The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAffordable Housing Policies & Programs 1980-1992 A STATISTICAL PROFILE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN: 1990 and A DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF 80UTHOLD TOWN'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 1980 - 1992 Reports of the Southold Town Planning and Zoning Committee to the Southold Town Board Octobe~ 1993 ACKNOWLEDGEME ~NTS The following people assisted in providing data, background information and perspective for this report. Their time efforts are gratefully acknowledged: Bessie Swann, Executive Director, The North Fork Hous- ing Alliance James McMahon, Director of Cor~nunity Development, Southold Town and Also of assistance: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals James Dinizio, Member of the Zoning Board of Appeals Doreen Ferwerda, Secretary (former) to the Zoning Board of Appeals Linda Kowalski, Secretam~f, Zoning Board of Appeals Claire Glew, Tax Assessment Clerk Scott Russell, Tax Assessor Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector (retired) Curt Horton, Senior Building Inspector (retired) Helen DeVoe, Secretary, Building Department (deceased) Joseph Ristuccia, Stewardship Task Force Member Michael Zweig, Stewardship Task Force Member Dave Abatetli, Program Manager, North Fork Housing Alliance Gail Horton, North Fork Housing Alliance Staff of Suffolk County Department of Planning: Pearl Kamer - Economics and Research Carol Walsh - Economics and Research Roy Fedelem - Demographics Peter Lambert - Demographics Roger Metcalf, F~xecutive Director, Habitat for Humanity TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ............................................. i Statistical Profile of Southold Town: 1990. Introduction .................................. 2 Population Characteristics ..................... 2 Housing Stock Characteristics ................. 9 II. Description and Evaluation of Southold Town's Affordable Housing Policies and Programs: 1980-1992. Introduction ................................. 15 Financial Assistance Programs ................ 16 Accessory Apartments ......................... 25 Density Incentives ........................... 28 Direct Action ................................ 35 Public/Not-for-Profit Partnerships ............ 37 Private Initiatives .......................... 39 Conclusions ........ r ......................... 43 III. Appendixes Appendix A Description of Housing Subsidy Resources Available to the Town fro~ Governmental and Private Organizations Appendix B Documentation on Accessory Apartments: Historical Background, Legislative Intent, Special Exception Requirements Appendix C Introduction and Summary - Walsh Park Benevolent Corporation Appendix D Bibliography of Reports on Housing: Southold Town Preface The primary purpose of this reporh is to examine Southold Town's policies and programs for affordable housing. Accordingly, two separate studies were undertaken, each with the aim of setting a factual grounding for the development of recommendations by which the Town's affordable housing policies and programs could be made more effective. The first study, the Statistical Profile, sets forth much of the factual information needed to define the nature and extent of the affordable housing problem. Through the years, and the debates, many conflicting statements have been made about various aspects of the affordable housing issue% Therefore, the Profile was designed to serve as an factual basis for discussion. In line with this goal, the Profile discusses the Incerporated Village of Greenport. Particular care was taken to refute popular, but misleading, assua~ptions about the relationship between the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. The two municipalities are con~nonly perceived as being in an intertwined, love-hate relationship dating back to the Village's incorporation as a separate governmental entity in 1838. Therefore, wherever possible, the Profile presents three sets of data: that of the Town as a whole, that of the Village proper, and that of the Town outside the incorporated Village. Map 1 on the next page shows the boundaries of each area. In reading this report, the reader should remember that the housing programs for the Village and the Town are separate. The Village's programs are administered by the Village Administrator/Community Development Coordinator. The Town's programs are administered by the Southold Town Community Development Director who oversees the work of its subcontractor, the North Fork Housing Alliance to assure that it is furthering the Town's goals and objectives. The North Fork Housing Alliance has worked with both governments to help implement their respective programs. The second study in this report provides an historical background and analysis of the Town's affordable housing policies and programs. There have been other advisory reports on affordable housing, but none provided a comprehensive description and comparison of all of the Town's housing programs in one document, and none evaluated the effectiveness of those programs in meeting the goals they were designed to achieve. This document represents the beginning of what we hope will be an ongoing process of program evaluation and modification. In closing, while the driving force for this report came from the community at large, and while the document represents the assistance and reflection of many contributors; the conclusions are those of the Planning and Zoning Committee alone. LONG ISLAND SOUND MAP 1: SOURCE ".,%/ ' / Boundaries of Southold Town and Greenport Population Survey 1990, Long Island V~~ Lighting Company. June 3qq'~ ,'~ ~,~ I. STATISTICAL PROFILE OF SOUTh{OLD TOWN: 1990 Statistical Profile of Southold Town: 1990 Introduction Unless otherwise noted, the information and statistics in this section were derived from data collected by the U.S. Census of 1990. The data was collected in April of 1990, thus it presents us with a "1990 snapshot" of the Town. In the interim, people were born or died, moved in or out, found or lost jobs, and bought or sold homes, to name just a few of the many events that shape and change a human community. While circumstances in 1993 are somewhat different, and references are made to those differences throughout this report, this 1990 ,'snapshot" remains valuable as a convenient reference point from which to assess the effectiveness of the Town's affordable housing policy and programs. Population Characteristics of Town Residents There are 19,836 year-round residents town-wide, including the Village of Greenport. Nearly 10.5% of the town-wide population lives within the Village. This translates to 2,070 people. The remaining 17,766 people live outside the Village. There are 8,125 households town-wide of which 864 are found within the Village, and 7,261 outside. Of the 8,125 households town-wide, 5,706 or 70% of them are defined as "family" households. A family is defined' by the U.S. Census Bureau as "a householder and one or more other persons living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption." The remaining 2,419 households, 30% of the total, are "non-family" households, which the Census Bureau defines as including groups of unrelated persons living together o__~r households consisting of one person living alone. Since approximately 26% of all households town-wide are single person households, only about 4% or 96 of the remaining non-family households consist of unrelated persons living together. The percentage of families and non-families in the total number of households in Southold Town is about the same as that of the nation. Table 1 on the next page illustrates this. Non-family households headed by women significantly outnumber non-family households headed by men by more than 77% town-wide: by more than 51% in the Village and by more than 82% outside the Village. Other statistics from the Census Bureau, the Alliance, the County and private health care agencies suggest that many of these households consist of older widows living alone. 2 TABLE 1: Households by Type Town-wide Families % couples 59 % other 11 Non-Families % singles 26 % other 4 Village 'Outside Village 42 61 4 11 32 26 5 3 USA 55 15 25 5 With the exception of Greenport Village, the median age of Southold Town's residents is considerably higher than the national average of 32.9 years. The median age is 43.1 years town-wide: 36.0 years in the Village and about 44.4 years outside the Village. There are considerable variations by hamlet, as seen in Table 2. TABLE 2: Median Age of Town Residents by Hamlet: Southold Town Location Median Age Town-wide 43.1 Greenport Village 36.0 Cutchogue 43.1 Greenport West 52.0 Laurel 39.5 Mattituck 39.8 Peconic 39.2 Southold 47.8 Orient & East Marion & Fishers Island 49.6 The average number of persons per family is 2.92 town-wide. In the Village~ the average is 2.97. Both averages are slightly higher the nation-wide average of 2.63 persons per family. than Table 3 on the next page shows the co~osition of the Town's population by age and sex. Town-wide, households in renter-occupied housing are slightly smaller than those of owner-occupied units (2.38 to 2.41). This can be explained by the fact that renters are more likely to be single, whether they are young or elderly~ (Students that were away at college when the Census was taken were not counted as part of their family for the purposes of determining family size.) TABLE 3: Composition of Southold Town's Population by Age and Se~ Source: TOTAL MALE FEMALE Under 1,030 530 500 5-9 1,074 544 530 10-14 1,228 611 617 15-19 1,091 554 537 20-24 969 478 491 25-29 1,054 527 527 30-34 1,201 560 641 35-39 %,404 584 720 40-44 1,400 685 715 45-49 1,190 567 623 50-54 949 466 483 55-59 1,083 491 592 60-64 1,303 605 698 65-64 1,410 640 770 70-74 1,172 534 638 75-79 1,014 417 597 - 80-84 727 261 466 85+ 537 155 382 TOTAL 19,836 9,309 10,527 L.i. Regional Planning Board - June 16, 1993 4 Town-wide, 79% of all occupied housing units are owner-occupied and 21% are rented. In the Village, only 55% of all occupied housing units are owner occupied and 45% are rented. By contrast, outside the Village, 92.5% of occupied housing units are owner occupied and only 7.5% are rented. 'The U.S. Government defines Poverty Level by using a combination of criteria which include family size and the age of the householder in one or two person households. The thresholds are revised annually to allow for cost of living changes. Table 4t reproduced here from the 1990 C~nsus, shows the average poverty thresholds for 1989. TABLE 4: Poverty Thresholds in 1989 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years of Age Table A. Poverty Thresholds in 1989 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years $6,451 5,947 SO~Lrce: Appendix B., p.B.28, from Summary of Social, EconomicI and Housinq Characteristics. U.S. Census Bureau. 1990 The table shows that the nationwide average poverty threshold for an individual was $6,310. The poverty threshold for a family of four was $12,674. Note that the poverty threshold varies depending on age, and the number of persons in the household. Nationwide, 13.1% of the population existed below the poverty level in 1989. In Southold~ the Census found a total of 997 people, which is equal to 5% of the town-wide population, living below the poverty line. More than 23% (232) are children under the age of 18. Nearly 27% (273) are 5 65 years of age or older. The remaining 50% are between the ages of 18 and 64. Of the 997 people living below the poverty line town-wide, 241 live in the Village. While 241 is only 1.2 % of the total population, within the Village that number composes 11.6% of the Village population. The percentage of people existing below the poverty level within the Village is higher than that of the Town, but less than that of the national average of 13.1%. More than 35% (86) of these people are children under the age of 18. But, in contrast to the Town, only 13.2% are 65 years of age and older. The remaining 756 people living below .the poverty level live outside the Village. This group comprises slightly more than 4% of population outside the Village. the When these statistics are considered along with others mentioned earlier, it seems that many of the families living below the poverty level within the Village probably are single (either unwed or divorced) mothers with children. Outside of the Village, it would appear that there is a more even mix of single mothers with children and elderly widows. The term "poverty level" describes an economic extreme in income levels. In order to put the term "poverty level" in perspective, it should be compared with the median household income town-wide which was $35,392. The term "median" means that exactly half of the Town's population earns more and half earns less. The median income nation-wide was $30,058. At first glance, it would appear that the Town and the Village together are "better off" than the nation, comparatively speaking. However, this type of comparison does not account for the very real effect of regional differences in the cost of living. In order to define the need for affordable housing more closely, we needed to obtain a better understanding of the numbers of people and households existing between the poverty level and the median income level.' A review of Census data on households by income levels revealed that out of the 8,125 households town-wide,' 2,194 or 27% of them' earn less than $20,000 a year. It is probably safe to conclude from this data Ghat about 23% of the households earn between $20,000 and the median of $35,392. In the Village, 320 households earn less than $20,000 a year. These households account for only 12.5% of households town-wide. But, within the Village, these households account for 37% of the total Village households. Outside the Village, the 1,874 households earning less than $20,000 comprise about 25.8% of the households outside the Village. We do not know the size of these households, their housing arrangments nor their personal financial situations. For instance, some households earning less than $20,000 a year may consist of retired person(s) living on pension and Social Security benefits, and whose home is unencumbered by a mortgage. Other households may consist of a single parent with childre~ living in a rented house, or a single person with a low-salaried job. ~ere are numerous factors that could account for low income: a recent 19yoff, cut-backs in hours worked, a recent disability that prevents full-time employment, etc. It would be erroneous to assume that the person living on $20,000 a year while residing in a home that is paid for is in a better situation than the person earning the same income and paying thirty to fifty perc~n~ of that income for rent. For instance, the combined income from Social Security benefits and pensions of some elderly widows is so low that it does not permit them the ability to maintain their homes properly after certain fixed costs such as insurance, utilities and property taxes are deducted, (not to mention other essentials such as food, medicine, and clothing). The average property tax bitl in Southold Town is $3,150. (Southold Tax Assessor's Office)° In the absence of other statistics, the available data was used to arrive at the following preliminary conclusions: if 997 people town-wide are living below the poverty level, and if the average household size town-wide (2.92 persons) holds true for households at poverty level or below, then there are approximately 341 households town-wide existing at the economic extreme. As mentioned earlier, the Census found 2,194 households town-wide that earn less than $20,000 a year. According to Table 4, the only households below poverty level that would earn more than $20,000 a year are those consisting of eight or more persons. Therefore we have to assume that of the estimated 341 households existing at or below poverty level, a few may earn more than $20,000 a year. If we take this into account, then we can estimate that of the 2,194 households town-wide earning less than $ 20,000 a year, about 341 are at or below the poverty level and about 1,853 or fewer of them make less than $20,000 a year, but are above the poverty level. It would be helpful if we could deduce the income sources of these households, and if we could identify the composition of these households. However, much of the data being collected by federal, state and county agencies do not separate out Southold Town° However, in 1991, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services published a report titled the Equitable Housing Study~ This study counted a total of 191 households in Southold Town receiving one of the following forms of public assistance: Aid to Dependent Children, Aid to Dependent Children Unemployed, Emergency Aid to Family, Pre-determined grant Aid to Children and Home Relief. Assuming there are no duplications; that is, households receiving more than one form of assistance, these households account for 455 people, which is less than half of the 997 people found to be living below the poverty line in the 1990 Census. The Census found that about 5% of the Town's population was living below the poverty line. The County report found that 2.2% of the Town's households were receiving some form of public assistance. We can determine the percentage of the town-wide population that is unemployed. The Census found that the town-wide labor force (persons aged 16 years and older) numbered 8,923 people, which is 45% of the total population (of 19,795). In April of 1990, only 398 people or 4.5% of the Town's labor force were uneraployed. This was slightly lower than the County's unemployment rate of 4.8%. Wt~ile this amount may seem low, it was confirmed by similiar findings of the New York State Department of Labor, which reported a 4.5% unemplo!a~ent rate for the Town and a 3.8% unemployment rate for the County in April of 1990. The economic recession has since worsened as evidenced by the 7.4% unemployment rate for Suffolk County that was posted in August of 1993. (Telephone Conversation with Nancy Schambo, New York State Department of Labor, Albany, NY. on September 30, 1993.) In order to ensure that the Town's housing poticies and programs address the true extent of the need for affordable housing, statistics' of a more detailed nature than is currently available from federal, state and county governmental agencies will have to be generated. If the Town were to begin collecting labor and income information about its own econom~, it would be able to generate some of this data on its own. 8 Housing Stock Characteristics There ~re 12,979 dwelling units within the Town; 1,134 or 8.7% of which are within the Village, and 11,845 or 91.2% of which are outside the Village. The most co~on form of housing stock is the detached single family residence. Table 5 provides a breakdown of the numbers and types of housing units that exist within the Town according to the U.S. Census. TABLE 5 Number of Dwelling Units by Ty~e: 1990 Number of Units Village Town Total 642 10,856 11,498 15 246 261 267 231 498 66 111 177 41 154 195 1 43 44 3 68 71 99 136 235 T~pe of structure detached s'ingle family dwellings attached single family dwellings two units within one structure three or four dwelling units in structure five to nine dwelling units in structure ten to nineteen dwelling units in structure mobile homes or trailers othe~ types of housing 1,t34 11,845 12,979 An analysis of Table 5 reveals that 91.6% of the housing units outside the Village are detached single family dwellings. By contrast, just 56.6% of the housing units within the Village are detached single family dwellings. The Village has a much more diverse mix of housing t!