change exacerbates the current situation in which few TDRs are being purchased. This proposed change would also minimize development options for the owners of these parcels when such restrictions are not being applied to owners of comparable parcels in the Southeast Quadrant and elsewhere in the City. 5. Change the permanent conservation requirement in the Conservation Planned Unit Development regulations to a requirement for a conservation easement that may be modified at twenty-five-year intervals from the effective date of these regulations, and only at the request of the property owner and with the approval of the Development Review Board on the basis of land development regulations that specify the criteria for termination or modification of such easement. Approved on this _____ day of _____, 2021. Chris Trombly, Chair Yea_____Nay_____Abstain______ Sandy Dooley, Vice Chair Yea_____Nay_____Abstain______ Janet Bellavance Yea_____Nay_____Abstain______ Leslie Black-Plumeau Yea_____Nay_____Abstain_______ Vince Bolduc Yea_____Nay_____Abstain_______ Ariel Jenson-Vargas Yea_____Nay_____Abstain________ Patrick O’Brien Yea_____Nay_____Abstain_______ Darrilyn Peters Yea_____Nay_____Abstain_______ Minelle Sarfo-Ado Yea_____Nay_____Abstain_______ John Simson Yea_____Nay_____Abstain_______