HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-28-HPB.min
DRAFT
Affordable Housing Partnership
Meeting Minutes for April 28, 2004
Attendees:
Jacque Davison Ed Grant Bob Bicknell Winifred McGowan
Paul Sodano Pat Nelson Gerri Fouter Florence Baturin
Mary Haskell Martha Wood Inky MacDougall Sherry Gordon
Dan Smith Bob Bicknell David Williams Tom Hardin
Bill Kennedy Arthur Katz Harriet Cohen Donald Graham
David Williams Iris Wheaton Karl Kasdorf Robert Cohen
Ken Kreutziger
Bob Bicknell chaired the meeting; Harriet Cohen took the minutes.
The meeting was called to order at 6:08 pm.
1. Follow up meeting with Community Builders
There was a follow up meeting to the discussion of the Franklin School apartments which occurred at the
?????
last meeting. Attendees were Bob Bicknell, Dawn McKenna, Bill Kennedy, Adam Shyevitch, and .
No tenants were present. There was some critical comment about Community Builders and the way they
have run the property. Community Builders are going to provide some options to the town for moving
forward.
2. Hear Reports from Sub-committees.
Zoning By-Law Changes
(Mary Haskell). Discussed Mr. Herr’s proposal for inclusionary
zoning. He proposed an inclusionary requirement that says that any development of 3 or more
units would have to provide assurances of affordability or related community benefit. He is
proposing an affordability equivalent unit, such that in smaller developments (3 to 5 units) that
one of the units would sell for slightly less than they would otherwise, in order to make up for the
fact that an affordable unit was not being provided. See Attachment 1 for Mr. Herr’s proposal.
The next meeting is Thursday, May 20 at 1 pm at Pat Nelson’s conference room. The main item
on the agenda is to discuss adaptive re-use overlay districts.
HOME Consortium
(Bob Bicknell for David Burns): there was a meeting with a representative
of the HOME Consortium, who agreed to provide some information as to the types of projects
that would qualify for HOME funding support. See Attachment 2 for a memo from David
describing the meeting.
Housing Trust
(Florence Baturin): Pat Nelson has been working on the 501 (3) (c) incorporation.
She has recruited a colleague to assist her with the work.
Land Use
(Iris Wheaton) Iris has been reviewing the available information. She is asking for
some direction for the committee. The committee provided some ideas and Iris will go back to the
drawing board.
Met State / Rangeway
(Ken Kreutziger): Ken asked for volunteers to make calls to Town
Meeting members to ask the meeting members several questions, first, whether the meeting
member needs more information about the Avalon proposal for Met State. Talking points are
included with the packet Ken is handing out and the question may be answered in that
information. If the questions can’t be answered from that information, note that on the
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 1
DRAFT
questionnaire. The next question is, are you in support. If yes, say thank you and end the
conversation. If maybe or no, ask what it would take in order to get their vote. Capture their
comments and thank them for their time. The Task Force will then follow up with the Town
Meeting members to try to answer their questions or objections.
Some volunteers to make the calls were found, but Ken still needs some volunteers. Please let
him know asap if you can help.
3. Review plans for Partnership presentation to Town Meeting re the Met State Proposal (Bob
Bicknell)
Bob has put together a presentation that he is proposing to give at Town Meeting in support of
Articles 12 and 13 (related to Met State). The presentation focuses on the affordable housing
aspects of the Met State development. He suggests pointing out:
•
That 1/3 of renters in town pay 30% or more of their income towards rent;
•
Progress in affordable housing units since 1991 has been very slow; and
•
The proposed development provides much needed development.
There are several supplemental charts that help make these points.
Bob asked for the Partnership’s approval to present the material he has proposed. The motion was
made and seconded that Bob present the proposed material at the Town Meeting discussion of
Articles 12 and 13. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote.
Ken Kreutziger suggested that he make an additional presentation on behalf of the Partnership,
but the Partnership concluded that a single presentation would serve the purpose better. There
was a motion that the presentation that Ken proposed be edited for inclusion in the Lexington
Minuteman. The motion passed unanimously and Arthur Katz agreed to do that work.
4. Next Meeting Plans and Adjourn
The next meeting will be on May 25.
