HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 07/10/2018Approved on July 24, 2018
NOTE: Date/time/place of next meeting: July 24, 2018, 10:00 a.m., place TBD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE
July 10, 2018, 10:00 AM, City Hall, 2nd Floor Champlain Room
Members attending: Tom Bailey, Leslie Black-Plumeau, Sandy Dooley, Todd Rawlings, Michael
Simoneau, and John Simson (Chair); Member absent: Larry Michaels
Others present: Monica Ostby, PC liaison
Minutes by Sandy Dooley
AGENDA
1. Call to order, emergency procedure, agenda review, comments from guests
2. Review and approval of June 26, 2018, minutes
3. Chair’s remarks – AHC report to Planning Commission 7/10/18
4. Continue to work on draft Citywide IZ focusing on:
Sandy Dooley’s memo and latest draft (emailed 7/3)
Todd and Leslie’s work on SB Census tract income and impact on in lieu payment regs
5. New business
6. Adjourn
1. Call to order, emergency procedure, agenda review, comments from guests: John called the
meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. and summarized emergency evacuation instructions. There were no
comments from the public.
2. Review and approval of June 26, 2018, minutes: Tom moved and Mike seconded motion that June
26, 2018, minutes be approved as distributed. Motion passed, vote: 6-0-0.
As part of discussion of minutes, Tom brought up subject of work listed under “bike rack.” John
indicated we would address these tasks once we have forwarded the draft Citywide IZ regs to the
Planning Commission.
Tom also noted that the minutes indicated that, by July 6th, there would be a decision on SoBu’s
application for VCDP funds for Garden Apartments in City Center and asked if anyone knew about the
decision. No one did. Sandy volunteered to find out decision and share with committee members.
Note: Committee members continue to recognize that much work is needed to help residents and the
general public understand what we mean by “affordable housing.”
3. Chair’s remarks - AHC report to Planning Commission 7/10/18: John shared that Paul Conner,
Director of Planning and Zoning, had asked Sandy and him to attend that evening’s Planning
Commission meeting and provide the Commission with a written progress report. He then distributed
copies of the draft report he had prepared and asked for comments, suggestions for modifications,
etc.
Following extended discussion and agreement to modify the draft report in a few places, Tom moved
and Sandy seconded that the report, as modified by the members present, be delivered to and
discussed with the Planning Commission at that evening’s meeting. It was agreed that once the
Progress Report had been given to the Planning Commission, Mike would ask Coralee to add the
report to the Committee’s page on the City’s website.
A copy of the “final” Progress Report is included with these minutes.
4. Continue to work on draft Citywide IZ focusing on:
(a) Sandy Dooley’s memo and latest draft (emailed 7/3)
(b) Todd and Leslie’s work on SB Census tract income and impact on in lieu payment regs
(a) Sandy Dooley’s memo and latest draft (emailed 7/3): Sandy polled the members present
plus Monica to identify any areas of the latest draft that they wanted to discuss. The members
discussed a number of topics briefly and focused in some detail on the draft policy on including lots
sold as part of a 12+ lot subdivision under Inclusionary Zoning. Members agreed informally to modify
18.01 D.(2)(d) so that the City will have the right of first refusal on each Affordable Lot with the
authority to sell or contribute the lot to a non-profit housing development organization. Todd will assist
Sandy with the precise wording of the change. This review of the draft included the changes included
in Sandy’s 7/9/2018 (8:23 p.m.) email, which were:
(1) Addition of Todd’s “Context” (formerly Preamble) paragraph (first paragraph of 18.01 E.(1)(g)
(2) Todd’s and Sandy’s minor edits to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of the draft policy in 18.01 E.(1)
(g)
(3) Addition of a sentence to 18.01 G.(2) making clear that density bonuses are available only when
the developer constructs inclusionary dwelling units; bonuses are not available when the developer
uses “Dedication” or “Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund” as alternative to constructing
inclusionary dwelling units.
By consensus, members present agreed that with the modification to 18.01 D.(2)(d) described above,
the committee has completed its work on these draft regulations. Tom agreed to begin drafting a
summary of the draft IZ regulations.
Members will, at a future meeting, discuss whether to delve into the interrelationship in the SEQ of
density bonuses and TDRs (Transfer of Development Rights). Members seem likely to ask the
Planning Commission or staff to take up this task.
(b) Todd and Leslie’s work on SB Census tract income and impact on in lieu payment regs:
Todd and Leslie distributed the products they developed (tables and a map) relative to individual
income levels in SoBu’s 10 Census tracts. Note: Tract 9800 includes the airport and land surrounding
the airport. Only 75 people live in this Census tract.