/pes than the rest of the Town. Of the 1,134 dwelling units in the Villager 42% are occupied by owners and more than 33% are occupied by renters. Slightly more than 14% are listed as being for occasional use, probably as second or summer homes. (The percentages in this paragraph do not add up to 100 % because other types of vacant housing, such as recreational vehicles and houseboats~ which were included in the Census data, are not discussed here.) Outside the Village, slightly more than 50% of the housing stock is owner-occupied, and slightly more than .11% is rented. About 35% of the housing units are for occasional use, probably as second or sun,her homes. The term "occasional" housing is used carefully here. Whether located in the Village or out, occasional housing is NOT occupied by year-round residents. The Census considers such housing vacant, even though it may be occupied much of the year. We do not know what percentage of these "occasional" homes are summer or weekend homes, and what percentage are retirement homes. There are significant differences in ~he age of the housing stock in and outside of the Village. Within the Village, about 66.5% of the housing units were built before 1939. Yet, of the 379 units that have been built since 1939, more than 41% were built relatively recently, between 1980 and 1990. Outside the Village, by comparison, the Town has a relatively young housing stock with only 22.2% of it built before 1939. Unlike the Village, new housing outside the Town has been added at a relatively steady rate of about 2,000 units per decade since 1950. To compare nationally, only 18.4 % of the housing in the nation was built before 1940. And, 20.7% of the housing units in the nation were built in the decade between 1980 and March'1990. The statistics on the number of bedrooms per housing unit indicate that nearly 47% of the housing stock town-wide is made up of three bedroom units; followed by two bedroom units which make up nearly 24% of the total and four bedroom units which are nearly 20% of the total. The median monthly rent town-wide for all types of housing units, whether they be apartments Or houses is $561. In the Village, the median is $540. The median rent is the middle rent of the range of contract rental prices: meaning that half of all rents are higher and half lower. As a point of reference, and contrast, the median monthly rent nationwide is Just $374. Gross rent is a more accurate indicator of the actual cost of r~ntal housing. Gross Rent numbers are somewhat higher because the Gross rent is the contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities and fuels. The median monthly Gross rent town-wide is $665, although the average monthly Gross rent was higher at $717. The median monthly Gross rent in the Village is $615. The average monthly Gross rent in the Village is $637. It is useful to look at the gross r~nt in connection with the median income of renters. The median income town-wide of all households is $35,392. The median income of families, which is a subset of households, is somewhat higher at $43,082. Within the Village, the median income for households is $25,562, and that of families is slightly higher at $29,643. (Keep in mind that these income figures apply to yearlround residents only.) The Census also computes the ratio of monthly gross rent to monthly household income for rental households. The computation is done for a sampling of the total number of rental units. For those households and units for which this was computed within the Town overall, the statistics found by the Census are printed on the next page. i0 Ratio of Monthly Gross Rent to Income of Rental Households: Town-wide. 18.4% of rental households spend %0 - 19% of income for gross rent 17.5% of rental households spend 2b r 24% of income for gross rent 10.8% of rental households spend 25 -'29% of income for gross rent 12.1% of rental households spend 30 - 34% of income for gross rent 41.3% of rental households spend more than 35% of income for gross rent Within the Village, the U.S. Census examined more than 92 % of the rental stock and determined that: 12.2% 14.7% 15.0% 1i~3% 46.5% of rental households pay 0 - 19% of income for'gross rent of rental households pay 20 - 24% of income for gross rent of rental households pay 25 - 29% of income for gross rent of rental households pay 30 - 34% of income for gross rent of rental households pay 35% or more of income for gross rent Table 6 on the next page shows in graphic form the percentages listed below for the portion of the Town outside t_he Village. 20.0% 18.2% 9.5% 12.3% 39.7% of rental households pay 0 - 19% of income for gross rent of rental households pay 20 - 24% of income for gross rent of rental households pay 25 - 29% of income for gross rent of rental households pay 30 - 34% of income for gross rent of rental households pay 35% or more of income for gross rent TABLE 6: Rental Households by Ratio of Monthly Gross Rent to Income 11 In the United States, 41.2% of rental households pay 30% or more of their income for rent. However, in Southold Town, the percentage is higher: 53.0% of rental households town-wide pay 30% or more of income for rent. And in the Village, 57.8% of rental households pay 30% or more of ~heir income for rent. Outside the Village, the percentage is 52.0%. To summarize: The town-wide median income is higher than the national median by about 17.7%, and the town-wide median monthly rent is higher than the national median by about 50% and the percentage of town-wide renters paying 30% or more of their income for rent is higher than the national rate by about 28.6%. However, these statistics do not communicate the whole story. Without going through further breakdowns of the rate differences for the Village and the Town outside the Village, the rental rates within the Town as a whole are perceived as being higher than median household income would suggest. There are a few, unexplored theories as to why this ~ is the case. One is that the real estate market is responding to a demand for housing from outside the Town where income levels are higher. It is a known fact that the demand for rentals increases from May through September for the .summer season, when people come to the area for vacation. The monthly summer rent is often considerably higher than the landlord could collect for a year-round rental. Therefore, in order for a landlord to be encouraged to maintain a year-round rental as such, the income from a year-round rental has to be at least as. economically attractive as that of a summer-only rental. Town residents who cannot afford to purchase their own homes, and who do not wish to relocate to points west, such as Riverhead, Calverton, Manorville, etc., must resign themselves to paying a disproportionate share of their income for rent. Another theory that has been advanced is that rental rates are inflated because of Section 8 rental subsidies provided by the federal government. As will be explained in greater detail later in this report, Section 8 subsidies will pay for monthly rental rates that approximate those of Nassau and Western Suffolk counties. However, the 250 households receiving vouchers in 1990 comprised only 3% of the total households and less than 15% of the total rental households within the Town. Given these percentages, it is doubtful that Section 8 subsidies alone are responsible for the inflated monthly rental rates in the Town outside the Village. However, they may play a role within the Village of Greenport and in West Greenport (which lies within the Town) due to the fact that this combined area with a population of 4,362 in 1990 houses a disproportionate share of the Town's public assistance recipients. According to the County's Equitable Housing Study, mentioned earlier in this report, the remainder of the Town's hamlets contained only 70% or less of their fair share of public assistance recipients. Another finding of the County study was that "Contrary to popular belief, rental costs in non-impacted areas (those with less than their fair share of PA (public assistance) clients often are lower than in impacted areas." However, the median rental rates in the Village are 12 lower than that of the rest of the Town in spite of the fact that a disproportionate number of public assistance recipients live there. · These findings clearly need to be 'studied further to determine whether the choice of housing locations of ~ederal Section 8 recipients follow the same pattern as County public assistance recipients. As with its economic and population data, the Town needs to begin collecting relevant data on its housing stock, particularly that of its rental units. For instance, we do not know what percentage of the units being rented are apartments or whole houses, nor do we know what units are most affected by the seasonal fluctuation in demand for rental housing. Accordingly, our understanding of the local housing market is somewhat lacking. 13 II. A DESCRIPTION, REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF SOUTHOLD TOWN'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS: 1980-1992 14 II. A Description~ Review and Assessment Of Southold Town's Affordable Housing Policies and P[ogr~rns: 1980-1992. Introduction The pivotal question placed before the Planning and Zoning Committee was whether the need for affordable housing within the Township was being met by the Town's current policies and programs. To answer that question, the Committee undertook a review of the Town's affordable housing programs. Before 1980, the housing needs of lower income residents were met by the private sector of the community: by relatives~ friends, employers, philanthropists, churches and other local charitable organizations. The private response to those in need undoubtedly continues to this day. But, as the community grew and the social ties unraveled, these individual acts of human kindp, ess were not enough to meet the need. This situation is not unique to our Town particularly during the past decade. The need for affordable shelter in this country has been well documented. However, the Committee concerned itself solely with the problem within Southold Town. Since 1980, the Town has used four different approaches towards meeting the need for affordable housing: Financial Assistance Accessory Apartments Density Incentives Direct Action Public / Not-for-profit Partnerships The following pages contain a description of each approach, followed by an assessment of its effectiveness. 'Where relevant, the historical background of the program was included in the description. That section of the report is followed by a description of two different Private Initiatives which provided the Committee with contrasts to the Town's approaches. useful 15 Financial Assistance Program: Historical Background Since the New Deal programs of the 19~0s, the federal and state governments have provided financial assistance to local municipalities for various purposes, including the provision of affordable housing. However, until 1980, the Town did not take advantage of these programs. This stance changed in 1980, when the Town applied for and received a Co~nunity Development Block Grant (CDBG). The CDBG was a housing rehabilitation program, whereby federal funds could be used by local governments to rehabilitate deteriorated housing. A consulting firm from western Suffolk County was retained to administer the program for the Town. Unfortunately, during the period 1980 through 1983, the firm did not rehabilitate any homes. Dissatisfied with the lack of progress · in the face of mounting needs, the Town Board asked James McMabon to take over the responsibilities of administering the Town's Com~mnity Development Program. He enlisted the support of Bessie E. Swann, Executive Director of the Greenport Housing Alliance, in preparing a comprehensive housing plan for the Town Board's approval. ~ The Greenport Housing Alliance was a local, not-for-profit organization based in Gre~nport Village. It had been created in 1980 by another local, not-for-profit agency known as Community Action for Southold Town (CAST), which had been incorporated fifteen years earlier in 1965. The purpose of CAST was to help low income residents meet basic needs in the areas of nutrition, employment, home energy supply, finances, health, housing, education and counseling. The prime objective of CAST was (and still is) to help people become self-sufficientl CAST created the Greenport Housing Alliance specifically to develop, fund and administer programs to meet a wide range of housing needs within the Village. The Greenport Alliance was successful in obtaining federal and state financial grants for housing programs. Due to the nature of the program funding, however, only Village residents were eligible for assistance. The two directors submitted a~proposal that called for the Town to retain the Greenport Housing Alliance to administer the housing programs on behalf of the Town. The logic behind the joint proposal was based on six premises: First: In its three years of existence, The Greenport Housing Alliance had earned a solid reputation as a local grassroots group with a proven track record for administering governmental assistance programs. Second: The Alliance, operating under the umbrella of CAST, had "name recognition". Town and Village residents knew it was a place where one could get effective financial and legal help. 16 Third: Fourth: Fifth: Sixth: The administrators of The Alliance had firsthand knowledge of the extent of the housing need outside the Village. Although they had not been able to respond, they had documented the requests for housing assistance from Town residents outside the Village. This documentation was necessary to support the Town's applications for federal and state grants. There were no State or County social service outreach offices within the Town of Southold. Even today, the nearest such offices are in Riverhead. The volume of requests from Town residents outside the Village for assistance from the Housing Alliance indicated there was a need for an outreach office within the Town. The Town's Community Development Office had a Director, but no money for staff with which to implement any assistance programs. However, the Alliance already had the staff and the ex/~ertise to take on the additional workload of servicing the Town. Further, contracting with the Alliance to administer the Town's programs would mean significantly lower administrative costs for the Town. (This last fact later proved to be an asset because it gave the Town/Alliance partnership an edge in the competition for scarce funding. Lower administrative costs meant that a greater percentage of a grant would go towards actual assistance.) As a not-for-profit agencyt the Alliance was not always constrained by the same time-consuming regulatory procedures that affect governmental agencies. In additiont non-for-profit agencies are eligible for additional grant subsidies. Therefore, joint applications would have a greater chance of being funded more generously. This proposal was adopted by the Town Board in 1984. Since then, the Alliance has administered the Town's housing assistance programs either under the direction of the Town's Community Development Office or on its own with the cooperation and support of the Town. On January 1, 1986, the name of the Greenport Housing Alliance Was changed to The North Fork Housing Alliance (NFHA). The name change reflected the agency's new, broader scope, as well New York State's formal approval of the extension of its services beyond Greenport Village to the whole Town. 17 Financial Assistance Program: Description and Inventory The practical result of this merger of public and private resources was that the written policies and goals of the Housing Alliance became those of the Town, even though they were not adopted formally by the Town Board. These policies, as articulated by The Alliance, are: "to assist low-income residents in acquiring housing which is affordable by operating programs that will combat gentrification and discrimination; continue rehabilitation and construction of low cost housing; secure subsidies which could reduce shelter costs; stabilize and increase the number of low cost units for our target population; and utilize trainees in the rehabilitation program to curtail construction costs." ~he policy statement shows a strong focus and commitment towards meeting lower income housing needs. It also encourages the recipients of rehabilitation and construction grants to participate in sweat equity programs and apprenticeships. The policy is aimed at giving hose who have nowhere else to turn a chance to help themselves obtain decent housing. This policy focus is reflected in the types of programs that have been developed through the years by the Town/Alliance partnership. Because the names of the specific grant programs or loans have changed through the years, only the general types of programs are listed below. Program Ty~e Year Started Information Services .............................. 1983 Rental Assistance ................................. 1984 Rehabilitation of Rental Units and Homes .......... 1984 Revolving Loans for Construction or Rehabilitation of Homes for Resale ............ 1985 Housing Development (New Construction) ............ 1986 Housing Management ................................ 1986 Self-Sufficiency Assistance ....................... 1992 The Town/ Alliance partnership applies for funding from Federal, State and pri~ate sources as relevant programs are offered. A listing of current funding sources along with a brief description of the types of programs they support is included in Appendix A. 18 Financial Assistance Program: Evaluation In order to evaluate this program, we asked two questions, one dealing with the administration of the program and the other with the program itself. First, how effective is the Town/Alliance partnership in obtaining funding? Second, how effectively is the program meeting the goals and objectives of the housing policy as stated by the North Fork Housing Alliance? The first question, the effectiveness of the Town/Alliance partnership in obtaining funding, was evaluated by looking at its nine-year record of service from January 1984 to December 1992. To simplify this evaluation, we used the same general categories that were used earlier in this section to describe the types of progr~s that have been offered to Town residents. Information' Services: The NFHA responded to 1,791 non-duplicated requests for general information. This averages out to 199 requests a year; close to one request for every working day of the year. NFHA responses included counseling, tenant services, legal referrals, advocacy services, mediation to resolve tenant-landLord disputes, investigations into charges of discrimination, and dispensing of information on programs and grants for home heating or energy conservation measures such as weatherization. Rental Assistance: Monthly rental subsidies (known as Section 8 certificates and vouchers) have been dispersed to a total of 434 families since 1984. The number of hQuseholds served by monthly vouchers has increased from 35 during 1984 to 250 during 1992. There have been 1089 unduplicated applications for Section 8 rental assistance since 1984. In December of 1992, thirty eight families were on ~he waiting list for vouchers or certificates. New Construction: Thirty five (35) housing units have been constructed. Nineteen (19) of the units are single-family dwellings, and sixteen (16) are rental units in one multiple dwelling complex. The rental units were constructed using Co~nunity Development Block grants, Farmers Home Administration loans and other monies generated by the North Fork Housing Alliance through grants and loans. The single family homes were built in a unique partnership with the Town, which is described separately in the Direct Action program. Note: These housing units are NOT the same as those that were built by the private sector under the Town's Affordable Housing District Program. That program is described under the Density Incentives section. 