Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/11/2018 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 SEPTEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 September 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Simson, S. Dooley, Affordable Housing Committee 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Gagnon provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Klugo: Suggested there be flagmen when there are construction vehicles and public vehicles interacting near the new senior housing building on Market St. Mr. Conner: The new Zoning Administrator starts next week. She comes to the city via Wells, VT, New York City, and the Department of Transportation The City Council has voted to put the proposed City Hall/Library/Senior Center on the November ballot. The project involves an agreement with the School District. The City Center Parking/moving plan was initiated yesterday. It involves strategies about parking and the impact of City Center on streets at the edges of City Center. The groundbreaking for the new Champlain Housing Trust building on Market Street will be occurring soon. Ms. LaRose: There will be a staffing change to the Bike/Ped Committee. To get things moving for construction, Ashley Parker will be doing that and will also be working with the Natural Resource Committee for their open space project. The fall Planning & Zoning forum will take place at Lake Morey on 17 October. Members can attend at city expense. 5. Planning Commission Discussion/next steps on Affordable Housing meeting/Inclusionary Zoning: Ms. Ostby suggested the Commission focus on the big picture instead of the small details. She noted that one of the big questions is whether there should be an “out” for developers (e.g, payment) if there is inclusionary zoning city-wide. Mr. Mittag felt there could be some additional density in T-4. Hefelt the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) and Institutional/Agriculture zones should be exempted. Ms. Ostby said the question is what kind of city South Burlington should be. The SEQ has the highest income levels. She asked whether the Commission is comfortable with a new neighborhood being created there without affordable housing. Mr. Klugo said he is comfortable with that. He didn’t think the city has to be “all things to all people.” He also felt that $383,000. is not an “affordable” house. He noted that he has done a lot of reading on the “affordability” issue and outlined a few of his “take‐aways.” Inclusionary zoning is actually subsidizing employers who don’t want to pay a livable wage. Also, Burlington recognizes that as land becomes scarce, it goes up in value. Affordable housing then occurs in adjacent communities where land is less expensive. South Burlington and Milton become those communities because Burlington can’t build the affordable housing it wants. He felt communities need to stop separating themselves. Mr. Gagnon asked whether Regional Planning has looked at this issue. Mr. Conner said they have begun discussion. Mr. Simson said another such meeting is coming up. Ms. Ostby said the problem is that people in the mid‐income range can’t afford to buy a house in S. Burlington. Mr. Gagnon added that $383,000.00 is an expensive house which requires an income of $120,000.00. Mr. Macdonald asked if the problem is the lack of available housing in S. Burlington. Ms. Ostby said if a house goes on the market, it is gone in minutes. Mr. Klugo said according to Zilla there are 19 homes on the market now under $300,000. Mr. Riehle said perhaps thinking should be in terms of smaller homes. Mr. Gagnon asked if they would be everywhere or only in certain areas. He felt it makes sense to have them in areas near schools, transportation, etc., not at the end of nowhere. Mr. Klugo noted that new homes of 1800 sq. ft. cost over $400,000.00. That’s about 260/sq. ft. Ms. Ostby acknowledged that wages are an issue but didn’t feel the Commission could do anything about that. Mr. Klugo said that is not necessarily true. In Philadelphia a tax was put on all construction, not only residential. This allowed the city to build affordable housing. Mr. Klugo questioned what the goal is. He stressed that a “utopia” can’t be created here. Mr. Conner noted that if there is an exemption from Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) in the SEQ, it may create more of an incentive to build in the SEQ. Mr. Klugo quoted from a Burlington report, noting that Burlington didn’t get the 2500 units it wanted because developers went someplace else. Mr. Conner noted that voluntary affordable units have only been built in S. Burlington three times despite density bonuses. He added there is a lot of pressure from the public on developers not to use that bonus. Ms. LaRose cited the density issues being raised at the DRB whenever a development is planned. Ms. Ostby asked whether every developer should pay an affordable housing fee. This could allow the city to build up a fund to build affordable housing. The discussion was temporarily suspended to allow it to continue past its allotted time after consideration of a time-sensitive agenda item. 6. (previously agenda item #7): Discuss and determine possible 2019 Vermont Municipal Planning Grant Application Recommendation: Mr. Conner said staff is recommending finishing the guidebook because it is 70% complete. There has also been a change in how the grant is done with a match at a higher level. Other options wouldn’t allow doing the work at as high a scale as the Commission wants. After a brief discussion, Mr. Klugo moved to recommend to the City Council applying for a 2019 Vermont Municipal Planning Grant to finish the guidebook. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Members then returned to the Affordable Housing discussion. Ms. Ostby suggested possibly just discussing an overall fee. Mr. Klugo noted that if there is a fee, and it isn’t high enough, developers will just take that option. He noted that in some cities, there are different numbers for different parts of the city or building fewer units. He noted that in Portland, fees range from $19.00 to $27.00 a square foot for the total square footage of the whole development, depending on its location in the city. Seattle has a housing levy, like bond, on the taxpayers, which amounts to about $122/year for 7 years. They then co-develop affordable housing utilizing those who know how to build it. He added that these programs are being used effectively. Mr. Simson said the Affordable Housing Committee is not aiming IZ at a market that will go out an get a tax credit. They are looking to try to bend the market so the middle group, people who work in the city, can get housing in the city not have to commute. He stressed this is not subsidized housing. Mr. Klugo said he didn’t support “bending the market” for people who can afford a $200,000.00 town house but don’t want to live there. Ms. Dooley noted that the Governor’s plan for affordable housing targets people at 100% of median income. This is the missing link that can’t afford to buy housing. Mr. Klugo felt that if the demand is there, there shouldn’t be 19 units available at $250,000. Mr. Conner noted that what staff is finding is that in the realm of new housing, there are one and 2 bedroom units and single family housing above $400,000. Ms. LaRose asked whether in a community of 6,000 residential units, 17 available units is enough. She noted the Commission has never addressed the vacancy rate. She added that 17 units that last an average of 3 days on the market is not adequate. South Burlington’s vacancy rate is among the lowest in the country. Mr. Riehle asked if there is a merit to increasing the permit fees to put more money into the kitty and having the city buy land to build housing. Mr. Simson explained what increases would have to go to the Legislature. A building permit increase would not. Mr. Riehle said it bugs him to see house after house going up and not getting any money into the affordable housing fund. Mr. Macdonald said the reason there is no building in the $300,000-$350,000 range is the cost of land. Mr. Klugo said he felt that if a developer built some 1400 sq. ft. houses they would fly off the shelf, and it wouldn’t feel like a “low‐end” neighborhood. He added that wages are not going up as fast as property values. Mr. Conner suggested a possible incentive to build smaller might be to allow a smaller unit to count as half the density. Ms. Dooley noted that hundreds of cities are using IZ and other mechanisms to get affordable housing. She agreed that a 1400 sq. ft. house would fly off the market. Mr. Conner noted that the cost of building a 1400 sq. ft. house is not much less than building a larger house. And it is higher than what the market is willing to pay. Mr. Klugo said what is driving that cost is requiring a basement. Slab on grade will significantly reduce the cost of a house. Mr. Conner noted not many people are doing that, so there must be an impediment to it. Mr. Klugo said that when a developer comes in with a denser development, they get hammered at the DRB. He added that when you take units off the table, it is counterproductive to a whole lot of things the city wants to see. He then asked whether the discussion can include town homes are