HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 09/27/2021September 27, 2021, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes – APPROVED Page 1
Approved on October 18, 2021
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), announcements 2 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 process 4. 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 meeting 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 lots
in 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 approved additional motions at 9/14 meeting—these are only ones Sandy cited.) Ariel added that 9/28/21 PC meeting is important 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 brief history of ECOS report; it integrated into one report what had previously been two reports focused on land use planning and transportation planning, respectively. The 2020 ECOS plan differs from prior plans in its emphasis on effects of COVID and racial inequities. CCRPC, as an organization, has hired a consultant (Creative
Discourse) for support in making changes to promote racial equity. She noted that while Chittenden County’s population is, in general, not diverse, 5,901 of the 7,069 population increase from 2010 – 2019 consists of BIPOC individuals. Point: our population is becoming more diverse. Several disparities between whites and Blacks are
shown 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 margins of error result when breaking down measures according to subgroups. In addition, some important data are not
gathered—e.g. how long a household has lived in its current dwelling. Leslie mentioned that many Black Vermonters’ prior residence was in a country in which English is not the primary language. Regina then presented data from the recently released Building Homes Together report. See http://www.ecosproject.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Data2020_BuildingHomesTogether_Final_20210915.pdf and http://www.ecosproject.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BHT-2021-Graphics.pdf. Basics: the goal for new housing units over the five-year period was surpassed. Eighty-nine % of new units were built in areas planned for growth. Goal for number of affordable housing units to be built in this period was not met (goal 700; 536 built).
September 27, 2021, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes – APPROVED Page 2
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 that the City Council will be reviewing the policy priorities submitted by City staff and committees/boards at a retreat
on October 30. The outcome will determine focus of work and goals for staff and volunteer groups for FY23. This will be an annual process. Members agreed to add block in description column naming exploration and recommendations to City Council regarding how to use local ARPA funds for affordable housing to the
committee’s spreadsheet. Question came up, again, about how to align our proposed LDR-related work with the PC’s work. Monica mentioned that, post-Interim Zoning, PC will work on Infill and Redevelopment (IRD) PUD rules. Suggested that Regina do a presentation for PC. Focusing on ARPA funds is important. Jessie noted that
there 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. . . “ priority on the spreadsheet. Motion: Sandy moved and Darrilyn seconded that the committee accept the spreadsheet as drafted 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 shared that change to exempt conversion of residential unit to licensed child care facility from housing preservation rules does not address what happens if child care facility closes and what had been a residential unit is not converted back 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 public hearing process. Darrilyn wants committee to articulate what it means by “missing middle”: middle income households 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 different maximum income and housing price levels for Inclusionary Housing units in the SEQ. Should we raise this subject 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 the Interim Zoning process, especially relating to citywide Inclusionary Zoning, requirement for Conservation PUDs in most of SEQ, minimum R4 density in 30% portion of Conservation PUDs, possibility of allowing mini-TND PUDs in the 30% portion of Conservation PUDs, and attention to limits on density (e.g. R6) and number of units in a
single 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).