19 Management: Ten (10) buildings with ~ total of thirty (30) rental dwelling units are being man~ged by the Alliance. The management function includes~negotiating for management contracts, renting the units, collecting rents and scheduling maintenance. Rehabilitation: One hundred and seven (107) dwellingunits have been rehabilitated. One hundred (100) of these units were private homes owned by Southold residents. Seven were rental units. Self Sufficiency: Between May of 1992 and February of 1993, sixteen (16) couples and twenty-four (24) adult single women took advantage of Family Self Sufficiency programs. Ultimately the program's benefits will extend beyond the fifty-six program participants to their respective families which total sixty-three (63) children and two (2) adults. Altogether, within the last nine years, the Town/Alliance partnership has obtained more than three hundred and six (306)loans or grants with a total value of more than seven million dollars, ($7,180,973.00) for the Village and the Town combined. Rental~ subsidies (Section 8 certificates and vouchers) accounted for more than 4.3 million dollars of this amount, which is nearly 60% of the total funding. Over two million of this total was leveraged for new constrUction: $ 765,344 of this amount went to the development and construction of rental housing at Lakeside Garden Apartments, $ 1.3 million went to the constrUction of sixteen (16) single family homes outside the Village. (The program responsible for the construction of these homes is described in the Direct Action section.) It is difficult to separate out what percentage of this money went to the Town and what went to the Village primarily because of the nature of the Section 8 program: recipients from the Village and the Town may use the certificates or vouchers in either the Village or the Town. The NFHA's best estimate is that about 70% of the total funding obtained by the Town/Alliance partnership went to the Town outside the Village. In April of 1993 the N-FHA did an analysis of the distribution of Section 8 recipients by origin and by subsequent housing location. It found that 41% of the Town's Section 8 funding was being used by Town recipients for housing located within the Village. Conversely, only 29% of the Village's funding was being used by Village residents for housing located outside the Village. These facts are consistent with the fact that the Village offers a wider range of housing at a lower cost than the rest of the Town. In reviewing this record, it seems evident that the Town/Alliance 20 partnership has been much more aggressive and effective in obtaining funding and administering the programs than the original Town/consultant partnership. Further, the partnership's low administrative overhead appears to have given the Town an advantage in competing for scarce funding. Most government grants allow 20% of each grant to be set aside for administrative costs. To its credit, the Alliance typically charges back only 15% of the grant for administrative purposes. The Alliance is able to do this because of its not-for-profit status, and the fact that it obtains operating funds from other sources, including private donations. The second question, that of the effectiveness of the financial assistance program, was answered by determining whether the were meeting the stated goals, which are repeated here: "to assist low-income residents in acquiring housing which is affordable by operating programs that will combat gentrification and discrimination; continue rehabilitation and construction of low cost housing; secure subsidies which could reduce shelter costs; stabilize and increase the number of low cost units for our target population; and utilize trainees in the rehabilitation program to curtail construction costs." programs It is clear that all the financial assistance programs are geared towards assisting low-income residents. Most of these program~ must be administered in accordance with.federal or state guidelines which typically specify a recipient's eligibility requirements. The target population for each t!rpe of program is noted here using the same categories that were used on previous pages to describe the programs. Information Services: There are no income restrictions on requesting information. Anyone can ask questions relating to housing. This particular service enables charges of discrimination to addressed and disputes to be mediated without regard to income. Rental Assistance: This program is available only to low income and very low income residents whose income is less than the federal eligibility guidelines. The table below shows only the very low income limits. Year Maximum Income: Individual Family of Four 1990 $ 17,350 $ 24,800 1991 $ 19,100 $ 27,250 1992 $ 19,250 $ 27,500 1993 $ 22~100 $ 31,550 21 Section 8 Rental Assistance is a~ministered by the U. S. Department of Housing an~ Urban Development pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. It is considered the nation's principal housing program. Eligibility is limited to families with incomes of up to 80 percent of the median income of · a ~nicipality. At least 30 percent of the families receiving assistance must have incomes that are less than half of the municipality's median family income. (Translation: if the town-wide median household income is·$ 35,392, then at least 30% of the Town's Section 8 recipients are earning half this amount (which is $ 17,696) or less.) The program provides certificates to renters. Each month the renter pays part of t~e rent (30% of income) and the federal government pays the difference to the landlord. The income guidelines are revised periodically by the federal government. About four or five years ago, the progra~ was modified to include vouchers. With vouchers, the federal government will pay a landlord a flat amount that is determined by the renter's income. The renter is responsible for paying the difference between the subsidy and the rent. The voucher program saves the government money because it encourages the renter to find the best rental value, and to negotiate the lowest possible rent· with a landlord. The Town/Alliance partnership presently distributes about an eqUal nu/nber of vouchers and certificates.· The issuance vouchers is preferred, for obvious reasons. of The voucher program mitigates what had been considered a "downside" to the Section 8 certificates. Under the certificate program, the rental rate must be within the federal government's "fair market guidelines". According to the guidelines, the fair market rate for a studio is $ 635.00; for a two bedroom housing unit - $ 908.00; and for a four bedroom housing unit - $ 1,271.00 a month. The fair market rate includes all utilities. For some presently unknown bureaucratic reason, the federal gUideline is based on average rents in Nassau and western Suffolk counties, which are higher than those of the East End. Under the certificate program, landlords who understood how the program worked, could charge higher rents than they might otherwise have gotten. The voucher program effectively counters this trend because it will only pay a landlord a flat amount based on a percentage of the renter's income (approximately 30%). Since the renter knows that he will have to pay the difference between this amount and the rent, it is in his or her best interest to negotiate with the landlord for a more reasonable rate~ An unresponsive landlord may find himself looking for another tenant. Although it is not as cost effective, the certificate program has not been eliminated because it enables disabled and elderly 22 renters on fixed incomes to remain in suitable units in familiar surroundings; a factor of considerable importance to these two groups. New Construction: The construction of Lakeside Gardens apartments is the primary example of this program. This project created sixteen (16) low cost rental apartments~ In addition, the construction of nineteen new single family homes provided young families with an opportunity to own a home and develop some equity. This program is discussed in greater detail in the Direct Action section for reasons that are given therel. Management: Tenants in the managed housing units are receiving Section 8 rental subsidies. This program is aimed at maintaining clean, safe housing for low income residents~ Rehabilitation: There are two types of programs in this category: Revolving Loans and Rehabilitation° The Revolving Loan program uses loans or grant monies to construct or rehabilitate substandard units for resale to a low or moderate income family. The proceeds from the sale are put into the next project. The Rehabilitation program offers low interest loans to landlords to maintain or upgrade rental~units. It is designed to provide financial incentives to landlords to maintain or upgrade rental. units without their having to raise the rent to pay for the improvements. Similar assistance is available to homeowners. The income levels of the recipients of rehabilitation grants have ranged from $ 5,952 to $ 26,584 with an average income of $ 12,548. This progra~ helps to keep existing housing stock in good repair, and to upgrade it, with tangible benefits to the surrounding neighborhood as well as the homeowners. Self-Sufficiency: The Family Self-Sufficiency Action Plan was adopted in May of 1992. Its purpose is to provide a range of supportive services that will enable the program participants to attain economic self-sufficiency. The services include the following: child care assistance, transportation, educational opportunities, job training and placement assistance, preventive health Care~ including substance abuse treatment, training in skills for daily living, individual and family counseling, housing management and ownership information, and legal servicesl Participants are selected from interested recipients of Section 8 housing assistance. The program's goal is to for participants to achieve self-sufficiency within five (5) years of enrolling in the program. The total number of households that have been helped by the Financial 23 Incentives portion of the Town's affordable housing program is more than five hundred (500). Most, if not all, of these households were in the low to very low income bracket, which the financial assistance program was designed to serve. Therefore, we can conclude that the financial assistance program is working. But, whether it is reaching all those in need is another question, one that is very difficult to answer due to the lack of sufficient data. Nevertheless, there are some facts available. For instance: At the end of 1992, there were 250 households receiving Section 8 Certificates or Vouchers and more than 30 households were still waiting for Section 8 rental assistance. The 1990 Census found 997 people living below the poverty level town-wide. If this number is divided by the average fami%y size of 2.92, there may be as many as 341 households living below poverty level. About 25.8% of all households outside the Village earn less than $ 20,000 a year. According to federal guidelines, an individual earning $ 22,100 a year, and a family of four earning $ 31,550 a year are eligible for Section 8 assistance. Approximately 52% of all renters outside the Village pay more than 30% of their income in rent. At the County level, unemployment has risen from 4.8% in April of 1990 to 7.4% in August of 1993. Therefore, the numbers of people in need of housing assistance has probably risen since 1990. The County Social Services Department in 1990 found that there were 191 households representing 455 people that were receiving public assistance. 24 Accessory Apartments: Historical Background Prior to 1986, accessor~ apartments in single-family residences were not permitted in Southold. one of the more frequently quoted reasons for the adoption of the accessory apartment law was that it was a reaction to the concerns of public officials about fire safety in the growing nu~er of illegal apartments. However, a review of the legislative intent of this law shows otherwise. The original draft of the law stated its intent: "...to promote the fuller utilization of excess housing capacity in existing single family dwellings: provide an increased opportunity for affordable housing; assist "eJ~pty nest" homeowners in the maintenance and security of their property and reduce the necessity for the construction of new subsidized housing for small households and the elderly..." The initial proposal called for allowing the conversion of larger homes that were built before 1957, many of which were owned by elderly people, into two dwelling units; hence the large minimum square footage for the apartment and the house. However, the first draft of this law included all houses built before 1976, and by the time the final draft was adopted, all houses with Certificates of Occupancy dated before January 1~ 1984 were eligible to .apply for an accessory apartment. (The historical documentation for these two paragraphs is provided in Appendix B.) Accessory Apartments: Description and Inventory The law specifies that the Zoning Board of Appeals can issue a Special Exception to qualified homeowners. In order to obtain permission to convert a portion of a home into an apartment, the homeowner has to meet Specific requirements from which no exception can be made. Among the requirements: the owner of the dwelling has to reside in one of the two units; the existing home has to be at least 1,600 square feet in area before the apartment is created out of the existing dwelling; the apartment may not be less than four hundred and fifty (450) square feet in size nor may it be larger than forty percent of the existing livable floor area. (A complete listing of all the Special Exception requirements is in Appendix B., also.) Since this law was enacted in 1986, only fifteen applications for accessory apartments have been made to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Of these, eleven were conditionally approved and four were denied. The denials were issued because of failure to meet one or more of the requirements for a Special Exception. (A sixteenth application was made during 1993, but no decision had been rendered as of the completion of this report.) 25 Accessory Apartments: Evaluation In its seven years of existence, the A,~cessor~f Apartment law has resulted in the creation of only 11 apartments. It is not 'clear whether the law si~ly failed to encourage the creation of accessory apartments or whether ongoing lack of enforcement encouraged lack of compliance. Complying with this law requires considerable expense. There is the cost of the application to the Zoning Board ($ 400.00), the cost of the building permit ($ 75.00 plus .20 for each square foot of building area in excess of 850 square feet of new construction), the cost of construction in accordance with all State and Local building codes, and at the end, a higher tax bill. (Note: all fees quoted here are 1993 fees.) But, since the Code is not enforced, there is no incentive to comply with it, except perhaps a guilty conscience. Town officials quietly acknowledge that this law has not been enforced: that there is no active program to seek out homeowners with illegal apartments, to require them to apply for a Special Exception, and to bring these units up to Building Code standards. Consequently, we do not know how many illegal apartments could meet the requirements if the Code were enforced. The main reason given for the lack of enforcement is humanitarian: the people living in the apartments have nowhere else to go. However, we do not know what proportion of the illegal apartments'are inhabited year round, and what proportion are used for sun~ner rentals only. No one within Town government knows for sure how many illegal accessory apartmen%s exist, but everyon~ agrees they number considerably more than the eleven legal ones. The Tax Assessor's records of 1992 indicate ~he existence of only twenty (20) apartments. This number is acknowledged to be inaccurate by both the ~sessor's office and the Building Department. A glance at Table 5 in the Statistical Profile reveals that there probably are more than two hundred (200) accessor~ apartments outside the Village alone because the Census relies on the honesty of its respondents. Some people who deal with real estate feel that the two hundred figure is too low. Throughout the many discussions on this topic, there was little or no mention of complaints by the public about illegal accessory apartments. If the lack of public outcry is a reliable indicator, we may be correct in surmising that most illegal accessory apartments are accepted or, at the very least, tolerated by the neighbors. Community tolerance can be used as a reason not to address the accessory apartment issue altogether. The problems with the current law seem to stem from its restrictive requirements. For instance, the minimum required building area for the original house (1,600 square feet) is large. Owners of smaller homes, who wish to create an accessory apartment by adding on to the home are precluded from obtaining a Special Exception unless they first expand the house to 1600 square feet in area, then apply for 26 the Special Exception to convert the space into an apartment. The Building Department noted that owners of homes smaller than 1600 square feet were simply applying to the Building Department for an expansion of the existing home, then converting the space into an apartment with minor alterations without returning for a Special Exception. Another observation that was made about the law was that the cut-off date of January it 1984, reduced the number of houses that were eligible to be converted. Yet, a review of the number of homes built between 1984 and 1990 (as reported in the 1990 Census) reveals that fewer than two thousand (2,000) homes would be affected by leaving the cut-off date where it is. In fact, the Town Building Department's records show that it issued only 1,181 building permits for new homes during the period 1984-1990. The issues noted above highlight the fact that the law was designed with a very specific purpose in mind: the conversion of largerr old homes. It was not intended to address the present situation whereby smaller homes are being enlarged for the purpose of creating an accessory apartment and whereby garages or other buildings are being converted to dwelling units. Furthermoret it does not provide incentives for such homeowners to undertake the expense involved in converting an older home, e.g. bringing wiring and plumbing up to code. Since the Town has never conducted a systematic survey of all accessory apartments, it is difficut to suggest an alternative set of guidelines that could be used to legalize those that do not and cannot conform to the existing law. It would be worth conducting such a survey because it would help determine whether the current law needs to be revised or whether enforcement is all that is required. 