just single-family homes. Mr. Simson said the Committee’s proposal deals with all kinds of housing, including rentals. Ms. Ostby said a lot of people start out in South Burlington but then move out of the city for a “permanent” home. Mr. Conner acknowledged that is true but said he didn’t know whether than was because of wanting a single‐family home or a large enough unit to meet a family’s needs. He added that more children are born in South Burlington but move out of the city before starting school. Mr. Klugo added that people are staying in their homes longer and cited the Orchards as an example. Ms. Ostby said it is more expensive to downsize. Ms. Ostby asked how you replicate a highly desired neighborhood at a cost people can afford and whether there is something that can be done quickly to support that cause (e.g., buy land). Mr. Simson said the Committee would like a bottom line from the Commission as to whether they should take IZ off the table and craft something else. Mr. Conner spoke in support of creating more housing in the 80-100% of median income. Mr. Gagnon agreed to incentivizing housing in that range in certain parts of the city. Mr. Mittag felt that should include IZ. Mr. Simson spoke to the challenge of incentivizing developers enough to provide for that level of the community. Mr. Klugo said if the answer is smaller single-family homes, there have to be smaller lots. Ms. Dooley noted Burlington has had IZ for almost 30 years. Hinesburg has it in their village center. She also noted that Frank von Turkovich couldn’t name a single incentive that would make it happen. Ms. Ostby asked if they can make affordable housing a requirement knowing developers will probably pay the fee and make it restrictive so it isn’t equal across the city. Mr. Conner asked if the Committee has discussed whether there is a preference/goal to have an income restriction up front but no further restriction. Ms. Dooley said the Committee embraces perpetual affordability. She noted that people in higher income brackets also look for less expensive housing and try to get there first. Mr. Klugo suggested having an entire development of smaller units that fit in the target range for affordability, then taking 10% of those units for the “affordable people.” Mr. Riehle suggested increasing the building permit fee for houses above the $350,000 level, and you would get a lot of money very fast to buy land for affordable homes. Then the developer would have no land costs. Mr. Klugo spoke to having this appear to be “less of a social issue” so people can get excited about it.  He spoke to a number of incentives including: fee waivers, tax deferrals, reduced parking requirements, height and density bonuses, a “fee in lieu,” designated units off‐site as inclusionary, etc. He asked about “numbers” of affordable units. Mr. Simson noted there are goal number in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Klugo said he would limit IZ to City Center. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t favor IZ city‐wide. Mr. Macdonald said he would support the best method to get the housing the city wants. Ms. Dooley suggested a sub-group of the Commission to come up with conditions for IZ. Mr. Conner encouraged members to thing on a city-wide basis rather than to discourage it where most of the housing in the city is being built. Mr. Simson said he would love to see a fund that the city could do things with, but getting there will take years, and the Committee hasn’t found anything other than IZ that is effective. He stressed they are trying to build into the regulations a price point where a developer can still make a buck. Long term, he would like to have a look at permit fees, etc., to provide a reliable, sustainable source of money. Mr. Klugo said he would like to test the concept of the density bonus. Ms. Dooley said the public doesn’t want that. Mr. Klugo said they have to be convinced it’s a good thing. A majority of members favored, with reservations, having the Committee continue to propose IZ. Mr. Klugo said he would support a regulatory piece for a period of time until the market piece is worked out. He did not want to end up like Burlington where IZ hasn’t worked. Ms. LaRose noted the Burlington range is for 65-75% of median income, which is like apples and oranges to what S. Burlington is looking at. Ms. Dooley added that Burlington’s representative to the Committee says the IZ goal is not have a large supply; it is to have an inclusionary community. Mr. Klugo quoted from the Burlington report that the “community must pay for what it values.” Members agreed to postpone the remainder of the Agenda due to the late hour. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. Approved by the Planning Commission February 19, 201 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo DATE: September 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements staff report (7:08 pm) 5. Planning Commission discussion / next steps on Affordable Housing meeting / Inclusionary Zoning (7:15 pm) [Work Plan #16, Update to LDRs to promote affordable housing] This item is a follow-up to the Commission’s joint meeting with the Affordable Housing Committee, to review and discuss how the Commission would like to proceed. This is a significant piece of legislation and staff encourages the Commission to have a thorough discussion of questions that Commissioners have and approaches to the proposal. Questions that staff would encourage the Commission to consider: - Are Commissioners in concurrence with the objectives as laid out in the purpose statement? Do Commissioners find these objectives to line up with the city-wide objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, across the various elements of the Plan? - What are Commissioners’ thoughts on the approach being taken with this draft regulation? - Does the regulation implement the stated objectives? - What are Commissioners’ thoughts on the various components of the regulations? o Overall structure o Implementation o Incentive structure o Buy-out provisions - In what manner would the Commission like to see the next level of review taken place, and where does it lie in the Commission’s priority list? Note: Staff has not yet performed an analysis on the staffing workload associated with implementation of a regulation such as this; but this will be an important action to be taken once the Commission gives an indication as to next steps. For your reference, below are the Vermont Statutory Standards for Inclusionary Zoning: 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117, § 4414 Zoning; permissible types of regulations Any of the following types of regulations may be adopted by a municipality in its bylaws in conformance with the plan and for the purposes established in section 4302 of this title. … (7) Inclusionary zoning. In order to provide for affordable housing, bylaws may require that a certain percentage of housing units in a proposed subdivision, planned unit development, or multi-unit development meets defined affordability standards, which may include lower income limits than contained in the definition of "affordable housing" in subdivision 4303(1) of this title and may contain different affordability percentages than contained in the definition of "affordable housing development" in subdivision 4303(2) of this title. These provisions, at a minimum, shall comply with all the following: (A) Be in conformance with specific policies of the housing element of the municipal plan. (B) Be determined from an analysis of the need for affordable rental and sale housing units in the community. (C) Include development incentives that contribute to the economic feasibility of providing affordable housing units, such as density bonuses, reductions or waivers of minimum lot, dimensional or parking requirements, reductions or waivers of applicable fees, or reductions or waivers of required public or nonpublic improvements. (D) Require, through conditions of approval, that once affordable housing is built, its availability will be maintained through measures that establish income qualifications for renters or purchasers, promote affirmative marketing, and regulate the price, rent, and resale price of affordable units for a time period specified in the bylaws. 6. Planned Unit Developments - Open Space Component (7:55 pm) [Work Plan #9] At the Planning Commission’s request, Staff has been exploring options for clarifying and enhancing open space requirements within PUDs. Staff has also investigated whether and how a defined set of open space typologies can be used beyond PUDs. See attached memo and draft matrix for additional information. 7. Discuss and determine possible 2019 Vermont Municipal Planning Grant application recommendation (8:30 pm) Staff has been working on the two proposals discussed at the last meeting and communicating with grant staff about the approach that would be most likely to lead to success. We’ll report in at the meeting. 