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 2
DRAFT
Appendix 1:
LEXINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROGRAM
Lexington Planning Board 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA 02420, (781) 862-0500 x 245, FAX (781) 861-2748
Philip B. Herr & Associates 447 Centre Street, Newton Corner, MA 02458, (617) 969-1805, FAX (617) 332-9499
A BROAD INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT
April 14, 2004
New housing completely made up of market rate units exacerbates Lexington’s concern about housing
costs, if for no other reason than raising the total number of housing units in the Town without
commensurate increase in the number of units affordable to any but the wealthy. The intent of an
inclusionary requirement is to assure that all new housing developments above some threshold size will
reflect in their own units the diversity of affordability levels sought for the Town as a whole, with the
intent that developments of such size would no longer deepen the Town’s housing concerns.
TPA.
HE OSSIBLE PPROACH
Under existing Lexington zoning, all residential developments of three or more dwelling units are allowed
only on special permit. The Massachusetts Zoning Act allows the requirement of housing affordability as
a condition of special permits (Section 9, Chapter 40A). On that basis, the approach might be to require
that all residential developments above three dwelling units must provide for inclusion of some share of
affordable units, perhaps fifteen percent. In return, proportionate relief from the existing impact-based
density rules would allowed as an offset for the cost of broadening housing affordability.
LI
IKELY MPACTS
The number of housing units authorized on special permits has recently averaged about 15 per year, likely
to jump greatly when development at Metropolitan State Hospital occurs. At the rate of 15 units per year
and a 10% affordability requirement only about 15 affordable units per decade would be created. If the
requirement were to be 15% to reflect a higher affordability intention of the Town the measure still would
produce fewer than 25 units in all except those years when an unusually large development occurs, such
as Met State. If development on Met State land was not obliged by State mandate to include affordable
units the Town itself would currently have no explicit means of obliging affordability, relying instead on
officials choosing to negotiate for it. If that produced no affordability, the absence of a rule such as this
one would have meant great damage to achieving the housing balance that the Town seeks.
DP
RAFT ROVISIONS
Following is a draft of provisions for inclusion of units meeting Lexington’s definition of units that serve
its needs, mostly but not exclusively units that would “count” as “affordable” under Chapter 40B. The
draft uses a 15% inclusion rate to reflect that some of the “included” units would not meet usual State
definitions of affordability.
D
EPARTURES FROM THE INITIAL VERSION
This second version of this possible amendment does two related things that differ from the initial
version. First, this draft extends the applicability of the inclusionary requirement down to all
developments of three or more housing units authorized under a special permit. Second, it introduces the
concept of inclusionary equivalents, which are units affordable only at levels above the 80% of area
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 3
DRAFT
median income. A unit affordable only at some higher income level would be “counted” for these
purposes as the equivalent of something less than a full dwelling unit, illustrated here at the extreme by a
unit affordable at 180% of area median income “counting” as the equivalent of one-half a “Benefit Unit.”
Making those two modifications addresses a number of concerns.
1. It extends the price range of housing being addressed. It includes units whose prices are well
above “subsidy” levels but still below market levels.
2. It provides a means by which developments as small as three units can reasonably meet the
inclusion requirement through actual inclusion, rather than a cash equivalent.
3. It reduces the sharp thresholds otherwise encountered at, say, crossing from five to six dwelling
units in a development.
This version also raises several new concerns.
A. For such small developments, going through the full procedures ordinarily associated with units
having regulated affordability imposes a substantial burden, including complex application
requirements, lottery or other arrangements for selecting occupants, resale restrictions, and
response to periodic monitoring of price or income compliance.
B. For the Town, there also are very substantial costs if long-term compliance with the intent of the
provisions is to be assured over time. Doing that for a handful of large developments is relatively
easy, but if such effort were also needed for each of a large number of developments containing
one or two below market units there would be a procedural cost that could be seriously
burdensome.
C. For occupants, resale and occupancy restrictions, if imposed, would be an enduring reminder that
their housing is not subject to normal market outcomes upon resale, but rather their return and the
universe of eligible purchasers are subject to complex rules.
In an effort to mitigate those concerns, this draft contains an option that relies upon “inherent
affordability” for cases whose “affordability” is gained through only one or two “middle-income” units.
If acceptable pre-development appraisals document that the proposed middle income units would, without
restriction, sell in the marketplace below the stipulated initial price limitation, then reliance for
affordability over time would be placed in those inherent qualities, avoiding invasive and burdensome
procedures (beyond restrictions on subsequent expansion or alteration).