27 Density Incentives: ~istorical Background In 1985, the Town Board created a Housing Advisory Committee, which considered various approaches to meeting the affordable housing needs of the Town's residents. One of its recommendations was to encourage private developers to construct affordable housing by providing them with a density bonus for so doing. The Density Incentives approach was adopted in July of 1986 when the Town added an Affordable Housing zoning district (AHD) to its Zoning Code. The legislative intent of this approach, as stated in the Zoning Code is: "to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the town for the development of high-density housing for families of moderate income." Density Incentives: Description and Inventory The Zoning Code permits a private developer' to petition the Town Board to change the zone of a parcel to AHD. In this manner the density of a parcel may be increased either four or eight fold. For example, a parcel in the R-80 or two acre district could be downzoned either to one acre zoning or, if public water was available, to half-acre zoning. If both public water and sewer were available, the parcel could be downzoned further to the quarter acre density. The developer has several options. Lots may be created and sold as is. Or the lots may be improved before being sold. They can be improved with either single family houses or attached dwellings. Finally, the developer may chose to rent instead of selling the dwellings. In return for the increase in density, the developer must designate forty or fifty percent of the lots within the district as affordable for a Moderate-Income Family. The Zoning Code defines a Moderate-Income Family as: "A family whose aggregate annual income, including the total of all current annual income of all family members (excluding the earnings of working family members under age twenty-one) from any source whatsoever at the time of application for the purchase or lease of an affordable housing unit or the purchase of an unimproved affordable lot, does not exceed thirty-nine thousand dollars..." The $ 39,000 income limit that was set in 1986 has been revised upward annually as set forth in Table 7, on the next page, to $ in 1992. The Code also set maximum prices for the sale and rental of all the affordable units created by this district. The maximum allowed sales price of a ten thousand square foot lot in 1986 was $ 25,000. In 28 1990 it was $ 46,762. The maximum sale through 1993 are shown in Table 8, below. prices for the years 1986 TABLE 7: Maximum Allowed Income for Moderate Income Family Year Maximum Income 1986 $ 39,000 1987 $ 40,014 1988 $ 42~294 1989 $ 44,282 1990 . $ 46,762 1991 $ 49,614 1992 $ 51,350 1993 $ 53,199 TABLE 8 Maximum Allowed Sale Prices for Moderate Income Lots and Housing Year Lots 1/4 or 1/2 acre Homes Attached / Detached 1986 $ 25,000 $ 60,000 / $ 75,000 1987 $ 25,650 $ 61,560 / $ 76,950 1988 $ 27,112 $ 65,068 / $ 81,336 1989 $ 28,386 $ 68,126 / $ 85,159 1990 $ 29,976 $ 71,941 / $ 89,928 1991 $ 31,805 $ 76,329 / $ 95,414 1992 $ 32,918 $ 79,000 / $ 98,753 1993 $ 34,103 $ 81,844 / $102,308 The eligibility requirements set forth in the Code provide that sale or lease shall be allocated on a priority basis for those moderate income families who have not had any ownership interest in any residence or vacant lot for the past five years. Priority is granted in the following order: first, those who have resided and have had primary full-time employment within the Town for a period of at least one year at time of application; then applicants who have either resided or had full-time employment; finally all other eligible applicants. Unimproved lots or dwellings may be resold to moderate-income families. The maximum resale price may not exceed the purchase price plus the cost of permanent fixed improvements~ adjusted for the increase in the consumer price index during the period of ownership of the dwelling unit. If a recipient of an affordable lot decides to sell without building, the resale price must not exceed the original 29 purchase price of lot plus adjustments for changes in the consumer price index plus reasonable and n~cessary resale expenses. While there are no further restrictigns on the sale of unimproved lots, once the lot is i~proved with a dwelling unit, there is a penalty for reselling within the first seven years. The penalty is that the portion of the resale price in excess of the maximum allowable resale price shall be divided between the seller and the Town in the proportions noted in Table 9. TABLE 9: Penalty Schedule for Resale of Affordable Lot with Hous~ within Seven Years of Purchase Year of Resale Percentage Percentage After Purchase to Owner to Town 1st 0 % 100 % 2nd 20 % 80 % 3rd 40 % 60 % 4th 60 % 40 % 5th 80 % 20 % 6th 90 % 10 % 7th 100 % 0 % Dwelling units in the APID may be resold to other moderate income families provided that the resale price does not exceed the purchase price plus the cost of permanent fixed improvements which have been adjusted for the increase in the consumenr price index during the peri.od of ownership of the dwelling and the improvements along with reasonable and necessary resale expenses. The AHD program also provides for maximum initial monthly rents inclusive of utilities. The maximum initial rents must remain in effect for a period of fifteen years from the date of the initial lease. The rental rates from 1986 through 1993 are noted below. TABLE 10: Maximum Allowable Initial Monthly Rents Inclusive of Utilities in AHD Year Rent by Type of Housinq: Studio Apt. One Bedroom Two Bedroom 1986 $ 300 $ 400 $ 500 1987 $ 307 $ 410 $ 513 1988 $ 324 $ 433 $ 542 1989 $ 339 $ 453 $ 567 1990 $ 358 $ 478 $ 599 1991 $ 380 $ 507 $ 636 1992 $ 393 $ 525 $ 658 1993 $ 407 $ 544 $ 682 30 Density Incentives: Evaluation ., Since 1986, forty-five houses in two ~ubdivisions have been constructed under this program: Highpoint Meadows and Southold Villas. Both subdivisions are located within the hamlet of Southold. Hi~hpoint Meadows The Highpoint subdivision consists of 46 half-acre lots, 28 of which were sold to m~derate income families. The average income of those who purchased these lots was $34,400. The average household size was 2.5 persons. The lots that were sold in 1990 cost $29,900. The lots sold in 1991 cost $31,805. The project received final approvals in 1989.Since the developer did not build the homes, we do not know what the individual lot owners paid to have their new homes constructed. 98% of the moderate income residents in this subdivision lived and or resided in the Town. The moderate lots in this subdivision were mixed in with those available at the going market price. The homes generally were built shortly after the lots were purchased. Each lot owner chose the architectural style of his residence subject to approval of the developer or homeowner"s association. Southold Villas The Southold Villas subdivision provided 17 moderate half-acre lots with homes. The average income of the moderate income buyers was $ 32,605. The average household size was 2.6 persons. The average price for the lot with a home was $82,823, which reflects fact that the developer received a $25,000 grant from the State for each lot to defray the cost of land development and construction. Ail the residents in this subdivision lived and or resided in Southold Town. The project received approvals and was completed in 1992. All the moderate lots in this subdivision were clustered together and surrounded by open space. All the homes were built at one time. The lot owners chose a model from a limited selection presented by the developer. However, customizing touches were accommodated, such as fireplaces and exterior color selections. Summarization of Evaluation of the Two Pro~ects As these two projects proceeded to completion, dissatisfaction was expressed with certain elements of the AHD legislation. One of the criticisms was that the Code does not expressly prohibit a developer from adding surcharges, which would cause the total cost to the buyer to increase beyond the maximum allowed limits set by the Code. This situation arose when the Highpoint developer passed along 31 to each lot owner the ho~k-up fee for water service that charged to him by the GreenportVillage Water Utility company. This charge caused the total cost to the lot owh~r to exceed the limits imposed by the Town Affordable Housing District. The Town initiated, but lost, a lawsuit against the developer for failure to comply with the letter and spirit of the Affordable Housing District. The Code has since been amended to prevent this from happening again. A second criticism was that the streamlining procedures built into the legislation did not work. In the case of Highpoint, 22 months elapsed from the day the change of zone petition was submitted to the day final subdivision approval was granted. A review of the paper trail revealed the two procedures that consumed the most time: the Change of Zone process which took eleven months and the obtaining of public water from the GreenportUtility Co. which consumed another eleven months later in the application review process. The environmental review conducted by the Town Board constituted a major portion of the change of zone review period. An examination of ways to shorten this time period merits serious consideration. However, the negotiations with the Village of Greenport for the public water contract were outside of the Town's control. The situation with the Village highlighted a major stumbling block to any density incentive proposal within the Greenport Village water franchise area. The Town has no leverage with which to obtain higher priority for allocating public water for affordablehousing projects. The third criticism of the AHD legislation is that the maximum incomes and sales prices were too high to be truly affordable to the average working family living and working in Southold Town. This criticism arose in particular during the Cedarfields project which is described in the Private Initiatives section. Many local people who qualified to apply because they lived and worked in Town were unable to obtain mortgages for homes in this subdivision. As a result, some of the affordable homes and lots were sold to persons living and working outside of the Town. In order to make an accurate evaluation of this charge, we compared the 1990 maximum incomes allowed by the AHD legislation with the 1990 median household incomes within the Town. The maximum allowed income in the A~D in 1990 was $51,350. The median household income in Southold 19~9 was only $35,392. The average income of homeowners in the Highpoint ($ 34,400) and Villas ($ 32,605) subdivisions was slightly lower than the median income of all households town-wide ($35,392). 'It ~would appear that the people who did not qualify for mortgages could not satisfy the bank's requirements given the price of the lots and homes. It would be worthwhile to analyze the fin~cial situation of those who were rejected by the banks and determine what price level these people could have afforded to pay for a home and property. The fourth criticism of the A~LD legislation was that the land and the 32 house can be sold out of the affordable range seven years after its creation, thus requiring an ongoing downzoning of land by the Town in order to meet affordable housing needs. The prospect of continually having to downzone land means that the community must be prepared to tolerate such density throughout the hamlets. However, proponents of the AHD legislation, as it stands, argue that the seven year provision is necessary to prevent these homes from being stigmatized as affordable. The assumption underlying this argument is that the homeowners of such dwellings will not have any incentive to take care of their homes other than the economic one of being able to recoup their equity in full. There has been some speculation as to whether this program is beginning to compete (or will compete) with the private real estate market. Beginning in 1989, the real estate market in Southotd has slid downward followed by a regional economic recession mirroring the national one. It has yet to recover~ although some realtors report that the market is beginning to improve; e.g. people are looking. In order to assess whether the Town's program is coveting with the private market, a few local realtors were asked in April of 1993 to submit their lowest listings for homes and lots in and outside of the Village. The responses for each category are listed below up to $60,000 per lot and $ 120,000 per home. TABLE 11: Prices of Lots in South~ld Available for Sale:April 19931 Location Acreage Price East Marion 1 acre $ 38,000.00 Orient 1/3 acre $ 39,000.00 Greenport 5,600 s.f. $ 39,000.00 Greenport 1/2 acre $ 43,000.00 East Marion 1 acre $ 45,000.00 East Marion 1 acre $ 45,000.00 Greenport 1/2 acre $ 45,000.00 Greenport , 1/2 acre $ 50,000.00 Cutchogue 3.7 acres $ 50,000.00 Greenport 1/3 or 1/2 $ 50,000.00 Orient shy i acre $ 55,000.00 Greenport 1/3 acre $ 55,000.00 Southold 1/4 acre $ 55,500.00 Southold 1/4 acre $ 56,900.00 ~attituck 1/2 acre $ 57,000.00 Mattituck 1/4 acre $ 57,500.00 Cutchogue shy 1 acre $ 60,000.00 Greenport 1/3 acre $ 60,000.00 *Some of these prices represent actual contract or closing prices. 33 TABLE 12: Price of Homes in Southold Available for Sale : April 199q Location Acrea9~ ,+ Floor Area Price* Greenport 1/10 acre 1,200 s.f. $ 45,000.00 Greenport 1/8 acre 1,300 s.f. $ 64,000.00 Southold 1/2 acre 1,000 s.f. $ 87,000.00 Greenport 1 acre 2,000 s.f. $ 89,900.00 Greenport 1 acre 1,200 s.f. $ 99,000.00 Orient 1.2 acres .1,100 s.f. $103,000.00 East Marion 1/2 acre 1,600 s.f. $I05,000.00 Southold .37 acre $110,000.00 Greenport .17 acre $110,000.00 Greenport .07 acre $110,000.00 East Marion 1/2 acre 800 s.f. $115,000.00 Mattituck .16 acre $115,000.00 Southold .25 acre $117,000.00 Greenport 1/4 acre 1,500 s.f. $117,500.00 Cutchogue .42 acre $117,500.00 *Some of these prices represent actual contract or closing prices. This was not a scientific sampling, nor was it meant to be. Rather, it was attempt to find out what the prices were at the lower end of the real estate market. None of the projects that have come in under the AHD program have offered rental units. Accordingly the question that comes to mind is whether the program provides sufficient incentives to a developer to build rental housing. The Census found that the median monthly gross rent townwide was $655, and the average monthly gross rent was $717. (Gross rent includes cost of utilities.) Keeping in mind that the Census did not provide information about the size of the rental unit and the amount of the rent, we have to assume that rental houses and two bedroom apartments cost more than one bedroom or studio apartments. By comparison, the maximum allowable initial monthly rent in the AHD program in 1990 was $358 for a studio, $478 for a one bedroom apartment and $599 for a two bedroom apartment. If a ceiling of thirty percent of income for rent is assumed, these rents would be beneficial to those earning $ 14,320, $ 19,120 and $ 23,960 respectively. 34 Direct Action: Historical Background ~ The Town took direct action to ccnstrq~t housing in late 1986 or early 1987 as an adjunct to simply providing financial assistance to renters, homeowners and landlords. Direct Action was a distinctly different approach in that the Town obtained the land, applied for the grants and arranged for the construction of the houses. This approach was made possible by an innovative State subsidy program. 'First offered by the State of New York's Affordable Housing Corporation in 1985, the program provided a $25,000.00 grant towards the construction of an affordable home. Recipients of the grant had to meet State eligibility requirements, one of which was that they be first-time home buyers. Direct Action: Description and Inventory In 1987, about 6 acres of land was obtained from the County for a total sum of less than one thousand dollars. Two separate town-owned brush disposal sites of about seven acres in area (total) were declared "surplus" by the Town Board and were committed to the program. All the land was subdivided to create a total of fourteen building lots. Nine of the fourteen lots were in the hamlet of Southold: one was in Peconic: and four were in Mattituck. Each lot was 40,000 square feet in area. The Town then turned over the ownership of these tots to the North Fork HousingAlliance, which assumed the responsibility of constructing the homes. Between 1987 and 1988, the Alliance obtained $ 20,000.00 grants for each of these lots (for a total of $ 280,000) from the State of New York's Affordable Housing Corporation and used the money to defray the construction costs. The builders that were hired to construct the homes obtained the financing, a standard construction loan, from a local bank. The average income level of the fourteen new homeowners was $ 30,244. Household size ranged from 1 to 6 with an average of 2.7 persons. Income levels ranged from a low of $ 15,000 for a household of 1 to a high of $ 37,500 for a family of 6. Direct Action: Evaluation Three years elapsed between the acquisition of the land to occupancy by the new homeowners. In retrospect, it is evident that this time frame could have been shortened considerably had there been a clearer delegation of both responsibility and authority to the Community Development Director. 35 The major co~laint made about this approach was that the different branches of Town government did not work well together to expedite the project. Other problems included that of quality control and road access. The road access problem remains, largely because of pending litigation against the Town by an adjacent developer who owns part of the right-of-way. The litigation was triggered in part by the fact the land used for the homes originally was designated as Park and Playground for a large major subdivision of which only one section was ever constructed. The land was "lost" to the County for lack of payment of back taxes by either a prior developer or the homeowners. Lack of experience with this t!rpe of project was probably the largest causal factor of these problems. If given sufficient authority and responsibility, the Conm~nity Development Director should be able to avoid these pitfalls in future projects. Also, care should be taken to avoid using privately owned park and playground property within subdivisions for reasons both planning and legal. 36 Public/Not-for-Profit Partnership: Habitat for Humanity Description and Inventory ~ In 1992, the Town and the Housing All%ance tried a public/non-for-profit partnership with Habitat for Humanity, a well known organization that builds affordable homes nationwide. (This organization is perhaps best known through the efforts of its famous volunteers such as Former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn.) Habitat for Humanity (HH) is an independent, not-for-profit agency that specializes in mobilizing community resources to construct affordable housing quickly. HI{ is able to operate independently because it does not accept government funding for its work. The land for two lots originally was donated to the Town by the County ~f Suffolk for affordable housing. The Town turned the land over to the Alliance, who contacted HH in the fall of 1991. The recipients were s'elected that winter, 1992. Construction began in July of 1992 and by January of 1993 the recipients had closed on their homes. The homes are located in the Town of Southold, in the unincorporated part of Greenport. Each home is about 1,100 square feet in size. The floor plan provides for three bedrooms and one bath. The cost of each house: $45,000. The recipients were Greenport residents who worked in Southold Town° The average yearly income of each of the families was between $20,000 and $25,000. Average household size was 5 people. The HH organization set the guidelines, but worked in cooperation with the Housing Alliance to interview and select the recipient families, who had to meet the following four criteria: 1. Be gainfully employed. (The maximum family income could not exceed $25,000 per year.) 2. Be living within ten miles of the future home site. 3. Be in need of decent housing and unable to purchase a home without the assistance of HH. 4. Be able to contribute 600 hours of "sweat equity" on another HH home construction project. HH's selection was based on a number of factors such as income level, degree of housing need, past history of responsible home care, evidence of a high level of responsible financial management and personal interviews with the potential recipients. Home recipients were given a twenty year, no-interest loan for the cost of the construction only. The $45,000 price tag for these two homes was approximately $5,000 more than HH's usual cost due to the high fees associated with installing public water service from the Village. HH placed a second mortgage of $55,000 on each home which will be forgiven on a sliding scale if the homeowners stay in the home for the full twenty years of its term. 37 Public/Not-for-Profit Partnership: Habitat for Humanity Evaluation Of all the programs sponsored by Southold Town, this one provided the most inexpensive single-family housing ($45,000) for the lowest possible income bracket ($25,000 or lower). Mortgage pa!anents are an affordable $400 (total) per month, which covers the loan, the taxes and the insurance. Perhaps most'importantly, the recipients must be local residents in order to be eligible. The program encourages self-sufficiency skills in young families in various ways. One is its sweat equity requirement of 600 hours per home recipient. Half of the sweat equity has to be invested in the recipient's own home, the other half has to go towards the other home being constructed. Additional volunteer labor is provided by HH and by local people. Local Companies provide materials and services either for free, at cost or at a discount. Finally, a "nurturing" committee sponsored by HH will stay in touch with the recipient famiiies through the years to provide financial and health care counseling as may be needed. Although long-term homeownership is encouraged by the structure of the mortgaging, if a recipient wishes to sell before the twenty year mortgage is satisfied, HH does not restrict the selling price. The home. and land may be sold for whatever the market will bear. However,~ the homeowner will receive only a percentage of the selling price based upon the amount of the mortgage ~that is outstanding. Since this program is geared towards providing decently built shelter for those who would be unable to afford to own a home othel~ise, these homes. cannot (and should not) be compared with the more expensive, customized single-family homes that are provided through other Town programs. 