8. Brief update on Airport Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Plan (8:40 pm) [Work Plan #18, Airport Noise Compatibility Plan] 9. Meeting minutes (8:55 pm) 10. Other business (8:57 pm) 11. Adjourn (9:00 pm) South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 1 Article 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning Historical note: Initially, the City of South Burlington adopted land development regulations requiring the inclusion of affordable and moderate income housing in developments having twelve (12) or more dwelling units only in the City Center Form-Based Codes District. The City’s land development regulations have been amended to require the inclusion of affordable and moderate income housing in developments having twelve (12) or more dwelling units in all City zoning districts in which residential development is permitted. A. Purpose. Inclusionary zoning to provide affordable and moderate income housing in the City of South Burlington has been adopted pursuant to 24 VSA § 4414(7) for the following purposes: (1) To be a City that is affordable for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life through the preservation and development of a variety of housing in diverse, accessible neighborhoods, consistent with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, as most recently amended; (2) To implement policies that support achievement of housing goals, objectives, and targets included in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan as most recently amended; (3) To affirmatively address the current and anticipated need for affordable dwelling units among low- and moderate-income South Burlington households that pay more than 30% of their income on housing, as described in state law (24 VSA § 4303(1)); (4) To mitigate the impacts of market-rate housing development that is unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households on the cost and supply of land and infrastructure available for affordable housing development in the City; (5) To promote the integrated development of mixed-income housing throughout the City, including a range of housing options needed to strengthen, diversify, and contribute to the vitality of the South Burlington community; (6) To promote the development of affordable housing opportunities that are available in locations accessible to goods and services and served by existing or planned public transit services; (6) To ensure that affordable dwelling units developed under inclusionary zoning remain perpetually affordable. (7) To provide integrated development incentives that contribute to the economic feasibility of providing affordable dwelling units, including eliminating or easing maximum residential densities, minimum lot sizes, and minimum parking requirements for residential units within the City. B. Applicability (1) Covered Development. Except as otherwise provided in this bylaw, the provisions of this section shall apply to all zoning districts in which residential development is permitted to any development, including each phase of development, that will result in the creation of twelve (12) or more dwelling units through subdivision, new construction, or the conversion of an existing structure or structures from non-residential to residential use. For purposes of this requirement, two or more developments shall be aggregated and considered as one development subject to this section if: South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 2 (a) The developments are located on abutting properties; and (b) The developments are owned or controlled by the same person; and (c) Either: (i) The developments will undergo subdivision, construction, or conversion of an existing structure or structures from non-residential to residential use within the same five- year period, which period shall be measured from the date a proper and complete application is first submitted, or (ii) A master plan exists, as approved by the City, which includes two or more of the developments. (2) Covered subdivisions. Except as otherwise provided in this bylaw, the provisions of this section shall apply in all zoning districts in which residential development is permitted to any subdivision that will result in the creation of twelve (12) or more lots suitable for construction of dwelling units. (3) Exemptions. The following developments are exempt from these requirements: (a) Projects that are developed by an educational institution for the exclusive residential use and occupancy of its students. (b) Institutional, group homes or group quarters housing, including long-term care facilities. (c) The redevelopment of existing dwelling units in a project that produces no additional units. C. Inclusionary Units (1) For covered rental-unit development, at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered for rent shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income (AMI) as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% of the AMI as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. (2) For covered home-ownership development, at least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units offered for sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative ownership, shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% of the area median income (AMI) as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. An additional ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 120% of the AMI as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. (a) Where the application of these formulas results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00 are rounded up). (b) When the developer proposes to build at least 12 but fewer than 17 rental dwelling units, the requirement will be to include two (2) inclusionary units and both shall be affordable to households whose incomes are no greater than 80% of AMI as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. (c) When the developer proposes to build at least 12 but fewer than 17 home-ownership dwelling units, the requirement will be to include two (2) inclusionary units one of which shall be affordable to households whose incomes are no greater than 100% of AMI as South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 3 defined in E.(1)(f) of this section and the other shall be affordable to households whose income is no greater than 120% of AMI as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. (d) When the developer is required to build a number of affordable rental dwelling units that is not evenly divisible by three, the first “remaining” rental dwelling unit must be affordable at the 80% AMI level as defined in E.1)(f) of this section and, where applicable, the second “remaining” rental dwelling unit must also be affordable at 80% AMI level as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. Example: The developer is required to build 13 affordable rental dwelling units. Eight dwelling units must be affordable at 80% of AMI, four dwelling units must be affordable at 100% of AMI and the “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at 80% AMI. (e) When the developer is required to build a number of affordable home-ownership dwelling units that is not evenly divisible by three, the first “remaining” home-ownership dwelling unit must be affordable at the 100% AMI level as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section and, where applicable, the second “remaining” home-ownership dwelling unit must be affordable at 120% AMI as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. Example: The developer is required to build 13 affordable home-ownership dwelling units. Four dwelling units must be affordable at 100% of AMI, eight dwelling units must be affordable at 120% of AMI, and the “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at 100% AMI. (3) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be: (a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection E.(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction) of this Article, and integrated among market rate units in the development. (b) Similar in architectural style and outward appearance to market rate units in the proposed development. (i) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural design details used in market rate construction. Similar exterior amenities and landscaping shall also be provided. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the market rate units. (ii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units; inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard both to interior amenities and to gross floor area. The average (mean) gross floor area of all inclusionary units, however, shall not be less than 70% of the average (mean) gross floor area of market rate units. (iii) Inclusionary units developed as part of a single-family housing development may be accommodated in duplexes or multi-family dwellings that resemble the market rate single-family dwellings, except that multi-family dwellings shall not be permitted in zoning districts in which multi-family dwellings are not a permitted use. Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development that includes duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes or other multi-family dwellings may be of varied types, including studio, one-bedroom, two- bedroom, three-bedroom and/or four-or-more-bedroom construction. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 4 (iv) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into the design of the development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and shall be distributed among the housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board as being better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington. (c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units unless the Development Review Board, based on documented financial hardship, physical site constraints, or other equally compelling circumstances, approves a plan allowing non- concurrent construction of the affordable units. The last 10% of market rate units shall not receive certificates of occupancy until certificates of occupancy are issued for all buildings containing inclusionary units, including when inclusionary units are provided off-site as provided for in Subsection F.(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction) of this Article. D. Inclusionary subdivisions. (1) For covered subdivisions, at least five percent (5%) of the total lots offered for sale shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% of the area median income (AMI) as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. An additional ten percent (10%) of the total lots shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 120% of the AMI as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. (a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional building lot, that fractional lot shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00 are rounded up). (b) When the developer proposes a subdivision having at least 12 but fewer than 17 building lots, the requirement will be to include two (2) affordable building lots one of which shall be affordable to households whose incomes are no greater than 100% of AMI as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section and the other shall be affordable to households whose income is no greater than 120% of AMI as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section. (c) When the developer is required to have a number of affordable building lots that is not evenly divisible by three, the first “remaining” building lot must be affordable at the 100% AMI level as defined in E.(1)(f) of this section and, where applicable, the second “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at 120% AMI level. Example: The developer is required to include 13 affordable building lots. Four (4) building lots must be affordable at 100% of AMI, eight (8) building lots must be affordable at the 120% of AMI, and the “remaining” one (1) building lot must be affordable at the 100% AMI. (2) Inclusionary subdivisions required under this section shall: (a) Include affordable building lots whose average area is no less than 70% of the average area of the market-priced building lots included in the subdivision. (b) Include affordable building lots whose shapes are similar to the shapes of the market- priced building lots in the subdivision. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 5 (c) Integrate the affordable building lots into the design of the subdivision in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board. (d) Make each affordable building lot available for purchase for $60,000 or the average price of the market-priced lots in the development, whichever is lower. This price policy assumes that the building lot has access to utilities. (d) Provide the City with the option to purchase or transfer its option to purchase affordable building lots. Any applicant developing a covered inclusionary subdivision shall adhere to the following provisions with respect to the initial offering of affordable building lots for sale: (i) The developer shall notify the City Manager or his/her designee of the prospective availability of any affordable building lots at the time that the permit is issued for the covered subdivision; (ii) The City Manager or his/her designee, in consultation with the members of the Housing Trust Fund, shall then have an exclusive option for ninety (90) days to purchase each offered affordable building lot for sale for the price per lot consistent with 18.01 D.(2)(d) from the developer unless waived or transferred; (iii) If the City Manager or his/her designee, in consultation with the members of the Housing Trust Fund, fails to exercise such option by failing to negotiate and sign a purchase and sale agreement for affordable building lots, or declaring an intent not to exercise such option, the developer shall offer the affordable building lots for purchase to income-eligible households in accordance with the requirements of subsection 18.01, E. Affordability Requirements. (iv) If the City Manager or his/her designee fails to close on the affordable building lots by the later of the date on which one-third of the market-priced building lots have been sold or the last day of the 90-day option period, the developer shall offer the affordable building lots for purchase to households for the price per lot consistent with 18.01 D.(2)(d); (v) On or before a purchase and sale agreement is executed between the developer and the City Manager or his/her designee, s/he may assign the City’s option specified in this subsection to purchase one or more of the affordable building lots in a covered subdivision to a 501(c)(3) organization whose primary purpose is the development of affordable housing. Upon the decision to exercise this transfer option, the City Manager or his/her designee shall notify the developer of such assignment and the organization to which the City has assigned the option, which organization shall deal directly with the developer, and shall have all of the authority of the City Manager, as provided under this subsection. (f) Make the affordable building lots available for purchase no later than the date on which one-third of the market-priced building lots have been sold unless the Development Review Board, based on documented financial hardship, physical site constraints, or other equally compelling circumstances, approves a plan that allows sale of the affordable building lots to commence subsequent to the sale of one-third of the market-priced building lots. (g) Market affordable building lots to income-eligible households in accordance with the requirements of subsection 18.01, E. Affordability Requirements. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 6 (h) Ensure initial and continued (perpetual) affordability of the building lot, including sales after the affordable lot is developed with a dwelling unit, through compliance with the requirements of subsection 18.01 E. Affordability Requirements. E. Affordability Requirements (1) Affordability Determinations. Inclusionary units and affordable building lots required under this section shall be affordable and marketed to income-eligible households as follows: (a) Affordability for Inclusionary Units. The affordability standard for housing costs is that they not exceed 30% of annual household income as defined herein. Housing costs are defined as follows: (i) For rental units – rent (inclusive of any condominium or homeowners’ association fees) and utilities (water, electricity and heating costs). (ii) For sale units – mortgage principal and interest, annual property taxes, average homeowner’s insurance premiums, average mortgage insurance premiums, and condominium or homeowners’ association fees. Please note these regulations do not prohibit a household that meets the applicable affordability requirement for its household size to purchase or rent an inclusionary unit whose costs exceed 30% of the household’s income (see (g) Relationship of Actual household sizes and household incomes to affordable rents and purchase prices. below). (b) Affordability for Affordable Building Lots. The affordable price for affordable building lots is determined in accordance with subsection 18.01 D.(2)(d). (c) Maximum Rents and Sales Prices for Inclusionary Units. The maximum rent or sales price corresponding to the applicable income thresholds (i.e. 80%, 100%, or 120% of AMI) for an inclusionary unit shall be determined based on income guidelines published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), or on program-based income eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization. The maximum rent or sales price shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a unit is available for occupancy. (cd) The maximum rent or sale price of an inclusionary unit shall be calculated based on unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) and the HUD formula of 1.5 persons per bedroom, which are used to establish the “Household Size Equivalent”: Table 18-1 HUD Formula for Determining Maximum Rents and Purchase Prices Unit Size Household Size Equivalent1 1 The maximum allowable rent or sales price is based on the designated AMI level (80%, 100%, or 120%) corresponding to the “Household Size Equivalent” in the table above that matches the number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit. The result is that the maximum rent or sales price for a particular inclusionary unit is the same for all eligible households seeking to rent or purchase that affordable dwelling unit. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 7 Efficiency/Studio 1 One-Bedroom Unit 1.5 Two-Bedroom Unit 3 Three-Bedroom Unit 4.5 Four-Bedroom Unit 6 (e) With respect to inclusionary units offered for sale, sale prices shall be calculated based on an available fixed rate, 30-year mortgage, consistent with a blended rate for banks or other lending institutions offering mortgages for dwelling units located in South Burlington. The calculated price shall assume a down payment of no more than 5% of the purchase price. (f) Income eligibility for inclusionary units. The maximum household income thresholds for renters and buyers of inclusionary units corresponding to the applicable income thresholds (i.e. 80%, 100%, or 120% of AMI), shall be determined based on income guidelines, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), or on program-based eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization. The maximum household income of eligible renters and buyers moving into inclusionary units shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a unit is available for occupancy, as adjusted for the size of the household moving into the unit. (g) Relationship of Actual household sizes and household incomes to affordable rents and purchase prices. The process of renting or selling inclusionary units to income-eligible households does not require a precise matching process. For example, the monthly rental or monthly home- ownership housing cost is not required to be no greater than 30% of household income. In addition, the size of the renter or purchaser household is not required to be precisely matched to the number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit. This matching process is flexible and takes into consideration the household’s other financial resources and -obligations. Maximum allowable rents and purchase prices are based on a hypothetical household size combined with the applicable HUD produced Area Median Income (AMI) level for the unit (80%, 100%, or 120% AMI) for that household size. The hypothetical household size is based on the number of bedrooms in a unit and a HUD formula that designates an assumed household size dependent on the unit’s number of bedrooms. This hypothetical household size does not control the size of the actual household that rents or purchases the inclusionary unit. For example, the maximum rent or sales price for a one-bedroom inclusionary unit is determined using the average of the applicable AMI level for one- and two-person households. Note that the applicant household’s income is not used to determine the maximum rent or sales price of a particular inclusionary unit. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 8 In addition, the AMI amount used to determine the maximum allowable rent or purchase price is not used to determine whether the actual applicant household meets the income eligibility requirement for an inclusionary unit. A household’s Income eligibility is based on its actual size and whether or not its annual income does or does not exceed the unit’s AMI level for its actual household size. The result is that the actual renter or purchaser household’s size and its income may vary from the assumed size and income of the hypothetical household, which determine the maximum rent or purchase price for the inclusionary unit. For example, depending on the household size and income used to calculate the rent or sales price for the inclusionary unit, the actual renter or purchaser household may end up paying more or less than 30% of its household income on monthly rental or home-ownership housing costs. In addition, the size of the renter or purchaser household may be more or less than the hypothetical household size used in calculating the maximum allowable rent or sales price. The examples below show what may be permissible for an individual household situation. These examples do not represent situations that are approvable for all households having similar circumstances. ● a two-person household may purchase a three-bedroom house or condominium. ● a three-person household whose income is 70% of AMI may rent an apartment whose rent is set to be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% of AMI. ● a two-person household whose income is 90% of AMI may purchase a condominium or house whose price is set to be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 120% of AMI. Note, however, that a household with a 90% of AMI income may not move into an apartment whose rent is set to be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 80% of AMI. (2) Continued Affordability. An inclusionary unit shall remain affordable in perpetuity commencing from the date of initial occupancy, through a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or through purchase by or a contractual agreement with a local, state or federal housing authority or nonprofit housing agency, to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager prior to recording in the City of South Burlington Land Records. Any deed restriction, covenant or other instrument or agreement ensuring the continued affordability of inclusionary units shall include: (a) Resale Restrictions. Provisions to ensure the affordability of units offered for sale shall include a formula for limiting equity appreciation to an amount not to exceed 25% of the increase in the unit’s value, as determined by the difference between fair market appraisals of the unit at the time of purchase and the time of resale, with adjustments for improvements made by the seller and the necessary costs of sale, as may be approved by the City Manager. In addition, the City shall have the option to purchase or transfer its option to purchase owned inclusionary units at each future time of resale. (i) The seller or his/her representative shall notify the City Manager or his/her designee of the prospective sale of an owned inclusionary unit; South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 9 (ii) The City Manager or his/her designee, in consultation with the members of the Housing Trust Fund, shall then have an exclusive option for thirty (30) days to purchase the owned inclusionary unit from the seller at a price consistent with the requirements of this subsection unless waived or transferred; (iii) If the City Manager or his/her designee, in consultation with the members of the Housing Trust Fund, fails to exercise such option by failing to negotiate and sign a purchase and sale agreement for purchase of the owned inclusionary unit, or declaring an intent not to exercise such option, the seller shall offer the owned inclusionary unit for purchase to income-eligible households in accordance with the requirements of subsection 18.01, E. Affordability Requirements. (iv) If the City Manager or his/her designee fails to close on the owned inclusionary unit by the last day of the 30-day option period, the seller shall offer the owned inclusionary unit for purchase to households for the price per lot consistent with the requirements of this subsection; (v) On or before a purchase and sale agreement is executed between the seller and the City Manager or his/her designee, s/he may assign the City’s option specified in this subsection to purchase the owned inclusionary unit to a 501(c)(3) organization whose primary purpose is the development of affordable housing. Upon the decision to exercise this transfer option, the City Manager or his/her designee shall notify the seller of such assignment and the organization to which the City has assigned the option, which organization shall deal directly with the seller and shall have all of the authority of the City Manager, as provided under this subsection. (b) Rent Changes. Provisions to ensure the affordability of rental units shall require that annual rent changes not exceed the percentage change in the median household income within the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, when the change is an increase; and that annual rent changes match the percentage change in the median household income within the Burlington- South Burlington MSA, when the change is a decrease. An exception to the limit on increases or required decreases is permitted to the extent that further increases or delayed decreases are made necessary by documented hardship or other unusual conditions. Such exceptions may not take effect until approved in writing by the City Manager; (c) Sublet Restrictions. Provisions for inclusionary rental units shall prohibit the subletting of units at rental rates that exceed affordability limits established pursuant to this section. (3) Reporting Requirements. Annually, the owner of a project that includes inclusionary rental units shall prepare and submit a report to the City Manager that lists the gross rents charged for inclusionary units and the household move-in incomes of unit tenants, and certifies that unit affordability has been maintained as required. F. Developer Options (1) Options (a) and (b) below are available to developers, upon request, as necessary to address documented financial hardships, physical site constraints, or other equally compelling circumstances that limit or preclude the incorporation of inclusionary units within a covered development. In the case of developments located within the City Center Form-Based-Codes District, the Zoning Administrator shall decide whether to allow or disallow a request for Options (a) and (b). In the case of developments located in zoning districts other than the City Center Form-Based-Codes