The worksheet “Hypothetical options on a small parcel” illustrates how such provisions might work in the
“hardest case:” a parcel large enough for only three units in a “conventional” development. It assumes a
100,000 square foot parcel in the RO district, which requires lots no smaller than 30,000 square feet. For
either “cluster” or “special residential development,” the limits on total floor area and site coverage are
based upon per unit standards multiplied by the number of units possible in a “conventional” development
(3.33 in this case). With the standards illustrated in the Bylaw, that means development would be limited
to 24,000 square feet gross floor area, 15,667 square feet living area, and 9,667 square feet of site
coverage. That would allow development of three 8,000 square foot housing units, whether conventional,
cluster, or special. Those limits would increase in direct reflection of an affordability benefit.
Under this inclusionary proposal, the development would have an initial “affordability benefit”
requirement of 15% times 3 units, or 0.45 Benefit Units. That obligation could be met by providing
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 4
DRAFT
assurance that the price of one of the three units would be affordable at 180% of area median, or about
$510,000 (the “3 units” column in the “Hypothetical” worksheet). Alternatively, four units might instead
be developed (the “4 units” column), requiring 15% times 4 units or 0.6 Benefit Units. To meet that the
“affordable” unit would have to be below the 160% of area median affordability price ($450,000). Since
the allowable floor area limits reflect the Benefit Unit contribution, the three unrestricted units would be
allowed to total even more floor area than in the initial “conventional” analysis. The results:
Without inclusion: three 8,000 square foot expensive homes.
With the draft, maybe one 3,500 square foot unit likely by its nature to remain middle-income
plus two 11,800 square foot very expensive ones if the market supports that; or
One 3,000 square foot unit and three 8,300 square foot units.
As another illustration, in the later table “Project Compliance Options” three possible outcomes are
shown for a parcel allowing 20 units after reflecting the affordability benefit. The choices shown are
these:
Three units affordable at 80% of area median and 17 others;
Three units at 120% of area median and one unit at 160% of area median and 16 others.
One unit at 160% of area median and six units at 180% of area median and 13 others.
On the following pages are spreadsheet analyses and illustrations showing how this approach might look.
If the direction appears worth further pursuit, it will be important to perform a real analysis of the
“equivalents” to be established, since they need to both be fair and to produce the results that the Town
seeks. For example, as illustrated, it seems likely that a large share of the units to be “included” would be
below-market but above 80% of AMI: is that what the Town really wants?
Discussion of an earlier un-circulated draft of this memo with the Planning Department staff underscored
several things.
The need for Town staff resources for managing the processes of application, occupant selection,
and monitoring is a serious consideration. The Planning Department is stretched thin as it is.
Implementation of such requirements as these would oblige finding some means of supporting
those administrative costs.
There are important options to be weighed in light of concerns over gaining political approval for
this approach and for having assured administrative capacity, including modifications such as:
(a) Limiting applicability to developments exceeding a higher threshold than three units.
(b) Limiting the option of crediting units priced higher than 80% of area median income to
projects below some size, to assure that this measure really does serve that portion of the
income range.
(c) Extending the concept to award more than 1.0 Benefit Units per actual unit priced even
lower than 80% of area median income, such as below the 50% of area median that is
common in HUD programs, or even below the 30% of area median that is HUD’s
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 5
DRAFT
definition of “very low income.” Should two Benefit Units be earned by providing
housing that reaches such levels?
(d) Limiting the applicability of Section 135-46.I(4) Alternative Provisions, which allows
off-site location of Benefit Units in some circumstances, but in so doing may facilitate
departing from a policy intent of mixed incomes within developments as well as broadly
across the Town.
(e) Possibly modifying the upper limit for a density offset in return for affordability (§ 135-
46.I(5)), such as lowering it for consistency with the present limit on Developments with
Significant Public Benefit or raising it to benefit non-profits developing housing largely
or entirely made up of affordable units.
(f) Critically exploring the consequences of reliance on “inherent affordability” ((§ 135-
46.I(5)) to gain confidence that it really would be a simplification.
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 6
DRAFT
HYPOTHETICAL OPTIONS ON A SMALL PARCEL
Alternative scenarios
Per unitCurrentInclusionary options
StandardConventional3 units4 units
BASIS FOR DESIGN
Actual parcel area (sq. ft.)100,000100,000100,000
Minimum lot area/unit (sq. ft.)30,00030,00030,000
Permitted dwelling units
Conventional plan maximum3.333.333.33
"Benefit unit" creditsn/a0.500.60
Total units used for impact calcs3.333.833.93
IMPACT LIMITS (square feet)
Total gross floor area7,20024,00027,60028,320
Total living area4,70015,66718,01718,487
Site coverage2,9009,66711,11711,407
HYPOTHETICAL UNIT MIX (sq. ft.)