38 Private Initiatives: Introduction It is important to recognize that during the 1980s, there also were two solely private initiatives to provide affordable housing. Although these inititatives were the sole undertaking of the private sector with no involvement by the Town, their history, description, inventory and evaluation are included here because they were significant projects in their own right. The first project described here is that of the private~ non-for-profit organization known as the Walsh Park Benevolent Corporation. The second project described here is that of a private for-profit venture known as Cedarfields. These projects provided a useful counterpoint to the Town's program, thus were instructive in our search for practical recommendations to improve the Town's policy and programs. Private Initiatives: Walsh Park Benevolent Corporation: Historical Background The first private initiative to provide affordable housing in Southold Town was sponsored by the Walsh Park Benevolent Corporation on Fishers Island. Founded in 1987 as a non-profit organization, the WPBC's primary purpose was to address the underlying cause of the sharp decline in the year-round population of Fishers Island. As explained by the WPBC (see Appendix C for a copy of its report, along with the 1988 Growth Plan), the population decline was attributed to gentrification of the Islanders' year-round housing stock. Two thirds of the island is owned by the Fishers Island Development Corporation. The Corporation's lands have evolved into an exclusive summer resort complete with a golf course, country club facilities, private beaches~ and private roads. The Islanders who live there year-round and who provide the services necessary to the summer population live in the unincorporated portion of Fishers Island° The WPBA's concerns reflected those of the 1988 version of the Fishers Island' Growth Plan, which, in turn, reflected the conclusions of two earlier reports abo~t the Island: the Trust for Public Land's 1984 Report and its 1987 Update. According to the 1988 Growth Plan, the population had declined from 508 to 285 within a twenty year period. This coupled with the fact that the average age of year-round residents was rising and the school population was declining (from 111 students in 1972 to 47 students in the late 1980s), led the Trust to conclude that if the decline continued, the Island would soon lack sufficient people to maintain basic community services. The decline in the population was attributed to the fact that the within the prior ten years the price of real estate on the Island had gone up 425 %, mostly due to the demand for slimmer residences by off-Islanders. As moderate-income homeowners were enticed by the increased value of their property to sell, young Islanders and those who worked on the Island were being shut out of the market. Many people who worked on the Island year-round were found to be 39 commuting from Connecticut the Island. because they could not afford to live on Private Initiative: Walsh Park Benevolent Corporation Description and Inventory The WPBC purchased a 24 acre parcel with funds that had been pledged from a private foundation and from Island property owners. The property was subdivided into twelve lots which were clustered around a short cul-de-sac. While lot sizes ranged from slightly more than 40,000 to nearly 53,000 square feet, conservation easements and designated open space areas restrict the actual developable area (road and home sites) to about three and a third acres. The application was made in Aprit of 1988; conditional final approval was granted in August of 1989, and the final maps were endorsed that following November 1989. The cul-de-sac was constructed and dedicated to the Town in 1990, Only year-round residents of the Island whose prima_r% employment is on the Island are eligible. The Benevolent Corporation choses the recipients. It offers recipients a thirty-five year lease of the land which has been improved by WPBC with a foundation, all utilities and a septic system. The land rent is $10 per year. The home owner pays for the real estate taxes, homeowner's insurance and any othe~ assessments. The WPBC arranged for the Connecticut Valley Housing Corporation to ' provide two different modular home models priced between $70,00Oand $90,000. Mortgages cannot exceed $90,000, and may be held only by a banker SONYMA (State of New York Mortgage Agency). This housing will remain affordable because the land is leased for a term of 35 years. Upon expiration or other termination of the lease, the home must be sold in accordance with one of four specific guidelines. They are as follows: The home may be offered for sale on a sealed bid basis to other qualified buyers on the WPBC waiting list. The WPBC reserves the right to override lessee's acceptance of a bid provided it pays the difference in the bids. If the house is not sold in accordance with aforesaid procedure, the lessee has the right to find a buyer who would meet WPBC's qualifications. If the house is not sold in accordance with the second procedure, WPBC has the right to purchase at "not more than cost (Contract Price) of all Improvements (excluding "sweat equity") less depreciation, adjusted for the compound annual 40 4o increase (decrease of the Consumer Price Index for the Eastern Seabord Statistical Area over the period of the term of th~.Lease." If not sold in accordance with tLe third option, the lessee is free to sell to any buyer, subject to the WPCE's right of furst refusal at a bona fide offer. If the home is sold under this option to other than the WPBC, the lessee must purchase the land for the lesser of $100,000 or half of a bona fide offer. Second mortgages are not permitted except for a $15,000 grant from the NYS Affordable House Ownership program or its equivalent. The lessee assumes responsibility for the terms of the loan. If the recipient of the home should die, the term of the lease may be continued for the remainder of the spouse's life or for children or other relatives who lived in Walsh Park for at least three years prior to the lessee's deaths provided that child or relative meets WPBC criteria. Six of the units have been constructed and occupied. A seventh was scheduled for occupancy this past summer. The recipients of the five remaining homes are in the process of obtaining the financing for construction and occupancy either the fall of '93 or the following spring. To date, the recipients have been able to obtain financing through either New York State's Ginnie Mae program or a mortgage company. Brought by boat from Connecticut, the modular homes reflect traditional Cape Cod architecture. Based on the six homes that were occupied at the time of this writing, the average home price has been about $ 65,000. According to the Administrator of the WPBC, the average income of the six recipients, all of whom work on the Island, is estimated to be about $ 38,000. The average household size is 3.33 persons. P~ivate Initiatives: Walsh Park Benevolent Corporation Evaluation The Walsh Park project is considered the first and only initiative within the Town to construct truly affordable housing that will remain affordable'for future residents. The structure of WPBC's program guarantees a well-built home at a very reasonable cost. The fact that the homesite is leased not only keeps the new home prices low, it ensures the future availability of the homes at an affordable price. Because this program is run by a private not-for-profit organization, its eligibility criteria are not subject to the same scrutiny as a publicly run program. Accordingly, it is difficult to determine whether this program is reaching all those in need of affordable housing on the Island. However, given the goals of the WPBC, we can safely assume 41 that the program recipients are considered vital to the year-round economy and community services of, the Island. The goals of the WPBC ~are the dete~i~ing factor in who can obtain one of its affordable homes. The situation on Fishers Island is unique and certain elements of it do not translate to the rest of the Town. However,. the general principle behind the program; that the land and homes remain accessible to future year-round residents at an affordable price, is worth serious consideration. Further, the careful location and design of the homesites, the quality of the homes, the favorable publicity and the potential for developing and recouping equity; all these combined elements will work to ensure the continuing viability of this new residential neighborhood on Fishers Islandl Private Initiatives: Cedarfietds Historical Background The Cedarfields subdivision in Greenport originally was an affordable housing project in accordance with the provisions of the AHD district in Novon%her of 1987. However, changing financial circumstances caused the developer to let the change of zone expire. The property reverted to. its previous Hamlet Density HD zone under a provision of the AHD program that was deleted in 1992. The developer obtained a new partner/contract vendee who voluntarily offered to develop the property in accordance with AHD legislation. Private Initiatives: Cedarfie~ds Description and Inventory Thirty-seven (37) affordable lots were offered under the Town's AHD guidelines. Final approval was granted in 1990. All the lots were sold and built upon by the developer. Occupancy was in the late fall of 1991. The average income of Cedarfields residents upon purchase was $ 35,366. The average household size was 2.2. The home prices ranged from $ 89,900.00 to $ 95,414.00 depending on the time of purchase. No grants were applied to this project. However, only 66% of the eventual buyers resided or lived in Southold Town at the time of their purchase. · Private Initiatives: Cedarfields Evaluation The Cedarfields project marked the first time a developer voluntarily agreed to comply with the terms of the Town's affordable housing district. The land had been zoned fo~ Hamlet Density (HD), then rezoned for Affordable Housing (AHD). Delays in bringing the project on line due to unforseen financial hurdles on the part of the owners and contract vendees cost them the AHD designation. However, the project sponsors pushed on. 42 Conclusions The primary goal of this report was to evaluate the effectiveness of Southold Town's policies and programs for affordable housing. The two studies that compose this report led to certain inescapeable conclusions which are noted here. First, the Town has never adopted a policy statement about the goals of its housing programs. Nor has it ever adopted specific Goals and Objectives pursuant to such a policy statement. Consequently, there is neither a primary focus nor a clear sense of direction in implementing the various programs. A statement of purpose along with Goals and Objectives that indicate the amount and type of housing that is needed, the places that housing should be located~ the time frame within which the units should be created, and the maximum allowable cost (whether for rent or purchase) for each type of unit. would help both governmental officials and developers to focus their energies and resources more constructively. Second, the'Town does not review its housing policies and programs either in a systematic fashion or on a regular basis. Local housing supply and demand are affected by fluctuations in the local and regional economy. Therefore, housing policy and programs must be reevaluated frequently and systematically to ensure that the objectives are being met. A review every two to five years would not be too frequent. Third, although the Town's financial assistance programs appear to be working well, they are insufficient to meet current needs of existing Town residents. Fourth, the Town's accessory apartment law has failed to achieve its original objectives. Fifth, the focus of the Town's affordable housing zoning district (APiD) program is geared to providing new moderate-income housing even though the need for lower income housing appears to be greater. Sixth, affordable housing is distributed disproportionately within the Town, and there are no incentives built into the program to encourage otherwise. Seventh, there are insufficient incentives for developers to create new affordable rental stock or to renovate existing larger homes into affordable year-round rental units. It is clear that Southold Town's affordable housing policies and programs need to be brought into a more realistic alliance with local economic conditions. Accordingly~ this Committee has invited the Stewardship Task Force to review these findings and to recommend appropriate courses of action to the Town Board. And, it looks forward to working with the Task Force and the Town Board to implement forthcoming recommendations. 43 APPENDIX A Description of Housing Subsidy Resources Available from Governmental and Private Organizations ROUSING SUBSIDY RESOURCES as of August 9, 1990 (Complied and updated by: Bessie E.'Swann, Executive. Director C.AoS.T. & North Fork Housing AlliJnce, Inc. The following resources are available from the State of New York, the Federal Government and private organizations: Source: 1) N.Y. State Dept. of Social Services Homeless Housing and Assistance Program - Provides grants and loans to construct or rehabilitate housing. Source: ~1) 2) N.Y.S. Division of Housing and Community Renewal Rural Initiatives Program - Provides funds to non-profit organizations for a specific work for the revitalization and improvement of rural areas through the creation, preservation, or improvement of local community facilities Rural Rental Assistance Program - Provides rental subsidies to income eligible tenants in conjunction with. the FmHA 515 multi-family housing program. Source: 1) Source: 1) N.Y. State Housing Trust Fund (Low Income Housing Trust Fund and Affordable Home Ownership) Income eligible individuals, municipalities and non-profit agencies may apply for grants or loans which could develop a variety of housing programs to serve low-income people using loans from the Housing Trust Fund. Funds can be used for owner-occupied homesteading, low-income coops, single-room occupancy Projects, shared (congregate) housing and multi-family rentals. N.Y. State Rural Preservation Company Provides administrative grants to not-for-profit housing agencies which are to be utilized primarily in leveraging other dollars which will produce housing for low-income families. Source: 1) State of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA) SONYMA will use the proceeds of upcoming bond sales to purchase newly originated mortgages from participating banks across the State. Owner occupied one to four family homes, condominiums are eligible for a SONYMA loan. These mortgages will have up to a thirty year terms and will provide a fixed interest rate loan at two to three points below the conventional market Source: 1) Source: 1) interest rate. In 0rd~r ~6 ~ncourage the participation of first-time home buyers and persons of more modest means, as little as a five percent downpayment will be required. While the exact interest rate of the mortgage loans will depend upon the cost of the money to SONI~4A, the benefits of the Agency's tax-exempt bonding power will result in · favorable interest'rates for the new home buyers. Mortgages will be originated by local lending institutions throughout the State according to SONYMA's guidelines. SONYMA will purchase these loans. The program's primary objective is to provide affordable mortgage money to allow families to purchase their first home. ~Borrowers must net have had any ownership interest in his or her principal residence during the past three years. All homes financed under this program must be owner-occupied and may not be used for any con~mercial purpose. The second major objective is· to stimulate investment in targeted co~munities. SON~ mandates that twenty percent of the program's mortgage funds be placed by banks in these older neighborhoods. The First-time home buyer requirement is waived in target areas in order to encourage a broader range of potential owner occupants to move in and to help preserve and stabilize these areas. Participating banks are encouraged to link up with the efforts of municipal' community development agencies and not-for-profit housing preservation organizations so that SONLrMA funds may be better coordinated with local resources. A third objective is to stimulate new construction. The program reguires that at least one-sixth of the funds realized by each bond sale be used to finance new single family homes. The Agency has traditionally exceeded this goal and intends to stress this assistance to the housing industry in the future. New construction is encouraged both in targeted and non-targeted areas. N.Y. State Dept. of Enerc~ Home Weatherizatio~ Program Provides income eligible tenants and home owners with grants, for energy efficiency. Can provide storm-doors and window, caulking, insulation, etc. Farmers Home Rural Housing Programs (FmHA is part of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) FmHA 502 Home OWnership Loans can be used to buy, build, improve or rehabilitate rural homes; to provide adequate water and waster disposal systems for the home and to purchase the land on which the home is or will be located. Loans may be made for up to 100% of Source: l) 2) 3) the FmHA approved value of the property. Terms of loans are available from 25 to 33 years with variable interest rates starting at 1%. Family incomes (adjusted) currently cannot exceed 27,800 for a family of four. The family must be unable to obta.in a loan from private lenders. Maximum loan is currently $120,000. FmHA 504 Home Repair Loans/Grants - Provides loans, grants or a combination of both to low-income homeowners whose homes are severely deficient. Loans of up to $7,500. per family are · available at an interest-rate of 1% with a term of 20 years. Grants of up to $5,000. are available to very low-income and elderly (62 & older) homeowners. FmHA 515 Multi-Family Rental Housing Loans - Provides 50 year mortgages at 1% interest for the construction or rehabilitation of multi-family rental projects in rural areas. In addition to the mortgage program, FmHA makes available (to the states) a limited number of rental subsidies which are 5 years in duration and available only to elderly and low income tenants of FmHA financed rental housing. This subsidy is available through the Section 521 program (See R~iS Rural Rental Assistance Program). ~unds for these programs are distributed to states based on a formula that considers the size of the state's rural population, the extent of rural poverty and the amount of rural substandard housing. A comprehensive pre-application must demonstrate the market feasibility of the project as well as document the proposed design, construction specifications and costs, environmental impact and project management. U.Si Department of Housinq and Urban Development Small Cities Community Development Block Grant - Grant funds are distributed to states, which distributes grants on an entitlement basis to all eligible communities. 