District, the Development Review Board shall decide whether to allow or disallow a request for Options (a) South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 10 and (b). Options (c) and (d) are available to the developer at his or her discretion. Option (e), a payment or contribution in lieu of constructing required inclusionary units in the City Center Form- Based Codes District, shall be prohibited. (a) Dedication. The Zoning Administrator, for developments located in the City Center Form- Based-Codes District, and the Development Review Board, for developments located in other zoning districts, in consultation with the South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee, may accept as an alternative to the development of inclusionary units, a dedication by the developer having equal or greater value than the per unit “Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund” (as defined in item (e) below) multiplied by the number of inclusionary units for which the dedication would substitute that furthers the purposes of this section. An example might be the donation of developable land suitable for affordable housing in the City Center Form Based Codes District that provides accessibility to transit, employment opportunities, and services. (b) Off-Site Construction. The Zoning Administrator, for developments located in the City Center Form-Based-Codes District, and the Development Review Board, for developments located in other zoning districts, in consultation with the South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee, based on documented financial hardship, physical site constraints, or other equally compelling circumstances, may allow the developer to comply with the requirements of this section by constructing, within two years of receiving a permit for the covered development, the required number of inclusionary units on another site within the same contiguous boundary of the zoning district in which the covered development is located, or contracting with another entity to construct the required number of units within the same contiguous boundary of the zoning district in which the covered development is located. This condition shall not be considered satisfied until certificates of occupancy have been issued for all off-site inclusionary units. (c) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for three inclusionary units for every two three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. (d) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having four bedrooms shall receive credit for four inclusionary units for every two four-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. (e) Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Depositing $60,000 into the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund per unit for one or more of the inclusionary units otherwise required by this regulation. Beginning on January 1, 2019 the amount of the contribution shall be adjusted by multiplying this amount originally deposited for each unit a fraction, the denominator of which shall be the “Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers” U.S. City Average, “All Items Index”, for January 2018, and the numerator of which shall be the index for the subsequent month and year as of the date of submission of the application. In the event that the index is not then in existence the parties shall use such equivalent price index as is published by any successor government agency then in existence. A contribution in lieu of constructing required inclusionary units In the City Center Form-Based Codes District shall be prohibited. G. Affordable Housing Density Bonuses for Fulfillment of Inclusionary Unit Requirements (1) Applicability. This subsection applies in all Zoning Districts in which residential development is permitted, with the exception of the City Center Form-Based Codes District. The Development Review Board, in granting these bonuses, shall be subject to the standards found South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 11 in Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review, (2) Density Bonuses. When the Development Review Board reviews and approves or approves with conditions an application for a Planned Unit Development that includes 12 or more dwelling units and is covered by this bylaw, such approval shall, upon request of the applicant, include a density bonus over the base zoning density based on the application’s fulfillment of this Section’s inclusionary unit requirements. The density bonus shall be one additional dwelling unit for each required inclusionary unit that is constructed. No density bonus shall be provided for any required unit for which the developer receives approval for the Dedication or Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund as described in 18.01 F.(1)(a) & (e) herein. The density to which the bonus shall be added is the total acreage of the property in question multiplied by the maximum residential density per acre for the applicable zoning district or districts. Density bonus dwelling units are not subject to the Inclusionary Requirement. The tables below show the acreage required to reach the 12-unit threshold at which the inclusionary requirement applies and the effect of the density bonus on the density of the development. Table-G1 shows the effect on a development containing rental units. Table-G2 shows the effect on a development containing home-ownership units. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 12 G1. Inclusionary Rental Units Required at Threshold Level (where Inclusionary Units become required) Regular Density Maximum (dwelling units/acre) Minimum Acres for Inclusionary Requirement Base # of Units for # of acres Inclusionary Units Required Units Required ≤80% AMI Units Required ≤100% AMI New Unit Total New density for develop- ment South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 13 G2. Inclusionary Home-Ownership Units Required at Threshold Level Regular Density Maximum (dwelling units/acre) Minimum Acres for Inclusionary Requirement Base # of Units for # of acres Inclusionary Units Required Units Required ≤100% AMI Units Required ≤120% AMI New Unit Total New density for develop- ment 1 12 12 2 1 1 14 1.17 1.2 10 12 2 1 1 14 1.4 2 6 12 2 1 1 14 2.33 3 4 12 2 1 1 14 3.5 4 3 12 2 1 1 14 4.67 7 1.71 12 2 1 1 14 8.19 12 1.0 12 2 1 1 14 14.0 15 0.80 12 2 1 1 14 17.5 (a) Should the development include more than the minimum number of required Inclusionary Units but fewer than twice the minimum number of required Inclusionary Units, no additional density bonus dwelling units shall be approved. 1 12 12 2 2 0 14 1.17 1.2 10 12 2 2 0 14 1.4 2 6 12 2 2 0 14 2.33 3 4 12 2 2 0 14 3.5 4 3 12 2 2 0 14 4.67 7 1.71 12 2 2 0 14 8.19 12 1.0 12 2 2 0 14 14.0 15 0.80 12 2 2 0 14 17.5 South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 14 (b) The density bonuses described above shall be approved as long as such density increase as applied to the specific covered development does not result in non-compliance with Section 15.02(A)(4). Example (1): In a 24-unit housing development on a six-acre plot in an R4 district, the developer is required to build four (4) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive a density bonus of four (4) additional dwelling units (total of 28 dwelling units). The resulting density will be 4.67 dwelling units per acre. The four-dwelling-unit bonus represents a 17% increase over the maximum units permitted without the density bonus. Example (2): In a 36-unit housing development on a three-acre plot in an R12 district, the developer is required to build five (5) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive a density bonus of five (5) additional dwelling units (total of 41 dwelling units). The resulting density will be 13.67 dwelling units per acre. The five-dwelling-unit bonus represents a 14% increase over the maximum units permitted without the density bonus. H. Affordable Housing Density Bonuses for Voluntary Provision of Twice the Required Number of Inclusionary Units (1) Applicability. This subsection applies in all Zoning Districts in which residential development is permitted, with the exception of the City Center Form-Based Codes District. The Development Review Board, in granting these bonuses, shall be subject to the standards found in Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review, (2) Density Bonuses. When the Development Review Board reviews and approves or approves with conditions an application for a Planned Unit Development that includes 12 or more dwelling units and the applicant has voluntarily included twice the number of inclusionary units required by this bylaw, such approval shall, upon request of the applicant, include an additional density bonus over the base zoning density. The density bonus shall be one dwelling unit for each inclusionary unit included voluntarily. The density to which the bonus shall be added is the total acreage of the property in question multiplied by the maximum residential density per acre for the applicable zoning district or districts. Density bonus dwelling units are not subject to the Inclusionary Requirement. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 15 H1. Density Bonuses: (Voluntary) Twice the Required IZ Rental Units (including # required at <80% & <100% AMI) H2. Density Bonuses: (Voluntary) Twice the Required IZ Home-Ownership Units (including # required at <100% & <120% AMI) Regular Density Maximum (dwelling units/acre) Minimum Acres for Inclusionary Requirement Base # of Units for # of acres Inclusionary Units Provided Units Required ≤100% AMI Units Required ≤120% AMI New unit total New density for develop- ment 1 12 12 4 2 2 16 1.33 1.2 10 12 4 2 2 16 1.6 2 6 12 4 2 2 16 2.67 3 4 12 4 2 2 16 4.0 4 3 12 4 2 2 16 5.33 Regular Density Maximum (dwelling units/acre) Minimum Acres for Inclusionary Requirement Base # of Units for # of acres Inclusionary Units Provided Units Required ≤80% AMI Units Required ≤100% AMI New Unit Total New density for develop- ment 1 12 12 4 3 1 16 1.33 1.2 10 12 4 3 1 16 1.6 2 6 12 4 3 1 16 2.67 3 4 12 4 3 1 16 4.0 4 3 12 4 3 1 16 5.33 7 1.71 12 4 3 1 16 9.36 12 1.0 12 4 3 1 16 16.0 15 0.80 12 4 3 1 16 20.0 South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 16 7 1.71 12 4 2 2 16 9.36 12 1.0 12 4 2 2 16 16.0 15 0.80 12 4 2 2 16 20.0 (a) To receive a density bonus for voluntary provision of twice the number of required IZ rental units, at least two thirds of the additional (not required) units must have rents affordable to households having incomes no greater 80% of AMI. (b) To receive a density bonus for voluntary provision of twice the number of required IZ home- ownership units, at least one-third of the additional (not required) units must be affordable to households having incomes no greater 100% of AMI Example (1): In a 24-unit housing development on a six-acre plot in an R4 district, the developer is required to build four (4) inclusionary units but voluntarily adds four (4) additional inclusionary units. The developer shall receive a density bonus of four (4) dwelling units for the required inclusionary units and four (4) dwelling units for the (voluntary) additional four (4) inclusionary units, or a total density bonus of eight (8) dwelling units and a total 32 units in the development. The resulting density will be 5.33 dwelling units per acre. The eight-dwelling-unit bonus represents a 33% increase over the maximum units permitted without the density bonus. Example (2): In a 36-unit housing development on a three-acre plot in an R12 district, the developer is required to build five (5) inclusionary units but voluntarily adds five (5) additional inclusionary units. The developer shall receive a density bonus of five (5) dwelling units for the required inclusionary units and five (5) dwelling units for the (voluntary) additional five (5) inclusionary units, or a total density bonus of 10 dwelling units and a total 46 units in the development. The resulting density will be 15.33 dwelling units per acre. The 10-dwelling-unit bonus represents a 28% increase over the maximum units permitted without the density bonus. I. Affordable Housing Density Bonuses for Voluntary Provision of More than the Required Number of Inclusionary Rental Units Affordable at or below 80% AMI or More than the Required Number of Inclusionary Home-Ownership Rental Units Affordable at or below 100% AMI (1) Applicability. This subsection applies in all Zoning Districts in which residential development is permitted, with the exception of the City Center Form-Based Codes District. The Development Review Board, in granting these bonuses, shall be subject to the standards found in Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review. (2) Density Bonuses. When the Development Review Board reviews and approves or approves with conditions an application for a Planned Unit Development that includes 12 or more dwelling units and the applicant has voluntarily included more than the required number of inclusionary rental units affordable to households having incomes no greater than 80% AMI or more than the required number of inclusionary home-ownership units affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% AMI, such approval shall, upon request of the applicant, South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 17 include an additional density bonus. The density bonus shall be one additional dwelling unit for each voluntary 80% AMI inclusionary rental unit or one additional dwelling unit for each voluntary 100% AMI inclusionary home-ownership unit. These bonus dwelling units are not subject to the inclusionary requirement. I1. Density Bonuses: (Voluntary) More IZ Rental Units than Required at <80% AMI Regular Density Maximum (dwelling units/acre) Minimum Acres for Inclusionary Requirement Base # of Units for # of acres Inclusionary Units Required Units Required ≤80% AMI Extra Units Provided ≤80% AMI Twice Required # Inclus. Units Bonus New Unit Total New density for develop- ment 1 12 12 2 2 4 2 20 1.67 1.2 10 12 2 2 4 2 20 2.0 2 6 12 2 2 4 2 20 3.33 3 4 12 2 2 4 2 20 5.0 4 3 12 2 2 4 2 20 6.67 7 1.71 12 2 2 4 2 20 11.7 12 1.0 12 2 2 4 2 20 20.0 South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 18 I2. Density Bonuses: (Voluntary) More IZ Units than Required at <100% AMI Regular Density Maximum (dwelling units/acre) Minimum Acres for Inclusionary Requirement Base # of Units for # of acres Inclusiona ry Units Provided Units Required ≤100% AMI Extra Units Provided ≤100% AMI Twice Required # Inclus Units Bonus New unit total New density for develop- ment 1 12 12 4 2 4 2 20 1.67 1.2 10 12 4 2 4 2 20 2.0 2 6 12 4 2 4 2 20 3.33 3 4 12 4 2 4 2 20 5.0 4 3 12 4 2 4 2 20 6.67 7 1.71 12 4 2 4 2 20 11.7 12 1.0 12 4 2 4 2 20 20.0 15 0.80 12 4 2 4 2 20 25.0 Example (1): In a 36-unit rental housing development on a three-acre plot in an R12 district, the developer is required to build five (5) inclusionary units but voluntarily adds five (5) additional inclusionary units. The developer voluntarily makes all of the inclusionary units affordable at 80% AMI. The developer shall receive a density bonus of five (5) dwelling units for the required inclusionary units, five (5) dwelling units for the (voluntary) additional five (5) inclusionary units, and two (2) dwelling units for (voluntarily) making two (2) more inclusionary units than required affordable to households with incomes no greater than 80% AMI, or a total density bonus of 12 dwelling units and a total number of units in the development of 48. The resulting density will be 16.0 dwelling units per acre. The 12-dwelling-unit bonus represents a 33% increase over the maximum units permitted without the density bonus. Example (2): In a 24-unit home-ownership housing development on a six-acre plot in an R4 district, the developer is required to build four (4) inclusionary units but voluntarily adds four (4) additional inclusionary units. The developer voluntarily makes all of the inclusionary units affordable at 100% AMI. The developer shall receive a density bonus of four (4) dwelling units for the required inclusionary units, four (4) dwelling units for the (voluntary) additional four (4) inclusionary units, and four (4) dwelling units for (voluntarily) making four (4) more inclusionary units than required affordable to households with incomes no greater than 100% AMI, or a total density bonus of 12 dwelling units and a total 36 units in the development. The resulting density will be 6.00 dwelling units per acre. The 12-dwelling-unit bonus represents a 50% increase over the maximum units permitted without the density bonus. 15 0.80 12 2 2 4 2 20 25.0 South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 19 J. Affordable Housing Density Bonuses for developments with fewer than 12 dwelling units (1) Applicability. This subsection applies in all Zoning Districts in which residential development is permitted, with the exception of the City Center Form-Based Codes District. (2) When the Development Review Board reviews and approves or approves with conditions an application that includes at least three (3) but fewer than 12 dwelling units and the developer has opted to construct one or more units that qualify as inclusionary at or below the 80% of AMI level, such approval shall, upon request of the applicant, include a density bonus, as specified in Table J. below, over the initial number of units in the development (i.e. before density bonus units are added). These bonuses apply to both rental and home-ownership developments with fewer than 12 units in which the developer voluntarily provides inclusionary units at the <80% AMI level. J. Density Bonuses: Voluntarily Building IZ Units at <80% AMI When None is required Regular Density Maximum dwelling units/acre # of units to be built # of inclusionary units built voluntarily and affordable for households at <80% AMI Density Bonus New Unit Total 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 6 – 8 1 0 6- 8 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 9 – 11 <2 0 9-11 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 3 – 5 <3 1 4-6 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 4 – 5 >4 2 6-7 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 6 – 8 2 or 3 1 7-9 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 6 – 8 4-6 2 8-10 South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 20 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 8 7 or 8 3 11 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 9 – 11 3-5 1 10-12 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 