Gross floor area
Unit #1 8,0004,0003,500
Initial appraised valueN/A$510,000$450,000
Unit #28,00011,8008,273
Unit #38,00011,8008,273
Unit #4--8,273
Total24,00027,60028,319
Meets Bylaw?YesYesYes
Living area
Unit #15,2223,5003,000
Unit #25,2227,2585,162
Unit #35,2227,2585,162
Unit #4--5,162
Total15,66618,01618,486
Meets Bylaw?YesYesYes
Site coverage
Unit #13,2222,4002,000
Unit #23,2224,3583,135
Unit #33,2224,3583,135
Unit #4--3,135
Total9,66611,11611,405
Meets Bylaw?YesYesYes
Figures in bold italics are for the below-market unit.
Lex House\Impacts
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 7
DRAFT
INCLUSIONARY PRICING ANALYSIS
(Four-person households)
April 12, 2004
INCOME & MARKET DATA
Federal fiscal year200420042004200420042004
Area median income (AMI)$82,600$82,600$82,600$82,600$82,600$82,600
Threshold percentage of AMI80%100%120%140%160%180%
Maximum eligible income$66,080$82,600$99,120$115,640$132,160$148,680
Lexington median market price
Single-family$572,500$572,500$572,500$572,500$572,500$572,500
Condominium$401,500$401,500$401,500$401,500$401,500$401,500
RENTAL ANALYSIS
Rent maximum % of income30%30%30%30%30%30%
Maximum annual rent$19,824$24,780$29,736$34,692$39,648$44,604
Maximum monthly rent$1,652$2,065$2,478$2,891$3,304$3,717
SALES ANALYSIS
Interest rate:6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%
Loan term (years):303030303030
Down payment:5.00%5.00%5.00%5.00%5.00%5.00%
Real estate taxes:1.05%1.05%1.05%1.05%1.05%1.05%
Insurance:0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%
Monthly condo fee:0.15%0.15%0.15%0.15%0.15%0.15%
Limit on basic costs (prin, int, taxes, insur, condo fee)
Percentage30%30%30%30%30%30%
Amount$19,824$24,780$29,736$34,692$39,648$44,604
Maximum dwelling price
Single-family$227,900$284,900$341,800$398,800$455,800$512,800
Condominium$188,800$236,000$283,200$330,400$377,600$424,900
% of market median
Single-family40%50%60%70%80%90%
Condominium47%59%71%82%94%106%
Lex House\INCLUDE!Analysis.xls
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 8
DRAFT
INCLUSIONARY INCOME LEVEL COMPARISONS
Federal fiscal year2004
Area median income (AMI)$82,600
Threshold percentage of AMI80%100%120%140%160%180%
Maximum eligible income$66,080$82,600$99,120$115,640$132,160$148,680
Maximum monthly rent$1,652$2,065$2,478$2,891$3,304$3,717
Maximum dwelling price
Single-family$227,900$284,900$341,800$398,800$455,800$512,800
Condominium$188,800$236,000$283,200$330,400$377,600$424,900
Benefit unit equivalents1.000.900.800.700.600.50
PROJECT COMPLIANCE OPTIONS15%INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT
Proposed benefit units by % of area median incomeTotal inclusionary units
Project units80%100%120%140%160%180%RequiredProvidedComplies?
310.450.50Yes
410.600.60Yes
510.750.80Yes
610.900.90Yes
7111.051.10Yes
821.201.20Yes
921.351.40Yes
10111.501.50Yes
2033.003.00Yes
20313.003.00Yes
2063.003.00Yes
Lex House\INCLUDE!Equals.xls
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 9
DRAFT
INCLUSIONARY ZONING ARTICLE
Insert a new Section 135-46.I to read as follows.
"I Inclusion of units that provide significant housing benefit.
"(1) General objective. This section is intended to assure that residential developments that are
authorized through special permits for three or more dwelling units will include or otherwise
support at least a share of housing units that address the affordability or other identified housing
needs of the Town.
"(2) Applicability. Any residential development that through a special permit is authorized for three
or more housing units must assure that at least 15% of the units in the development are “Benefit
Units,” being dwelling units that will provide significant public benefit as itemized at § 135-
49.D(1)(b)[7 through 9], as further provided below at § 135-46.I(7).
"(3) Design and phasing. Benefit Units provided on site must be dispersed throughout the
development and must be sited in no less desirable locations than the other units and have
exteriors that are comparable in design and materials to the exteriors of other units in the
development, and satisfy the following conditions.