The data show that three tracts have fewer than 50% of the individuals whose income is either Low
Income (<50% AMI), Moderate Income (>50% AMI and <80% AMI), or Median Income (>80% AMI
and <100% AMI). They are a tract that is somewhat comparable to the SEQ (28.7% <100% AMI); a
tract that runs north to south west of I-89, north of Swift Street, west of Dorset Street, and east of the
East Woods neighborhood, plus southward to Brewer Parkway (42.8% <100% AMI); and the area
west of Spear Street, east of Shelburne Road, south of Swift Street, and north of the City boundary
(with minor deviation) (48.8% <100% AMI). Leslie also noted that the Median Income in the SEQ tract
is $130,000 per year while the Median Income for the rest of the SoBu Census tracts is $60,000 per
year.
Members had a lively discussion of this large income disparity between most households in the SEQ
and most households in the rest of the City. Much of the discussion focused on whether to
recommend regulations that would exclude development in the SEQ from being able to use the
Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund as an alternative to building Inclusionary Housing. Members
agreed it is a BIG question. They agreed to John raising this subject at the evening’s Planning
Commission meeting without a recommendation. Members may explore this question further in the
future.
5. New business: Leslie and Mike agreed to develop communication strategies designed to educate
about and gain support for need for more affordable housing in SoBu. Todd shared with group that
the BTV working group on IZ has issued its final report and it will be presented to the BTV City Council
on Monday evening, July 16th.
7. Adjourn: Tom moved and Todd seconded motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed (6-0-0)
and meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
“Bike rack”
● Tom will prepare a “Summary” of the proposed changes (from May 29, 2018, meeting minutes)
● 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.
Affordable Housing Commi ee Progress Report
July 10, 2018
This brief will report on progress to date preparing amendments to the South Burlington Land Development
Regula ons extending inclusionary housing requirements to zoning districts beyond City Center and revising
the current density bonus provisions.
The strategy of the Commi ee is to help provide an environment in the City where the private sector builds
developments that include units that are priced to enable households who hold jobs in retail, service and the
public sector to live affordably in the City. By combining a modest requirement for including such units in larger
(>12 units) developments with density, parking and other incen ves, we hope to s mulate new affordable
housing to meet the specific housing goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Thus far, The Commi ee has agreed to recommend amendments that will:
· Require all developments of 12 or more units to include for rental units, 10% that are priced to enable
households with incomes of 80% of median or less, and 5% at 100% of median or less. For
Burlington/South Burlington that would translate into gross monthly rent for a one bedroom apartment of
$1,400 and $1,700 respectively. For ownership, 5% would be offered at 100% of median and 10% at
120%. (sales price for a 3 bedroom house of $319,000 and $385,000 respectively) Maximum allowable
costs are calculated based on the number of bedrooms in the unit in combination with a HUD formula
that specifies occupant numbers per bedroom.
· The Committee is in agreement to include the above requirement for all zoning districts that permit
residential development except City Center, which has its own regulations.
· The Committee has agreed that all inclusionary units will be perpetually affordable by a deed restriction,
covenant or through purchase or contractual agreement with a government or nonprofit housing agency.
· The Committee agrees that developers may be granted an alternative to inclusionary housing
requirements via an in lieu payment to the Housing Trust Fund of $60,000 per unit or construction of the
required affordable units on another site within the City. There may be other options offered that are still
under discussion.
· The Committee agrees that required parking for inclusionary units shall be no greater than one per unit.
Revision of the Current Density Bonus Provisions
The Commi ee found that the current density bonus regula ons could not be made compa ble with the
design for inclusionary housing we wish to pursue. Furthermore, we have heard from developers and our
peers elsewhere that increased density is the most effec ve incen ve to encourage them to actually build
in communi es with inclusionary housing regula ons. We will therefore recommend enabling a density
bonus to all developments of 12 or more units in the City as all will be required to contain inclusionary
units. The basic bonus will permit one addi onal market priced unit for each required affordable unit. For
example, a 20 unit subdivision would require 3 inclusionary units. The developer could build a total of 23
units with 20 at market and 3 inclusionary.
We are discussing adding bonus units for developments that voluntarily build more than the required
number of inclusionary units and for developments that include more than the minimum required rental
units at 80% of median and at 100% for ownership units.
We are also discussing a density bonus for developments of under 12 units that voluntarily include
inclusionary units.
Finally, there has been some discussion of differing rules and standards for low density districts. We are
favoring inclusion as our goal for the en re City. However, too high density for the character of rural areas
and lack of transit may be raised as objec ons. We think the monthly housing costs and development
design our defini on of inclusionary housing allow will not preclude automobile ownership and will not
create any shi in neighborhood character.
In addi on, in the context of income inclusivity, should we be concerned that there is a substan al variance
of median household income between the Southeast Quadrant Census tract and all other tracts in the City?
Should we be concerned that the in lieu payment op on may be used primarily in the SEQ and, as a result,
undermine our goal of inclusion? Also, we have not addressed the integra on of the density bonus
provisions and TDRs. We would very much appreciate your thoughts on these ma ers and would like to
schedule further discussion.