Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 09/29/2020September 29, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 1 Approved on October 13, 2020 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE September 29, 2020, 10:00 a.m., meeting held online Members attending (online): Leslie Black-Plumeau, Vince Bolduc, Sandy Dooley, Mike Simoneau, Patrick O’Brien. John Simson, and Chris Trombly Others: Monica Ostby, PC liaison; Kevin Dorn, City Manager; Paul Conner, SoBu Director of Planning & Zoning (briefly) Guests: Ariel Jensen-Vargas, SoBu resident and member of SoBu Housing Trust board; and Michael Mittag, SoBu resident and member of SoBu Planning Commission AGENDA 1. Call to order, agenda review, comments from guests 2. Review and approval of minutes of September 15, 2020 3. Chair’s Comments 4. Continue discussion of the plan of participation and input to the Planning Commission re Article 12, PUD regs and other initiatives 5. Begin discussion of zoning changes to enable more housing 6. Reports and updates by committee members 7. Adjourn 1, Call to order, agenda review, comments from guests: John called meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. The agenda was modified to allow Paul Conner to share information about Act 237, passed by the recently adjourned legislature. Paul described the statutory changes relating to the regulation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). One change requires that municipalities allow the property owner to live either in the ADU or the primary residence. Another change requires that municipalities allow the ADU size to be the greater of 30% of the primary residence or 900 square feet. In addition, municipalities may regulate short-term rentals separately. Paul would like to incorporate the ADU changes into SoBu’s LDRs soon. However, he added that the State law would overrule SoBu’s LDRs where they are different beginning on the law’s effective date (i.e. even if SoBu’s LDRs have not been updated). Paul invited the committee to get back to him by next meeting on any additions we would like incorporated in these changes to the LDRs. John then asked guest, Ariel Jensen-Vargas, to introduce herself. She is a member of the SoBu Housing Trust Fund committee and decided to attend the meeting to learn more about housing in SoBu. Michael M is known to committee via his membership on the Planning Commission. He had no comments. Vince asked Paul how many ADUs SoBu has. Paul indicated the number varies from year-to-year and estimated the number to be between 100 and 200. Paul then left the meeting. Ariel then asked that someone explain what an ADU is. Sandy, with assistance from other members, gave a brief explanation. 2. Review and approval of minutes of September 15, 2020: Leslie moved and Vince seconded motion to approve 09/15/20 meeting minutes as drafted. Motion approved: 7-0-0 3. Chair’s Comments: John noted that it has been Committee practice to elect its officers periodically and proposed that an election take place at the Committee’s next meeting. He added that while he is willing to serve as chair until his current term on the committee ends in 2021, he will decline being nominated for chair after that even if he is appointed to serve another term on the committee. He expressed his view that the committee has ample talent among its membership from whom to elect a different chair in the future. Vince asked, “who are the long termers?” Answer: Leslie, John, and Sandy have been involved in various City-established groups focused on housing since 2012. Leslie indicated her view that John and Sandy are the two that have done the most in this area and expressed her gratitude for their leadership and efforts over the years. Sandy shared with the September 29, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 2 committee that she has no desire to become committee chair and would be happy to relinquish her office of vice-chair when John steps down. She added her concurrence with John’s assessment that other committee members are ready to take on these leadership positions. The discussion then shifted back to ADUs and how they are related to short-term rentals. Sandy explained that “short-term rentals” is official vernacular for Airbnb’s or similar arrangements. It is her understanding that some ADUs have been built in SoBu or the sole purpose of being marketed via Airbnb. She is concerned about ADUs being developed for this purpose. Chris indicated support for pairing new short-term rental LDRs with the changes to the ADU regulations. Vince added: “it makes so much sense to do it right.” Chris also mentioned the recent Buildings Home Together report released by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC). Mike S suggested that the committee invite Charlie Baker or some other CCRPC staffer to come to a meeting to discuss the report and what it means for SoBu. 4. Continue discussion of the plan of participation and input to the Planning Commission (PC) re Article 12, PUD regs and other initiatives: Suggestion was made to propose that Inclusionary Zoning apply citywide at same time as Inclusionary Zoning is included in new LDRs for PUDs. Sandy indicated that while she supports expanding Inclusionary Zoning citywide, she does not support making this proposal at this time because City Council wants new PUD rules to be completed during Interim Zoning period and adding citywide Inclusionary Zoning to the PUD rule package is likely to slow down that process. Leslie agreed that now is not the time to press for citywide Inclusionary Zoning. Monica shared that PC is putting into place new regs for a pilot project that will allow TDRs (Transfer of Development Rights) to be purchased and used to allow more lot coverage than would otherwise be allowed. She added her view that Inclusionary Zoning and new TDR regs must be addressed in the