"(a) The bedroom mix of Benefit Units shall be equal to the bedroom mix of the other units in
the development, unless the site approval agency indicates that to be inappropriate owing
to occupancy requirements;
"(b) The materials used and the quality of construction for Benefit Units, including heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems, shall be equal to that of the other units in the
development; provided that amenities such as so-called designer or high end appliances
and fixtures need not be provided for Benefit Units.
"(4) Alternative provisions. Where considerations that are particular to the site or to the specific
benefit proposed for the Benefit Units make on-site inclusion of those units inappropriate, as
determined by the SPGA, those units may alternatively be located elsewhere within the Town,
provided that the SPGA makes a finding that the housing benefit for the Town of Lexington is
at least equal to that which would otherwise accrue.
"(5) Density Offset. The intention of these provisions is that the maximum development allowed
shall be increased above that otherwise allowed by a number equal to the number of on-site
Benefit Units, up to a limit of a one-third increase. To accomplish that, prior to proceeding to
the remaining steps the maximum development initially calculated in step one of § 135-48.D(3)
shall be increased by the number of Benefit Units proposed, up to a one-third increase. It is
anticipated that other dimensional requirements will be waived under § 135-48.F (1) to the
degree reasonably necessary to implement the intention of a density increase for Inclusionary
Units.
"(6) Affordability and Benefit Units. Each housing unit proposed as beneficial under § 135-
49(b)[7], if providing long-term assurance of being affordable to households having incomes
below 80% of the area median income (AMI) as annually determined by the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development, shall be considered as 1.0 Benefit Units. Units whose long
term affordability assurance is at higher income levels than that shall be considered to be
fractional Benefit Units, as follows.
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 10
DRAFT
% of area median income Benefit Units
80% 1.0
100% 0.9
120% 0.8
140% 0.7
160% 0.6
180% 0.5
Calculation of compliance with the inclusionary requirement of § 135-46.I(2) and of increases
in “maximum development” pursuant to § 135-46.I (6) Density Offset immediately above. For
both determinations, the number of Benefit Units shall not be rounded.
"(7) Assurance of inherent affordability. The following shall apply only for developments involving
not more than two Inclusionary Dwelling Units, each of which is proposed for a sales price
limitation at not less than 70% of the median sales price of dwellings of that type (single family
or condominium) in Lexington as determined for the prior year by the Lexington Planning
Director. Long term affordability shall be considered to be adequately assured by open market
conditions through the following:
"(a) Two appraisals submitted by the applicant documenting that under current Lexington
market conditions the likely market price of the units as proposed would not exceed the
price limit upon which the Benefit Unit determinations are proposed to be made.
"(b) A condition placed in the authorizing special permit constraining any future alterations or
expansions to ones that will demonstrably not result in the intended relationship to
Lexington housing price medians being exceeded.
"(8) Assurance of affordability through restrictions. Applicants not providing assurance of
affordability via § 135-46.I(7) shall submit to the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) for
the use involved a use restriction or regulatory agreement for the designated Benefit Units. That
agreement shall establish a restriction on affordability and/or occupancy for the maximum
period allowed by law. In such cases, together with the special permit application the applicant
shall provide the following.
"(a) A site approval letter from a site approval agency: either the subsidizing agency, or another
agency authorized by DHCD under Housing Appeals Committee regulations (CMR
31.01(2)), or the agency identified in § 135-49.D(1)(b)[7 through 9]; and
"(b) A complete draft regulatory agreement among the site approval agency, the developer, and
the Selectmen.”
Lex House\Include-U
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 11
DRAFT
Appendix 2
Memo from David Burns re the HOME Consortium
Report of David Burns
To Lexington Housing Partnership
April 28, 2004
On April 16, 2004 there was a meeting of myself, Bob Bicknell, Maryanne McCall Taylor and Paula
Herrington, a Real Estate development & Non profit management consultant who was provided to us
through the Metro West Housing Consortium. Many items and ideas were discussed including;
Forming a CHODO (Community Housing Development organization),
Rental assistance was discussed and it was determined that we couldn't direct rental assistance, it would
have to be done through a capital grant buy down
We must determine who and what we are going after regarding our target market, elderly rental, family
rental, home ownership etc.
I have requested from Steve Gartrell, Coordinator of The consortium a list of ongoing projects that fellow
members are doing in there community. He in turn has given me the names and emails of each town's
representative and I am in the process of doing that.
Upon receipt of that information I will forward it on to the partnership.
Respectfully submitted;
David E. Burns
Inclusionary Zoning (U) Page 12