Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 04/17/2018APPROVED on May 1, 2018 NOTE: Date/time/place of next meeting: May 1, 2018, 10:00 a.m., place to be determined AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE April 17, 2018, 10:00 AM, City Hall 2nd Floor Champlain Room Members attending: Leslie Black-Plumeau (arrived at 10:06), Sandy Dooley, Todd Rawlings, Michael Simoneau, and John Simson (Chair); Members absent: Tom Bailey, Larry Michaels, PC liaison absent: Monica Ostby Others attending: Nick Andrews, resident of South Village Minutes by Sandy Dooley AGENDA 1. Call to Order, Emergency exit, agenda review, public comments 2. Review April 10, 2018, minutes for adoption 3. Discuss revisions to draft IZ and bonus regulations 4. Other business 5. Adjourn 1. Emergency exit, agenda review, public comments: John called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and summarized emergency evacuation instructions. There were no comments from the public. 2. Review April 10, 2018, minutes for adoption: Mike moved and Todd seconded that the draft April 10, 2018, meeting minutes be approved with corrections to date (from 3 to 10) and time (from 9:00 to 10:00) under meeting heading on page 1. Vote was 4-0-0. 3. Discuss revisions to draft IZ and bonus regulations: John raised the subject of Sandy’s email correspondence with Paul Connor in which he clarified the limitations, under current regulations, on when the DRB may authorize density bonuses and the maximum densities that may be authorized, including density bonuses for affordable or mixed housing developments. Also included in this correspondence was the clarification that the DRB may not, under current regulations, waive the limits on the number of dwelling units that a multi-family structure may contain that apply in several residential zoning districts. Committee members indicated that they were familiar with this correspondence and acknowledged that these clarifications add considerations to address in decision- making relative to proposing (or not proposing) regulation changes on the subject of density bonuses. John then asked if members were ready to endorse the draft IZ regulations we have worked on to date (does not include the draft language regarding applying IZ to subdivisions and density bonuses). Mike inquired as to whether subsection 18.01A.(6) should be modified to insert the word “perpetually” between “remain” and “affordable.” Committee members were positive on making this modification. Todd raised the practical issue that as the draft is now written, developers, in meeting their requirement for the 80% of AMI units, are likely to set the price at that which is the maximum allowable for an 80% of AMI housing unit. The result is that this unit will not meet the affordable definition for any houseful whose income is not precisely 80% of the AMI for its household size. Members concurred that this is a problem with draft and also discussed that this is not the way programs offering affordable housing to low-income households operate; i.e. a precise match between housing price and household income is not required. Leslie volunteered to review the language in this section and propose new language that eliminates this problem. Todd also pointed out that SoBu’s IZ regulations target households having higher incomes than Burlington’s IZ regulations. SoBu’s regulations require units to be affordable at or below 120%, 100%, and 80% of AMI while Burlington’s regulations require rental units to be affordable at or below 65% AMI and owner units to be affordable at or below 75% of AMI. Todd’s believes the lower income levels Burlington requires function as an incentive for developers to partner with affordable housing nonprofits in order to meet the Burlington IZ requirements. His view is that SoBu’s IZ rules are targeted more to requiring the inclusion of work force housing than housing for low-income households. Committee members familiar with the work of the initial affordable housing task force shared that the approach taken was to require developers to provide housing affordable to those whose incomes are at or near the median so that they could do this without needing special financing and to use other methods (e.g. Housing Trust Fund and penny on property tax for housing) of supporting nonprofits in the development of housing for lower-income households. Leslie encouraged Todd to propose additions to what has been drafted that would be incentives to “Public/Private Partnerships” between for-profit developers and nonprofit affordable housing entities. John then shared his reluctance to go forward at this time with the IZ regulations we have been working on. Sandy asked John to articulate the basis for his hesitancy. John indicated that the recent clarifications from Paul led to a fuller understanding of the scope and complexity of the changes we are proposing and his thinking was to move toward focusing on the PUD work and set aside the draft City-wide IZ regulations at this point. Members expressed a range of reasons for not wanting to set aside the draft regulations, including that there would be developments built during the “delay” that would not have affordable housing and that the Planning Commission and City Council are supportive of the Committee’s work. Members dissuaded John from his “delay” proposal. The committee then focused on what income levels to target the inclusionary requirements in the draft. The decision (by consensus) was to target homeownership units to 100% and 120% of AMI, with 5% required at 100% AMI and 10% required at 120% AMI. The decision (by consensus) was to target rental units to 80% and 100% of AMI, with 10% required at 80% AMI and 5% required at 100% AMI. The committee did not reach a decision on whether to apply these new household income targets to the current IZ requirements that apply in the City Center Form-Based Codes district. The committee reviewed the new draft regulations for making subdivisions (i.e. subdividing a parcel into building lots and selling the lots individually without building houses on them) subject to IZ. The committee endorsed the draft and, at the same time, asked Sandy to: (1) add a provision that requires the inclusion of a covenant in the lot’s deed that requires the lot and any house built on it to remain perpetually affordable, and (2) do some research about where to set the “affordable” lot purchase price in relation to the market price for the lot. Members agreed to propose that lots smaller than five acres be able to seek DRB review under the PUD process. Without this change, a development like Kirby Cottages cannot be built. Members also agreed to share the draft IZ regulations with developers before sending it to the Planning Commission. Developers mentioned were Snyder/Braverman, Doucevicz, Larkin, O’Brien, and VonTurkovich. John asked Sandy and Leslie to work together and provide a “final” draft for the committee no later than May 29, 2018. 4. Other business: Mike informed the committee that, at the April 16th City Council meeting, the Recreation and Parks Committee requested/proposed the placement on a future City ballot of a proposal to add a penny to the property tax to support work on City recreation paths and parks. The committee supported its request with a well-prepared presentation. The City Council was receptive. This ballot item could come as soon as the August primary election. Committee members present are of the view that additional financial resources for affordable housing is a greater priority than additional financial resources for recreation paths and parks. There is concern that with the existing penny for open space, plus a possible penny for recreation and parks, the prospects of having a positive City vote on a penny for affordable housing are reduced. Undeterred, the committee agreed to do outreach to City Councilor about the importance of/need for adding a penny to the property tax for affordable housing. John will follow up with Helen Riehle and Tom Chittenden, Mike will follow up with Tim Barritt, and Todd will follow up with Meaghan. When the Interim Councilor is appointed, the committee will decide who will contact this person. Regarding our meeting with Sharon Murray (consultant) and Cathyann LaRose (City Planner) on May 1st, members expressed the need to see the boundaries for the proposed PUD overlay districts so that they can determine whether some of them would work to use for the “Special Urban Districts” the AH Committee plans to propose (with enhanced incentives/regulations geared toward Affordable Housing). Committee members stated a need for a better understanding of the PUD project and what has been drafted to date in order to coordinate/collaborate effectively in proposing mutually complementary products. 5. Adjourn: Mike moved and Leslie seconded motion that the meeting be adjourned. Committee approved motion unanimously (5-0-0) at 12:00 p.m. “Bike rack” ● work on Committee’s page on the City’s website ● (Quoted from January 23, 2018, meeting minutes) “John asked Mike to prepare a work plan for the committee to collaborate with Coralee to enhance its effectiveness in communicating with residents via the City’s website and via other means. The plan should include specific assignments to be carried out by identified committee members. Mike accepted this assignment.” Homework (not yet reported on): ● Mike will consult with an accountant regarding what incentives the City might put in place to encourage owners of undeveloped property to sell land at a “bargain price” to private developers. ● Mike will seek Yves Bradley’s input regarding development of more housing along Shelburne Road corridor.