30% of the total allocation is earmarked for rural areas. N.Y. State is one of the two (2) states which continues to permit the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to administer this program. Suffolk County receives approximately $3 M. annually. Communities of less than 50,000 may compete for these funds[ These funds are intended to provide adequate housing, expanded economic opportunities; and to correct deficiencies in community facilities. The activities planned under this program must cumulatively benefit 51% of the low and moderate income residents of the area. Source: l) Source: 1) Source: l) Source: 1) Section 8 Housing Assistance The Section 8 program 'offers rental subsidies to tenants as well as rehJbilitation assistance to landlords/owners.. These sUbsidies range from a grant awarded to a family leasin~ a unit (Section 8) to a subsidy grant on a unit moderately rehabilitated by a private landlord (Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation/Rental Rehab.) to a subsidy granted on multi-family housing complexes (Section 8 New Construction & Substantial Rehab.). ~ection 202 Elderly & Handicapped Hou'sin~l A low interest loan program for the construCtion and mortgage of multi-family housing for elderly and handicapped individuals. Funds are distributed to states on a formula basis with the HUD regional offices allocating units within its area. Housing Assistance Council Inc. (HAC) Washington D.C. ~ Provides funds for technical assistance in the deVelopment of housing in rural areas. H.A.C. has a rural housing loan fund. Funds are loaned, utilizing th~ revolving loan fund method, for "seed" money in constructing or rehabilitating housing. Religious Organizations The Veatch Foundation (North Shore Unitaria,, Universalist Church~ Plandome~ New York ) Provides loans and grants. Has establish-ed a revolving Housing Development Fund and Technical Assistance program which will assist in producing housing for low/income families. Fiscal appropriations vary annually. The following additional resources were appropriated for 1990-91 by the New York State Legislature: Addendum -$1.239 million for the Housing Opportunities Program for the Elderly (HOPE), a $740,000 addition by the Assembly. $989,000. Was earmarked for the RESTORE program~ which provides grants for emergency repairs to the homes of low-income elderly h~meowners statewide; - $12.05 million for the Neighborhood Preservation Program. We also included a $50,000 matching grant for the Neighborhood Preservation Coalition; - $5.05 million for the Rural Preservation Program. Language was included to allow full funding of six RPC groups; - $488,000 for the Urban Initiatives Program. ~hese funds will support a handful of new grants to groups undertaking commercial or residential rehabs in depressed inner-city areas and keep the key component of an array of housing programs operating; $382~000 for the Rural Area Revitalization Program. Although a reduction from last year's level, these funds will provide some assistance for several hew projects statewide and assist with rural redevelopment; - $15.248 million for the Rural Rental Assistance Program. These funds will provide 15-year rent subsidies for low-income residents of about 300 new apartments built under the Farmers Home A~ministration 515 program and extend expiring rent subsidies for an existing 400 units for another ten years. $100,000 of the appropriation was earmarked for the Rural Housing Coalition; - $500,000 for the Development Authority of the North Country's Revolving Loan Fund; $5.25 million for three Department of Social Services Homeless Prevention and Demonstration Programs. The Assembly added $250,000 to the $2 million proposed by Governor Cuomo for the Housing Demonstration Program to improve the living conditions of public assistance recipients and the homeless through the Rehousing Assistance Program and the Homeless Prevention Program which, through legal assistance, helps to prevent families from becoming homeless; - $20 million for the Homeless Housing Assistance Program (HHAP): - $25 million for the Housing Trust Fund (HTF); - $25 million for the Affordable Home Ownership Development Program (A HOD). The Legislature provides that funds spent on these capital programs and capital components of the Infrastructure Trust Fund (ITF) programs could be reimbursed with the proceeds of bonds issued by the state Housing Finance Agency. Total authorization for the new bonds was set at $525 million, which represents this year $70 million appropriation ($20 million for HHAP; $25 million for HTF; and $25 million for AHOD) and all unspent funds from past years which are carried as reappropriations for the HHAP, HTF and AHOD programs, as well as unspent reappropriations from the following ITF programs: TUrnkey, Special Needs Housing; MObil Home Cooperative Fund, Permanent Housing for Homeless Families, Infrastructure Development Demonstration Program, Housing Development Fund and the Development Authority of th~ North Country. APPENDIX B Documentation on Accessory Apartments: Historical Background, Legislative Intent, and Special Except%on Requirements TO: P~O~: ~: 0 ~l:3LO · SiN ROAD ' TOw~ ~Oard ~OUTHOLD'L'I' N.¥ 1/97! ~awn ~ttOrnev ' · .' rQ of A- Ors . . Sout~.- PPeals .- ' "~Q TOWn HoUsing Advisory SUpervisor ~urphy' C°mr~ittee February I3, 1985 PropOsed Local La~ on Accessory Apartments Please review Accessory A- ~he attache= - are req~e~=Paru~ents ~=u propose~ ~ ' ~ued. ' Xour COmm=~ ~Ocal Law ~gestions Your Prompt response i ~=ar~ng date. FRANCIS j. MURPHY ' ~IN ROAD $OUTHOLD, L.L, N.Y. 11971 Creation of an Accessory__Apartment in an Existing Dwellin~ To promote the fuller util±zation of excess housing capacity in existing single family dwellings; provide an increased.opportunity for affordable housing; assist "empty nest" homeowners in the' maintenance and security of their property and reduce the necessity for the construction of new subsidized housing for small households. and the elderly, it is proposed to allow the creation of accessory apartments in existing single family dwellings meeting cerhain criteria. TELEPHON; The accessory apartment would be a' special exception use and would require Board of Appeals approval. The apartment would be allowed by special exception in the A Residence Dist~ict~ and the M and M-1 Residence Districts in the principal existing single family residence. One of the dwelling units shall be Owner occupied. An accessory apartment is proposed to be defined as follows:' Accessory apartment --A dwelling created in an existing one family dwelling pursuant to Section 100-30 (D) Add New Section 100-30-D as follows: D. Accessory Apartments permitted by special exception by " the Board of Appeals. The creation of an accessory apartment is permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appea!s, as -herinafter provided: 1. An accessory apartment shall be located in the principal building. 2. The owner(s) of the dwelling within which the acessory apartment is located shall occupy at least one (1) of the dwelling units. The existing one-family dwelling shall contain a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet. 4. All accessory ~partments shall have a minimum livable floor area of six hundred fifty (650) square feet. 5. 'No accessory apartment shall exceed forty (40) percent of the floor area of the existing dwelling unit. Page %D. 6. Parking requirements shatl be in accordance with the provisions Of Bulk and Par~ing Schedule for single family dwellings. 7. Only one accessory apartmen~ may be permitted per lot or dwelling. 8. The building which is converted to permit an accessory apartm shall be in existence· and have a valid certificate of occupan issued prior to January 1st, 1976. 9..The accessory apartment shall·meet the definition of a dwelli unit pursuant to Section 100-13 of this chapter. 10. Ail'requirements of th~ New York State Building Code and all other applicable state or local regulations shall be . complied with. 11. The outside entry to such accessory apartment-and its design shall be that, to the'degree reasonably feasible, the appeara~ of the building will remain·as a one-family dwelling. 12. Any exterior changes made to the existing building shall be made on the existing foundation for the purposes of'compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 13. Converted Dwelling shall be exempt from the Bulk and Parking 'requirements for two-family dwellings and Sit Plan Approval. 14. The Accessory Apartmen.t shall be for year round use only.~· 15. The special excepti6n shall terminate with the transfer of the property. The Board of Appeals shall retain authority to extend the~termination of the permit for a period of -up to one year and/or to entertain a new application for special·exception provided all of the requirements of this.·· Section·100-30 (D) are Complied with. A__DD~TIONS: 100-13 (B) DEFINITION Accessory Apart~ent _ A dwelling created in an existingl one family dwelling pursuant to Section 100 -30 (D) 100-30 ($) (1) ADD: after January 1/1/76 COUNCILMEN loseph L. Townsend..Ir. Raymond W. Edwards Paul Stoutenburgh James A. $chondebare Jean W. Cochran 'COUNCILMEN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 ~ebruary i4,' 1985 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1891 Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Town of Southold Office of the SUpervisor ..Main Road -'Southold, New York 11971 - Re: Proposed Local Dear Frank: Law on Accessory Apartments . . Since I won't be at the meeting of the 26th i'm h ' '"' m]ttlngmy COmments o~ the nron~A ..... ' erewlth, sub- What is incl,l~ ~- ~ = ~ ~uu~sory apartment l~w. Much o~ ~ ~ . ~ ~x~ uue proposal has been discussed b anu ~ am zn agreement with a good naet Ae ~* ~, ...... [~the Code Commltte~ problems that k'e~t it ~ ..... ~ -~-- ~ ~. *~v~z~u±ess, some of the ~_ ~ ~, ~u,~u,~u~e~ Ior so long are still existent and ~re are several-changes that I feel should be considered. Provision D-2 states that %he owner of the dwelling must reside therein. As an initial requirement this is desirable, however, it is probable that in many instances ownership will change shortly after the new apartment is established since many of the original applicants will be elderly. It is not likely that the new owners will Cease to reut the accessory apartment whether they occupy the dwelling or not. Provision D-15, which is supposed to address this problem, is probably not enforce- able and, at the very least, would create a substantial amount of work for the Board. of Appeals. Provision D.-8 provides that no house constructed after 197~ is eligible for 2-£amily conversion· Theoretically, this will limit the number of buildings eligible for Conversion and, thereby, control pOtenti; density. My original recommendation was to limit eligible houses to tbos~ built prior to zoning (1957). Itousing built then was intended for larger P Visor Francis J. Murphy "~"f;!milies; it had more bedrooms and baths. The people that Owned this housing tend to be older and could, therefore, benefit from both the rent and the company, By extending the time period to 1976, we are including a vast housing stock that didn't exist in 1957. In fact, most of the homeowners in Sonthold Town could legally apply for a conversion. This might jeopardize ~he density goals of our Master Plan. For health-safety reasons, and to further reduce the potential density, I recommend~that a provision be included that eligible houses be either located in an area served by public water or be situate on lots of one acre or greater~ Since it has been announced publicly that this matter is to be studied by the newly formed Housing Committee, and since they have formally received that charge, I recommend that we turn this proposal. over to them for their prompt review. Shouldn't thevPlanning Board ' also review this before we set a public hearing date. It is possible that both of these group's may develop SOme recommendatiohs that will ' make this proposal more workable. This will also help-expose this proposed law to the public and possibly prevent the problem we had with .the Houseboat Law and the Dumping permits which were prematurely presented. It is not probable that this Local Law will greatly ease the pro. blem of illegal conversions since it contains no positive or negative incentives to do so. I do believe we can delop a strategy that includes both the Building Department and tile Assessors to combat this problem and we can also benefit from the experience of Islip and Babylon Tow.ns which have been dealing with this'problem for Some time. I'll be happy to discuss this with you in greater detail when I return, tanned and rested, from Mexico. cc: Town Board Town Attorney Planning Board Board of Appeals · Sincergly, '. '~L. Townsend, Jr. ToWn Southold, N.Y. 11971- (516) 765-1988 February 25, 1985 Francis J. M~rphy, Supervisor Town of Southold Southoid, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Local Law on Accessory Apartments Dear Mr. Murphy: We appreciated receiving· the draft on the proposed Local Law on Accessory Apartments and your memorandum of February 13r 1985 We have forwarded a copy of this proposal to RPPW for their '~? review and coordination, since this Will be addressed in the biaster Plan which will be available in its final form within the next month; attached, herewith, is a copy of the Draft Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance by RPPW addressing accessory apartments in single family residences. We would appreciate your review and comments on the enclosed draft. We are available to meet with all parties concerned to try and reach a coordinated effort to develop such a proposed Local Law. enc. cc: Town Board Town Clerk Town Attorney Very truly yours, .... Bennett Or lows '" b' .'~2'~7'~> kl, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Southold Raymond, Parish, Pine and weiner, Inc. uses permitted by special exception by the Planning Board. The following uses are permitted as a special~ exception by the Plannin~ Board, as hereinafter provided, and subject to site plan approval by~ the Planning Board. Two-family dwellings not to exceed one such dwelling on each lot. Accessory apartment in single-f~ilv residence~: a. ~11 dwelling units created sh~ll be for the use of, and avail . able to, lower and/or moderate income families as defined herein. .The residence in which the apartment is proposed to be located shall be in existence as of shall have a valid certificate of occupanc7 and shall be owner-occupied. Use of the apartment shall be deemed to be exmlicitv tied to such continuing owner occupancy in any written or oral lease, such that said lease, an~ ~11 use of the apartment by the tenant, shall terminate if the resident owner shall have been absent from the premises of more than 30 days. The explicit written aDnroval of the Town Fire Insoector shall be obtained for the design, location, access and other safe--- .ty-related elements of every such apartment. Fire detection equimment specified b,/ the InSDector shall be installed both in the residence and in the apartment. III-2 T__he dwellinc shall have a minimum total of 1,600 square feet el livable floor space ~bove the ground. The habitable floor area ~f the aoartment shall be at least 450 sQuar~ feet, but in n~ case shall the amartment~ have a floor area qreater than 1,00ii s__quare feet° There shall not be more than two bedrooms, and n~. bedroom shall contain less than 100 square feet of livabl,. ~loor space. ~ The apartment shall have a senarate entrance/exit to outside distinct from any other entrances to the residence. T~he apartment also shall have its own kitchen and bathroom facilities distinct from those contained in the residence, s__hall contain all services for safe and convenient habitation, meeting the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Buildin,~ Code and the Sanitary Code° There shall be created no more than one such apartment in an~ single-f~m%lv residenc~. The creation of the apartment shall not require or entail th~ ~Xpansion of the existin? residence, exceot that exmansion o~- u~m to 200 square feet may be permitted to accommodate a new entrance, kitchen or bathroom, but all applicable coveraQe, total coveraQe and setback requirements aoolicabte to the lo~ on which the residence is located must be -~cmolied wit~. There shall be room on the lot on which the residence i., located for the markin~ of cars of the family cccunvin~ th~ ~Dar~ment. No more than two such cars shall 'be oe-~.Jitted t,, park on the lot. No such car shall be permitted to park on th~ -'street or on any other nearby property. Only the owner of the residence may aom]v for this soecial ~_~..-~mit. The Plannin~ Soard shall require that such anDlicanl execute such agreements, contracts, easements, convensnts, ~eed restrictions or other leQal instruments running in favor o~-the Town, as upon recommendation of the Town Attorney, th_~_e .Board. shall determine to be necessary no insure that: ' (1) The apartment, or any proprietary or other interest therein, will not be sold to the tenant or any other party except as part of a sale of the entire residence in which the apartment is located; (2) The rental char~ed for the apartment remains within ~reviously aqreed upon minim~m and maximum ~uideline~, and the aoartment is made available for year-round ren~al;~ (3) The apartment is prooerlv constructed, maintained and used, ,und un,noproved uses arc excluded therefrom;---- III-3 (4) Th__~_eperson or class~_____of persons for whom the anartment was desicned and approved d_______~ in fact continue to occuov the-- ap~ar~nent and b~nefit from the existence of theft for the lifetime thereof; (5) An___y other condition deemed reasonable and necessary to insure the immediate and lon~-term success of the aoart- 'men~ in helping to m~tified housing needs community is met. Site Plan aPProval shall be obtained before issuance of any buildin~ or c~ertificat~anc¥' and no suecia~ ~_~rmit shall be issued until a Public h~~ may be combined with the hearln.~_~_~site Plan review, shall have been held. - Raymond, Parish. Pine & We iner, [nc. 555 Whits Ptains Road, Tarrytown, NY 1059 I-5! 