9 – 11 6-8 2 11-13 1, 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, or 15 9 – 11 >9 3 12-14 K. Parking Requirements The number of parking spaces required for each inclusionary unit shall be no greater than one space per unit. L. Administration and Compliance (1) Application Requirements. In addition to other submission requirements applicable to proposed projects specified within this bylaw, applications under this section shall include the following information: (a) A site or subdivision plan that identifies the number, locations, types, and sizes of inclusionary units in relation to market rate units; (b) Documentation supporting the allocation of inclusionary and market rate units, including inclusionary unit set aside calculations; (c) A description of each unit’s type, floor area, number of bedrooms, estimated housing costs, and other data necessary to determine unit affordability; (d) A list of proposed options, if any, to be incorporated in the plan, as provided for under Subsection (F) (Developer Options) of this Article; (e) Documentation regarding household income eligibility; (f) Information regarding the long-term management of inclusionary units, including the responsible party or parties, as required to ensure continued affordability; (g) Draft legal documents required under this section to ensure continued affordability; (h) Construction timeline for both inclusionary and market rate units; and (i) Other information as requested by the Administrative Officer to determine project compliance with inclusionary zoning requirements. (2) Application Compliance Officer. The Administrative Officer (AO) is responsible for certifying, in writing, whether a development application is in compliance with the inclusionary zoning requirements specified in Subsection (L)(1) (Application Requirements) of this Article. In cases in which the AO determines the application is not in compliance, he or she shall specify the areas of non-compliance. Appeals of the AO’s determination that an application does not comply with inclusionary zoning requirements shall be to the Development Review Board. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 21 (3) Application Review and Decision-Making. The Administrative Officer shall review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for developments subject to the inclusionary requirements of Section 18.01 that are located in the City Center Form-Based-Codes District. The Development Review Board shall review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications for developments in other zoning districts that are subject to the inclusionary requirements of this Section (18.01). (4) Ongoing Compliance. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any; another municipal entity; or a bona fide qualified non-profit organization, as determined by the South Burlington City Council, shall be responsible for the on-going administration of the inclusionary units as well as for the promulgation of such rules, regulations, and/or procedures as may be necessary to implement this program. The Housing Authority, other municipal entity, or non-profit organization shall define and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures. (5) Program Evaluation. In order to monitor and track the success of inclusionary zoning in meeting the purposes of this section and the City’s affordable housing goals and targets, the City Manager shall: (a) Collect and maintain income eligibility guidelines, mortgage interest rate information, and other information necessary to meet the requirements of this section; (b) Monitor and maintain records regarding the status of inclusionary units developed under this Section 18.01; and (c) Prepare an annual written report for distribution to the South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission and posting on the City’s website, to be considered in a public meeting, that summarizes the status of covered projects and inclusionary units approved to date, and sets forth program findings, conclusions, and recommendations for any changes that will increase the effectiveness of inclusionary zoning. ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS 2.02 Specific Definitions Affordable Housing. this shall mean either of the following: (A) Affordable home ownership: a dwelling unit that is owned by its inhabitants: (1) whose sales price does not exceed the maximum price calculated based on unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) and the HUD formula of 1.5 persons per bedroom, which are used to establish the “Household Size Equivalent, which is then matched to the median income (100% or 120%, later referred to as the Area Median Income or AMI) for the Burlington- South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development), to which the inclusionary unit is targeted; and (2) which is owned by a household, whose household income, upon purchase, does not exceed the targeted AMI level for a household of its size; and South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 22 (3) whose purchase price shall remain perpetually affordable at the AMI level, 100% or 120%, to which it was targeted; Note the Household Size Equivalent and the actual household size of the purchasing household do not have to be the same. (B) Affordable rental housing: a dwelling unit that is rented by its inhabitants: (1) whose rental price does not exceed the maximum price calculated based on unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) and the HUD formula of 1.5 persons per bedroom, which are used to establish the “Household Size Equivalent, which is then matched to the median income (80% or 100%, later referred to as the Area Median Income or AMI) for the Burlington- South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development), to which the inclusionary unit is targeted; and (2) which is rented by a household whose household income, at initial occupancy, does not exceed the targeted AMI level for a household of its size; and (3) whose rental price shall remain perpetually affordable at the AMI level, 80% or 100%, to which it was targeted; Note the Household Size Equivalent and the actual household size of the renting household do not have to be the same. Inclusionary Housing. A designated percentage of dwelling units included in a development of 12 or more dwelling units that, as required: (1) have a sales or rental price no greater than that corresponding to the Area Median Income level (AMI), 100% or 120% for ownership or 80% or 100% for rental (as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development), to which the inclusionary unit is targeted as required by these regulations; and (2) are occupied by households whose household income, at initial occupancy, does not exceed the targeted AMI level for a household of its size; and (3) have a sales or rental price that shall remain perpetually affordable at the AMI level, 80%, 100% or 120%, to which it was targeted. Inclusionary Unit. A dwelling unit that meets the requirements of dwelling units defined under Inclusionary Housing. Article 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 23 15.02 Authority and Required Review A. Authority (6) The modification of the maximum residential density for a zoning district shall be permitted only as provided in the applicable district regulations and/or for the provision of affordable housing pursuant to Section 18.01 of these Regulations. C. Elective PUD Review. In all districts of the City except the City Center FBC District, any applicant for site plan, conditional use and/or subdivision review, or any other application for land development requiring action by the Development Review Board, may request review pursuant to the PUD process and regulations, except for parcels of land less than one-half (0.50) acre in the following districts: R1, R1-LV, R2, R4, and LN. Article 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT 17.03 Certificates of Occupancy B. Certificate of Occupancy Not Required. Certificates of occupancy shall not be required for single- family or two-family dwellings, except as specifically listed below: (1) Certificates of Occupancy are required for single and two family dwellings within the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict. (2) Certificates of Occupancy are required for inclusionary single and two-family dwellings within the City Center FBC District. (3) Certificates of Occupancy are required for dwelling units constructed in accordance with Section 18.03(C)(1) of these Regulations. (4) Certificates of Occupancy are required for replacement dwelling units built in accordance with Section 18.03 of these Regulations. (5) Certificates of Occupancy are required for inclusionary dwelling units constructed in accordance with Section 18.01 C. of these Regulations and the last 10% of market rate units included within a development covered by Section 18.01 B.(1). (6) Certificates of Occupancy are required for inclusionary dwelling units constructed in accordance with Section 18.01 F.(1)(b), Off-Site Construction. South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee draft city-wide Inclusionary Zoning Land Development Regulations (includes modifications to Articles 18, 2, 15, and 17) July 31, 2018 Page 24