new PUD regs that incorporate the building type change. Because the building type change will eliminate option to use TDRs to obtain more density, she wants to support marketability of TDRs by introducing new policy options for their use within the PUD regs. Leslie noted that TDRs are not within mission of Affordable Housing Committee and, thus, they should be addressed separately from Inclusionary Zoning. John asked for proposals for how committee can be most effective in encouraging the PC to incorporate the building type change and Inclusionary Zoning in the new PUD regs. Monica suggested that committee members attend all PC meetings, raise this subject, and convey support for this path forward. John does not want committee members to have to attend the entirety of all PC meetings. Monica stated that she raises subject of Inclusionary Zoning being part of new PUD regs every time PC discusses PUDs, but she is not confident that all PC commissioners understand what she means. The plan is for the committee to advocate for incorporating building-type requirements and Inclusionary Zoning in the new PUD LDRs via correspondence with the PC and attending PC meetings that include either of these subjects on the agenda. In addition, Monica will seek to have the Affordable Housing Committee included on a PC meeting agenda in the near future. Discussion of citywide Inclusionary Zoning included the following input. Patrick mentioned that nonprofits could not work with Ireland Company at South Village because it is too far from public transportation. John added that at 80% of AMI (Area Median Income) limit for Inclusionary households, these households can afford to own a car. He pointed out that SoBu’s AMI maximum for Inclusionary households is considerably higher than that of BTV. Patrick suggested that committee consider proposing that AMI limit be lower in areas near public transit. Though a change meriting consideration, John does not see this as a fit with the new PUD regs. Vince indicated we need to learn whether PC members in addition to Monica support including Inclusionary Zoning in the PUD rules and asked Michael M. his position on this proposal. Michael M’s reply indicated that he was thinking this the Inclusionary rule would apply only to PUDs within the Transit Overlay District. When committee members clarified that this proposal would add the Inclusionary Zoning requirement to all PUDs, no matter where the PUD is located in the city, Michael M replied that he had not given this any thought. Monica observed that her perception all PC members are not getting her message is accurate. September 29, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 3 Mike raised subject that we need more housing at all price points, not simply more affordable housing. Members agreed with understanding that Inclusionary Zoning is a vehicle to promote inclusionary neighborhoods and does not generate large numbers of affordable housing units. Patrick indicated that developers in BTV view Inclusionary requirement as a penalty and believe the housing situation in BTV would be better, including having more affordable units, without the Inclusionary requirement. Chris stated that Cambrian Rise development in BTV was a big winner for Inclusionary. Sandy is aware of this position on the part of developers. However, she has not yet identified a place where people want to live (i.e. demand for housing is high) in which the market has functioned to provide meaningful numbers of affordable housing units. John noted again that SoBu’s AMI limit is higher than that of BTV with the hope that we chose a sweet spot that enables private developers to include a small number (15% or 10% depending on rental or homeownership) of affordable units. He added that this has already occurred in City Center. 5. Begin discussion of zoning changes to enable more housing: Topics included looking at the Industrial/Commercial zones and considering appropriateness for providing option to include residential housing in these zones. Leslie pointed out that the housing space group identified the parcels in the city that are ideal for housing but do not allow housing. She suggested reviewing these parcels as a starting point. Patrick suggested allowing small units (e.g. efficiency apartments) within non-residential structures so that owner or someone else may reside onsite. Monica mentioned that PC has on its list (but not a high priority) developing regs for a “Campus” PUD. Suggestion made to interview owners of the “ideal” parcels and get their input. Mike S. volunteered to do this. Leslie mentioned that the housing space group included a developer. Patrick added that, as long as the residential use is an option in these zones, he expects all owners would say “yes” to this change. Monica suggested requiring a specific level of density. Criteria housing space group used were: (1) minimum size, (2) near infrastructure, (3) no features needing protection, and (4) compliance with Comp. Plan. PC are discussing the habitat blocks that evening (9/29/20). Do all of them need protection? Should boundaries of any current natural resource protection zones need modification? Discussion of habitat blocks followed. Suggestion: reread Arrowwood report and review maps with Monica. Plan: John will loan large zoning map to Mike, Leslie, and Chris to use in reviewing housing space report’s recommended parcels for housing. Vince and Leslie will meet with Monica to make use of maps is assessing parcels to recommend for zoning change to allow residential housing development. 6. Reports and updates by committee members: deferred to future committee meeting. 7. Adjourn: Prior to adjournment, Committee decided to meet again on Tuesday, October 13, 10:00 a.m. Assumption is that meeting with be online. At 11:58 p.m. Leslie moved and Chris seconded motion to adjourn. Motion passed 7-0-0.