79 gl ~tLS3~tg003 212/385.2' Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Main Road S~uthotd, New York 11971 February 22, 1985 'Dear Bennett.and Planning Board Members: _.We received your comments on the proposed Zoning Map, proposed Revisions to the major sections of the Zoning Ordinance and accompanying explanatory Memorandum. We also received a copy of the proposed ordinance on Accessory Apartments. We will incorporate the changes into the next draft; however, we have ' some questions on or need clarification for some of the recommendations. In a few instances, further discussion may be appropriate in order to assure that your objectives are achieved. A. Recommendad map changes: In the Cutchogue Landfill area your map indicates that the "eastern" flag piece should be kept as LI0 and the letter indicates that flag piece should 'be commercial.. Is LI0 the desired .category? For Fishers Island, the Planning Board requests removai of the Marine Recreation designation for the yacht club parcel in Hay Harbor and a parcel in the Pirates Cove area. This would de-emphasize the importance of maintaining areas for boat docking 'in'the. harbors of Fishers Island. If these parcels were designated in a residential zone and developed for. residential Uses, there might be no permitted boat docking or marina area in Hay Harbor, which seems undesirable. While there is one other area designated for Marine Recreation in West Harbor, it might still be desirable to maintain the area on Pirates Cove for marine recreation purposes. It would seem unwise to restrict access to barber areas Bennett Orlowski,'-~r. February 22, 1985 Page 2 on Fishers Island only to those residents who own a parcel of land adjacent to the harbor. This prevents other Island residents from having access to the harbors. The zoning line near Fishers Island airport reflects the boundary line between parcel 1.1 end-'parcel 18 on Tax map sgction 12 block 1 (see attached map). Text changes: We have some comments and questions on several of the changes that we would text like to e×amine further with you. By taking the 'reference to lower cost housing out of the explanatory planning, memorandum, there is no reference to the fact that you are addressing the lower cost housing issue. For this reason, we suggest incorporating some reference to how you are addressing that issue. The new definition of Lower and Moderate Cost Housing needs some "modifier" for housing and/or for families. If the purpose is providing lower cost housing, it is not sufficient to say only "housing ... as defined by the Town." There is no basis for determining if, in fact, housing is being produced that is affordable to those whose needs you want to satisfy. We are unsure of the meaning of some of the changes to Hamlet Density (HD) District f100-43(B) (1). You have said .that where public water and sewer are available, the -permitted density can be increased by 50%. However, the HD District already requires water and sewer to be in plac9 as a basis for HD Zoning. a. Do you mean that six dwelling units per acre can be Constructed if all are offered at a lower cost than would be the case if only four per acre are permitted? Will increasing density necessarily result in development of moderate and lower cost housing if there are no guidelines to specify or judge what lower cost housing would be? It is our opinion that unless there is some measure of what lo~ver cost housing is, the To%.gn has no basis to judge if th'e propesed use satisfies the need; secondly, ~~ett Orlowski, i~bruary 22, 19S5 page 3 Co if there is no defined ~measure (number of units;, cost of units, etc.) what is the incentive (up to six per acre) designed to achieve? Our suqgestion would be to: (a) allow the 50% increase in density if some amount of lower cost housing is provided; (b) define lower cost housing,~even if it is left to the Town Board° Otherwise there is a danger of having the Town Board define it on a case-by-case basis which may open up all kinds of prob±ems. 4. In the Agricultural Conservation District §100-34 on clustering, you suggest a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet without provision of utilities which is contrary to recommendations of the Suffolk County Department of Health. If the Department has indicated that 30~000 square feet will be acceptable under all clustering situations in Southold, then it would be acceptable to omit the suggested reference to the Department's approval. 5. We question .'the return to the current standard for hotel and motel guest unit density in the Marine Recreation District which has been ~esignated for areas along the Town's creeks that are: 1) particularly suitable for boat docking and 2) sensitive to increases in sewage overloads. The current density is quite high° Our suggested density is.based on an equivalent impact from residential development at about one unit per acre without water and sewer up to four units with water and sewer. Even if there is no conversion to condomiDiums, these units could be used full time by families during summer months. Also, shall all other zoning districts where guest units are applicable return to the existing standard? 6. The Planning Board eliminated the recommendation to provide an incentive for provision of public access to the water. If, in fact, expansion of opportunities for public access to the water is a Town objective, this should be addressed in some form. We are encouraged by the fact that the Town is working to provide opportunities for accessory apartments in existing single family dwellings. The recent proposal from the Office of the Supervisor addresses many of the same points that we included in §100-31(b) (2) of the Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Bennett Or lows'k~, i~.. ~, Pebruary 22, 1985 Page 4 Some aspects that we included in our recommendation that did not appear in the Supervisqr's proposed ordinance may merit further consideration. Moreover, since you made no changes in our section except an alteration of time frame, we want to point out these differences. 1. We indicated that'accessory unit created.shall be for the use of and' available to lower and moderate income families; in the proposed ordinance the term affordable · is used without qualification of those who might reside in smaller units. 2. The existing dwe'liing will need to contain a minimum 1,600 (or 1,625-square feet to be more exact) rather than the stated 1,500 square feet in order to have a new apartment of 650 scuare fee~ adhere to the principle of a maximum o~ 40% of the floor area of the existing dwelling. Alternatively, the accessory apartment could be restricted to less than 50% of the floor area of the existing dwelling. We suggested that an accessory ~partment could be as small as 450 square feet, but no greater than 1,000 square feet or having no .more than two~ bedrooms. Again, our objective was that the apartments should meet the needs of middle and lower income residents, senior citizens and young people starting work, but should not overburden existing water and sewage facilities.' We stated that 1,600 square feet was an acceptable minimum house size, but gave no percentage permitted except that.~he term accessory itself could be interpreted.to mean secondary use or less than 50% use. The RPPW draft required off street parking for the accessory units, but limited to a maximum of two spaces in addition to that required for the principal dwelling. This was specified so that the apartment would not have negative safety or aesthetic impacts on neighboring properties. The revised zoning ordinance indicated that the new apartment could not be sold separately from the residence of which it is a part a~d included other safeguards for the tenant and the Town in furtherance~ of the principle of providing low and moderate income housing. The proposed ordinance does not address these issues. J nnett Orlowskl, February Page 5 5. The RPPW draft ~specified that site plan approval was required in addition to the special permit approval recommended by the proposed ordinance while the Town draft exempts the accessory apartment from site review. The P.lanning Board should discuss what is desirable. 6. We specified that written approval of" the Fire Inspector shall be obtained for the design~ location, .' access and other safety-related elements and that fire detection equipment ..be installed. Perhaps the reference to the State Building Code in the recently proposed ordinance'should be expanded upon. Both drafts assume, that an accessory apartment would be permitted on a lot that meets the standard for a one family house. The Town's draft is actually clearer on this', specifically exempting the units from requirements for two family homes. We look forward to hearing from you so that we ca'n make appropri- .-ate changes and complete the draft. / Honorable Francis Murphy ST:dd '~Sincerely, /Stuart Turner § 10042 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-50 tion District, and subject to cond{tions set forth in § I00- 33 thereof. (2) Freestanding or ground signs, subject to the following requirements: one (1) sign, either single- or double-faced, not more than eighteen (18) square feet in area, and the uDPOr edge of which shall not project more than five (5) feet abOve the g-round unless attached to a fence or wall. Such sign shall indicate only the name of the premises. Such sign shall be set back not less than fifteen (15) feet from all street and lot lines. Such sign shall eompIy with all of the supplementa;-y sign regulations set forth in Article XX. . (3) Accessory buildings, structures and other required facilities and equipment necessary to provide community sexvers, water, heat, utilities and other community services to all buildings and structures on the premises: provided, however, that the plans for and the location of the same shall be approved by the Planning Board. § 100-43. Bulk, area and parking re,relations. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District unless the same conforms with the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter, with the same force and effect as if such regulations wero set forth herein in full? ARTICLE V Affordable Housing (AIID) District [Added 7-1-86 by L.L. No. 6-198G; amended 11-16-86 by L.L. No. 14-1986:1-I0-89 by L.L. No. 1-1989u] § i00-~0. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable llousin;r (AHD) District is to provide the opportunity within certain areas of the town for the development of high-density housing for families of moderate income. 10054 lo- 25- ss § 100-51 · .' ZONING § 100-51 § 100-51. D~ffnitions. For the purpose of this Article, the fo!lowing terms, phrases and words shall have the following meanin.,~s: CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -- The consumer price index as published by the United S~ates Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the New York Metropolitan DIRECTOR -- The Director of Community DeveIopment for the Town of Seuthold. MODERATE-INCOME FAMILY -- A family whose aggre- gate annual income, including the total of all current annual income of all family members [excluding the earnings of . working family members under age tweng?-one (21)] from any source whatsoever at the time of application for the purchase or lease of an affordable housing unit or the purchase of an unimproved affoedab}e lot, does not exceed thirty-nine thousand dollars ($39,000.), Which annual income shall be revised each year on January 31 to conform to the previous year's change in the consumer price ~ndex. MODERATE-INCOME FAMILY DWELLING UNIT- A dwelling unit reserved for rent or sale to a msdera~income famiIy and for which the maximum monthly rent (excluding utilities) or the maximum initial sales price does not exceed the maximum rent or maximum sales price set fo}th in § 100- 56E hereof. In no'event shall the purch~er of said dwelling unit be responsible for the payment of any utility hoek-up fees including those customarily charged for bringing Same from the lot line to thc dwelling house. [Amended 12-22-1992 by LL No. 3.1-1992] ODERAFE-INCOME FAMILY UNIMPROVED LOT- An unimproved lot reserved for sale to a moderate-income family and for which the maximum initial sales price, inclusive of the cost of providing public' water and/or public sewer service to the lot, does not exceed the mmximum sales price set forth in § 100-56E hereof. Said ~un{mproved lot? shall mcan a var:mt parcel of real property desi~mated as a lot 10055 i - za- ~:~ § 100-51 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-53 on a filed map~ inclusive of all utilities brought to the property line_ [Amended 12-22-1992 by L.L. No. 34-1992] PERMANENT FIXED IMPROVEMENT_ A~ improve- ment to a lot or a moderate-income family dwelling unit which Cannot be removed without substantial damage to p~emises or total loss of value of said improvements. UTILITIES _ Electric, g~s (if provided to the subdivision), telephone and water. Cablevision shall be urovided without cost only to the lot line. [Added 12-22-I992-by L.L..No. 34- 1992] §1 ' 00-02. Applicability. _ AHD Districts shall be established by application to the Town Board, pursuant to the prOCedures hereinafter specified, on parcels of land located within the following areas: A. Land within a one-half-mile radius of the post offices located in the Hamlets of Matt/tuck, Cu~chog~e, Peconic and Southold. B. Land within a oneffourth-mile radius of the post offices located in the tIamlcts of East Marion and Orient. C. Land within one-fourth (~) mile of the boundaries of the incorperated Village of Greenport. D. Land in such other areas as shall be designated by Town Board resolution after a public hearing thereon, upon ten (10) days' notice thereof by publication in the official town newspapers. § 100-53. Use regulations. In tho AHD District. no building or premises shall bo used and no bu&ding or part of a building shalt be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or dcsigmed to be usod, in whole or in part, roi' any use exee.ot the following: A. Permitted Uses. (I) One family deD. ched dwelli.k~. 10056 § 100-53 ZON[NG § iC~-55 (2) Two-family dwellings. (3) Multiple dwellings. B. Accessory uses. Accessory uses as set forth in and regulated by § ~00-3tC(1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of this chapter. § 100-54. Bulk, area and parklng regulations. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the AHD District unless the same conforms to the following Buik, Area and Parking Schedule: BULK, AREA AND PARKING SCIIEDULE Number of stories 2~ 2½ § 100-55. Application procedure. A. Application procedure. Thc procedure for planning and zoning approval of any future proposed development in an AtlD District shall involve a three-stage ~eview process as foIlows: (1) Approval by the Town Board of a preliminary develop- ment concept plan. (2) Approval of the final~ detailed subdivision plat by the Planeing Board.* § 100-55 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-55 (3) The zoning reclassification of a specific parcel or parcels of land for development in accordance with that plan.* *NOTE: The town shall, in all instances, process Subsection A(2) and (3) above concurrently so as to enable the municipality to utilize a single SEQRA process and conduct a coordinated review of the entire applicatiom B. Application to the Town Board for rezoning approval. Four (4) copies of the application for the establishment of an AHD District.shall be filed with the Town Clerk, who shall submit k 'copy to the Town Board at its next regular sct{eduled meeting. The application shall contain at least the folloMng information: (1) The names and addresses of the property o~vners and. all .' other persons having an interest in the property; the name and addresS of the applicant, if not the owner; and the names and addresses of any planners, engineers, architects, suryeyors and all other persons or firms engaged or proposed to be engaged to oerform work and/ or services with respect to the project dcscr/b~d in the application. (2) If the applicant is not the owner of the property, written authorization of the owner or ownerS authorizing the applicant to submi~ the application on behalf of the owner or ownerS. (3) A written statement describing the nature of the proposed project and how it will be designed to fulfill the purposes of thi~ Article, including its consistency with the Town Master Plan; an analysis of the site's relationship to adjoining properties aml the surrounding neighborhood; tile availability ond adeqnaey of community facilities and utilities, including public water and pnblic server systems, to serve the needs of the project and the residen~z therein; the safety and cupaeity nf the street system in the area in relation to the anticipated traffic generated: and such other information as deemed necessary by the Town Board aod/or the Phmning Board to enable them to properly review and uct npon tile applicatioo. 10(/58 § !00-55 (4) (5) ZONING § 100-55 (e) A wi'itten statement describing the proposed method of ownership, operation and maintenance of all proposed common utilities, including public water and sewer facilities, and open land located ~vithin the proposed development. .. /% preliminary development concept plan for the proposed project, drawn to a convenient scale and including the following information: '(a) 'Pne total area of the property in acres and square feet. (b) A map 'of existing terrain conditions, including tepegraphy with a vertical contour interval of no more than two (2) feet, idenfificatio~ o£ soil types (including wetlands), existing dr~{inage features, major rock outcroppings, the extent of existing wooded areas and other significant vegetation, and othqr significant features of the property. (c) A site locatlon sketch indicating the location of the property with respect to neighboring streets and properties, including the names of all owners of property within five hundred (500) feet therefrom, as shown on the last completed town asessment roi1. Such sketch shall also show thc existing zoning of the property and the location of nil zoning district boundaries in the surrounding neighborhood. (d) A preliminary site development plan indicating the approximate location, height and design of all buiIdings, the arrangement of parking are~ and aeces.s drives and the general nature and location of all other propesed site improvements, including recreational facilities, landscaping and screening. the storm drainage system, water und sewer eon oeetions, etc. A pkm showing the number, type und locatinn of all proposed d~vellingr mdto and unimproved tots to be reserved £or sale or lease to nloderute~[ncorlle 100S9 ~ - za - !)a § .100-55 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-55 families and the ratio of ~he same to all proposed dwelling- units and lots in the development. (f) A generalized time schedule for the staging and completion ~)f the proposed projeet.~ (6) [Added 12-22-1992 by L.L. No. 34-1992] Fees. Not- withstanding anything to the contrary, the fees applicable to AHD zoning application processes shall be as follows: (a) There shall be no fee for the submission and consideration of a preliminary development concept plan. Cb) The fee for change of zone shall be five hundred dollars ($500.): (e) The subdivision fees shall be assessed in the · following manner: fifteen dollars ($15.) for each proposed dwelling unit or five hundred dollars ($500.), whichever is greater. (d) The applicant shall be responsible for any profession- al review fees necessarily incurred by the town in conducting its coordinated review of the application. C. Referral to Planning Board. Upon the receipt of a property completed application for the establishment of a new AHD ' District~ one (1) copy of the application shall be referred to the Planning Board for its review and report, and one (1) copy shall be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its review and recommendation, if required by the .provisions of the Suffolk County Charter. Within sixty (60) days from the date of the Plannl.g Bourd mcctiug at which such referral is received, the Planning Bourd shall report its recommendations to the Town Bourd. No action shall be k~ken by the Town Board until receipt of the PIanning Board report or the expiration of thc Planning Board review period, whichever first occurs. Said rev/ow porled may be extended by mutual consent of the Pluonlng Bourd a.d the applicant, lO0(;0 -© 100-55 ZONING ,ii 169-55 D. Planning Board report. The Planning Board. in.its report ia the Town Board, may recommend either approve! of the application for the establishment of the AHD District, wkh or without modifications, or disapproval of said applicatior~ tn the event that the Planning Board recommends disapproval of said application, it shall state in its report the re~ons for such disapproval. In preparing its report and recommendations, the Planning Board shall g/ye consideration te the Towm Master Plan, the existing and permitted land uses in the area, the relationship of the proposed dcsi~,m and location of buildin~ on the site, traffic circulation, both on and off the sire, the adequacy and availability of community facilities and utilities, including publie water and public sewer systems, ia service the proposed development, eompliance of the proposed development with the standards and requirements of this Article. the then-current need for such housing and such other feelers as may be related to the purposes of this Article. E, Town Board public hearing. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of the Town Board's receipt of thc Planning Board's report and recommendation or the expiration of the Planning Board review period, whichever first occors, the Town Board shall hold a public hearing on the matter of establishing an AHD District on the property described in the application. Such hearing shall be held upon the same notice ~ required by law for amendments to the Town Zoning Map and/or ~Zoning Code. F. Town Board action. (1) WitKin forty-five (45) days af~.cr thc data of the close of the public hearing, the Town Board shall act either ia approve, approve wiLh modificatioes or disapprove the preliminary development concept plan and the appreval or dis:tpproval of thc establishment oF the AItD District applied for. Appreval or approval with modifications shall be deemed ~m authority for the applicant ia proceed with the deiailed design of the proposed developnmet in I ()05 l t - 2r, - u:l § !00-55 SOUTt{OLD CODE § 100-55 and requirements of this ·Article. A copy of the¥own Board's determination shall be filed with the Planning Boai'd and a copy mailed to the appticant~ A copy shall also be filed in the Town Clerk's office. If such determina- tion approves the establishment of a new AHD District, the Town Clerk shall cause the Official Zoning' Map to be amended accordingly. (2) RevoCation: extension. [Amended 12-22-1992 by L.L. No. 34-1992] (a) Ulmn request to the Town Board on notice to the applicant and for good cause shown, the establish- ment of an AHD District may be revoked eighteen (18) mouths after said Town Board appro{'al thereof if work on the site has not commenced or the same is not being prosecuted to conclusion w/th re~onable diligence. (b) The Tow/~ Board, upon request of the applicant and upon good cause being shown, may, in the exercise of its discretion, extend the above time period. In the event of the revocation of aproval as herein pro~dod, tho AHD District shall be deemed revoked, and the · zoning classification of the property affected thereby shall revert to the zoning classification that existed on the property ;mmediately prior to the establish- ment of the AtID District thereon, and the Town Clerk shall cause tho Ot'ficial Zoning Map to be amended accordingly. G. Subdivision plat approval by the PIauning Board· [Amended 12-22-1992 by L.L. No. :M-19921 (1) No earthwork, site work. land clearin~z, constructioa or development activities shall take place on any property within an AIID District except in accordance wltha site plan approved hy the l'lannin~ Board [u accordance with the provisions of this Article and in aeoord:tece with the proecdores and standards for site plnn approval :u; set forth [. Article XXV nf this chapter. § 100-55 (~) $OUTHOLD CODE § 100-5~ W~nere a proposed development involves the subdivision or resubdlvision of ~and, no development shall pro,ced until the Planning Board has granted final subdivision plat approval in accordance ~vith the provisions of Chapter AI06, Subdivision of Land, of the Town Code. 100-56. General regulations and requiremeflts. A. Sewer and watch In an AHD District, public ~vator supply systems and/or pubfic sewage disposal systems shall be provided to serve all dwelling units located therein. B. Covenants and restrictions. In approving a preliminary development concept plan and/or the establishment of an AHD District, the To~vn Board shall have the right to require the applicant and/or the owner and all persons having an interest in the premises to execute an agreement, in recordable form, containing such restrictions, covenants, terms and conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the intent and purposes of this Article. C. Provision for moderate-income family dwelling units and unimproved lots. (1) On land ~vithin an AIID District containing ten (I0) acres or le~s of land, not less than forty percent (40%) of the dwelling units ~nd/or unimproved lots located therein shall be reserved for sale or lease to moderate income families. (2) On..land within an AI{D Distrlct containing more than ten (10) acres of land, not less than fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units and/or unimproved lots ~hcreln shall be reserved for sale er lease to moderate income familics. D. [Amended 5-8-1990 by L.L. No. 9-1990; 12-22-1992 by LL. No. 34-19:)2] EllgibiliW. In each AtlD, the sale or lease of dwelling nnits and unimproved lots reserved for moderate- income families who have not had any ownership interest in any res;dence or vacant lot for the pas[ five (5) years shall be allocated (ma priority b:mis, in the following order: (Cont/d on page 10063) · ZONING § 100-56 (1) To eligible applicants who have resided and have had primary full-time employment of either spouse, if .. applicable, within the Town of Southold for a period of at least one (1) year at the time of their application. (2) To.eligible applicants who have either resided or have had primary full-time employment of either spouse, if .- applicable, within the Town of Southold for ,4 period of at -- least one (1) year at time of their application. (3) To all other eligible applicants. E. Maximum sales price and monthly rent. (1) In an AHD District. the maximum· initial sales price of a dwelling unit or unimproved lot rezerved for sale to moderate-income families shall be as follows: (a) Unimproved lot containing' an area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet: twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,0000. (b) Attached dwelling, unit: sixty thousand dollars ($60,0000. (c) Sing']e-family detached dwelling unit: seventy-five tho~u~and dollars ($75,000.). (2) The maximum initial monthly rent, exclusive of utilities, for a dweIllng unit rcscrvod for moderate-income families in thc AI-tD District shall be as follows: (a) . Studio apartment: three hundred dollars ($300.). (b) One-bedroom dwelling, unit: four huedred dollars· ($400.). (c) Two-bedroom dwelling unit.: five huudred dollars ($5000. (d) The provisions of this § 100-56E(2) shall remain in effect as to each dwellin~r unit. for a period of flftoeo (15) years from the date of the/nit, iai lease thereof. 10063 i00-58 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-55 The maximum sales prices and monthly ren~ set forth in § i00-56E(i) and (2) hereof shall be revised each year on January 31 to conform to the previous year's change in the consumer price index. _Resale price:~f dwelli.n2' units and unimproved lots. (1) Dwdling units in an AHD D~strict reserved for moder- ate-income families may be resold to moderate-income families, provided that *.he maximum resale price does not exceed the purcha/e price plus the cost of permanent fixed improvements, adjusted for the increase in the consumer price index during the period of ownership of such dwel}~ng unit and such improvements plus reason- able and necessary resale expenses. (2) .Un~mproved lots in a AHD District reserved for moders, te-inceme families may be resold to moderate- income families, provided that the maximum resale price docs not exceed the purchase price of such lot adjusted for the change in the consumer price index for the period dur{ng which such lot was owned by the resaie seller, plus reasonable and necessary resale expenses. (3) Where an unimproved ]ot in an AHD District resem'ed for moderate-income families is improved with a dwellin~ unit the maximum resale price shall be determined in the manner specified in § 100-56F(1) hereoL (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 100-56F(1), (2) and (3) hereof, the Dircetor may authorize the resale of a dwelling unit or unimproved lot. reserved for moderate- income families at a price in excess of the maximum resale price specified in § 100-56F(1), (2) and (3) hereof, under the following conditions: (a) That the owner of such dwelling unit files an application with thc Director reques£ing approval of such resale, setting forth in detail the calculation for the determination of the maximum resale price, the prolmsed resale price and such other information and documentation .~s the Director shall request. 100(;,l ~..zr,- 90 § 100-56 ZONING- § 100-57 (b) [Amended 12-22-1992 by LL No. 34-1992] That the portion of the resale price in e{cess of the maximum allowable resale price shall be divided between the resale seller and the town in _the ( following proportions: ' Year of Resale Percentage Percentage . After Purchase to Oxvner . To Town ist ~ 100% 2nd 20?{, 8026 3rd 40% 60% 4th 6O% 4O% 5th 80% 20% 6th 90% }0% 7th or beyond 100% "0% (c) All money received by the to~vn pursuant to the provSsions of the preceding Subsection F(4Xb) shall be deposited in separate accounts and shall be, expended only for the purposes of this Artlele in such manner as shall be determined by the Town Board. 100-57. Administration. A. General duties of Director.' (1) The Director sh~.]l be responsible for the administration of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families in all AHD Districts pursuant . to the prov/sions of this Article. (2) The Director shall promulgate and maintain int'ormation and documentation of :ill dwellieg units and unimproved lots reserved for moderato-income fa[nilies in ail AIID District,s; the number thereof available for sale or lease at all times: the sales prices and monti)ly rent for such dwelling nnits and lots; and the names and addresses of eligible families desiring to ptn'ch~se tn' lease the same, togetber with a priority list of such families. The Director 100-57 SOUTHOLD CODE · § 100-57 shall maintain such other records and documents as shall be required to properly administer the provisions of this Article. B. Interagency cooperation. (1) Whenevm' the Town Board approves the.establishment of' an AHD District, a copy of such determination shall be filed with the Build[ng Inspector and the Director, together Mth a copy of any agreements and/or covemmts relating thereto. (2) Whenever the Planning Board approves a subdMsion · plat and/or a site plan affecting land within an AHD District, a copy thereof shall be filed x~'ith.the Building Inspector and the Director, together xv/th copies of any agreements and/or covenants relating thereto. (3) Whenever the Building Inspector shall issue a building permit, a certificate of occupancy or any other permit or authorization affecting dwelling units and/or unimproved lots located in an AItD District and reserved for sale or lense to moderate-income families, a copy thereof shall be filed with the Director. C. Procedure. (1) Whenever the Building Inspector receives an application for a eertifieato of"oeeupancy for a dwelling unit or unimproved lot located in an AHD District and resmwed for sale or lease to moderate-income familics, the Building Inspector shall file a copy thereof with the Director, who shall inform tim owner and/or person filing such acplieotion of the maximum sales price or monthly rent for such dwelling unit or lot ,ms well ,as eligibility requiremenLs for fumilics seeking to pnrch:l~e or Ieee such dwelling units m' lots. (2) No certificate of occupaucy may be issued by the Building' Inspector until the Director has suppl~cd the Buihlinj~ htspeotor wiLh tile iufornmtion pro~Sded for in the precedin~ sul,svction and the BuiMing Inspector deturmincs that the issuance of the certificate o[ § 100-57 .. ZONING § 100-~7 occupancy w/Il not permit a use. ocCUlS~ncy, sale or lease of a dwelling unit or unimproved lot in violation of the provisions of thi§ Article. (3)' The Director shall certify the eligibility of all applicants ' for ]ease or purchase of dwelling units and unimproved · 10ts reserved for moderate-income families. An bwner of dwelling units and unimproved lots in an AHD District which are reserved for sale or lease to moderate-income fatuities shall not sell or lease the same to any person who does not possess a certificate of eligibility issued by the Director. A violation of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute grounds for the revocation of a certificate of occupancy. (4) On or before March 31 of each year, the Director shall notify {.he owner or manager of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families of the monthly rent, sales price and income eligibility requirements for such units and lots based upon data derived from the preceding year. (5) Thc owner or manager of dwelling units and unimproved lots reserved for moderate-income families shall certify in writing to the Director, on or before May 31 of each year, that {.he sale and/or lease of such dwelling units and lots comply wi~h thc provisions of this ArticIe and Chapter 100 of thc Town Code. (6) When a dwelling unit reserved for lease to m~derats- income fa~nilies is to bc rented, thc lease for such unii. shall not exceed a term o[ two (2) years. (7) An applicant for a certificate of cligibili[y aggrieved by any dctcrrninatior~ of thc Director shall have thc right to appeal such dctormination to the qbwn Board at its next rc!~mlarly schedoled work session or to any standing committee of thc Town Board dcsll~matcd by resolution to hear such appeals. [Added 12~23-1990 hy k.r. No. 31- 100t;7 ~ - zs- § 100-57 (s) SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-60 The only covenants and restrictions which may even be placed.upon any tot or dwelling unit in an AHD District must be first approved by action of the Town Board. [Added 12-22-1992 by LL. No. 34-1992] § 100-58. Applicability of other Code provisions. All of the provisions of the Cede of the Town of Southold not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Article shall be applicable in the AHD District § i00-59. Penalties for offenses. [Added 12-22-1992 by Lk No. 34-1992] Any violation of any provision of this Article shall be punishable in the following manner: A. First offense: by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.). B. Second offense and for any offense thereafter:, by a fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.) and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,0003 for each offense. ARTICLE VI Resort Residential (RR) District [Added 1-10-89 by L.L No. 1-1989~:] § 100-60. Purpose. The purpose of the Resort Residential (RR) District is to provide opportunity for resort development in waterfront areas or other appropriate areas where, because of the availability of water and/or sewers, more intense development may occur consistent with the density and character of surrounding lands. 10058 APPENDIX C Introduction and Sum'nary: Walsh Park Benevolent Association AffOrdable Housing INTRODUCTION AND SUblMARY The Walsh Park Benevo[e;,t Corporation ("WPBC") was furmed in 1987 to address ;he problem of the sharpl~, declining year-round population on Fishers Island. The fandamental premise which prompted the WPBC's formation is that one of the imporlant causes of /he declining year-round population is /he decreasing a*'ailabilitv o~r housing which is affordable by raoderate-tncome families. ' Tht~ housing shortage has been caused by a sharp attd continuing increase tn lhe demand for and the price of residential housing, fueled by the Increasing summer [~opulatlon. Is because of this demmad thai many long-lime moderate-income, pcrmanen~ residenl~ of lhe Island have gold their propert{es and moYed off the Island. g~ a resutt the l~land becoming more of a Summer setllement and Is losing ils abl{ity to malntai~ the basic facilities and services otsc. ommumty.' The year-round population h~$ declined from 508, [n 1960, lo 285 Ioday. This dlmlnlshlng permanent population is a serloas threat to the operation of the Fishers Island School DIst, tct, an Integral and ~ttat part of the community. Thc Fishers Island School, constrnct~d In 1~'72, Is designed for an enrolhnen; o~ 135 students. Since 1972, enrollment, tn preschool through twel£th grade has dropped from 111 siade~xts to 47 ~tudents. To address the housing problem WPBC, wlth financial suppo~'t from the .ganger Fund, Imrcha~ed a 24-acre parcel of land on North itill from Annette Walsh. Approximately 25% of that land ~111 be used [or housing ~les for year-round islaud re;talents. The balance will 5~ tef~ tn i~s ualural ~tale, WPBC h~s sought to develop a p~an for ~he property ~hich meets these hou*lng objectives and also meets the requirements of ~he current residents of North ttill. -- Th!s booklet contains information rete~ant tO the WPBC project. Tab I1 presents the proposed si~e pl.ln. This plan w~s developed by ~he the Boston office of The SWA ~;roup, a prominent p!an~ing and design ftrm. Tab 111 provides pictures and spe~:iftcattans of t~o proposed house designs. T~b IV presents background Information on the rationale for l*a~ng building ~ltes to Wa!$h Park homeowner~. Ii al~o contains a mem~randam which sel~ 0or the summary terms and prov~sions of the ground lease. Tab V describes Ihe a~pl!calloa process. WPBC needs appro×lmaie.ly $2t00,000 of addttloual funding in order to de~elop thc building ~ltes shown on the site pl~a. Tab VI documenls this need and ~et$ out our current .ruud rtdslng objective.,,, It ainu ~reseats lite estimated costs to be horde by a typical homeowner. WPBC's bas receh'ed Recognition of Exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, con~rll.~nttons will be tax deduclibIe. Parl* of the appltcallon ~nd the apt~roYal letters r~re altacbed under Tab ¥'I1. Many people har~ already provided fJnunclal supporl to WPIIC through the Sander Fund. Their ;~ames ~re shown tuner Tab VIIt. V/e boise fha! ;c~eral of £host people '~tll consider ad~llfnn~l ¢o~trlbullons add that olhers will choose to parllcfpate. L ~ PRO}'OSED 'E ?LAN This section ~resents a P~oposed subdivision pla~ for the ~'alsh Park Project. The plnn was developed §¥,the Bo~ton office of The SWA Group, a l}rOmtnent design and pl~,aning flrnl. Several points are of t}ote: There will be 10-12 single family houscs on our acre lots. Building wilt he restricted to half of each tat through conservation eaeemenls. Through restrictions on lot sizes and the use of censers'alien easements, approximately 75% of the laud will be preserved In Its nalurnl state. Particular tare will be used to safeguard the wetlands and the Osprey nest. ..ill houses are confined to to the flat ~rea on the south side of North Hill. The hr~uses are set b~ck and are shielded by pianih]g from Crescent nnd Fox Avenues. Consielerable sa~iogs could ha~e been realized If the lots abbutied these avenue~ and were entered fromm them. I{owever, it wa; felt iha{ such'an approach would malerlel]y deir~cl from Iht quality and appearance of ~he ~roject. · There Is no picnic area or olher "park-type" developn:et~i of an:,' kind o~ tl;e undeveloped portion of tile property. E~ery effort wtl.~ be *nude ihrough !et placcmeut a;id naturalized }andscaplng to preserve the exlsli~g character of [he prc~erty. FORM OF OWNERSHIP la determining the form of ownership of the ~Vatsh Park houses, WPFIC'~ ptlmarl,' objective is to ensure that the houses remain a~ailable Io moderate Income families for the foreseeable future. This would best be achieved by ha~iug WPBC build the house~ ~nd lease them to the occ'apants. However~ it was felt that home ownership would result in a stgniflcan~ly less ~ranslen! group of occupanl~ and would promote a far greaier sen:~e of community. Therefore, WPItC asked Patterson Beiknap, the law firm In New York advl.~Ing WPBC, to determine wl~ich form of owner~:hlp would besl suit WPBC's objective. A summary of their memorandum, recommeadlni~ long-term ground leasing, follnw~. Also included Is a list of the ma]or term~ and provisions of the groun~ lense. TO: FROM': DATF.: SUI~JECT: (Summary) Walsh Park ~tene~olent Corporation John E. Schmeltzer, III (Partner - Pattersan, ~Belknap~ Webb and Tyler) Aagust S, 1988 ~~0Perty In order to achieve the primary purposes of the W~lsh Park Bene~ole.,tt Carporatlon ("WPBc"), the' encouragemenl of home ownership by year-rouod moderale.-lncome restdeals of Fishers Island and conservation of Open land, we have coa;ldered vari0ns ' methods of making WPBC's land available and conirolling the rise thereof. Tho va:rlou~ methods considered iue}u~ed (II outright sale~ ~'i~b liml{ailon~ on resale 1o moderate- Income re~idents of FJs. hcrs Island, (10 sales tn*oivlng mortg~ge~ which would limit; the use, occupancy and resale of lhe premises and (iii) tong-germ ground leasing. Sales of building lois a[ subs/anllaJly below market prices with deed resfric(Ions limiting ~helr resale or snle~ of such lois su~jec[ io mortgage~ conlalni~ng rest;iclions on use, occupa~iey and resale would~ In o;sr Judgement, be ;uhjcct to attack by {he new owners on Ihe grounds Iha~ ~uch re~/rlc~toas would con~!Jlu{e improper reslraints on ~belr rights as Owners. Snch re,ti'nines a~d restricIion~ are not fas'oecd b~ New York conr/~ wi~h the re,nit that they may not be enforceab{e by WPBC. Gh'cn these COncerns regardtag en~orceablH{y of rcstrlclion~ on subsequent a possible renu{f would be that fhi~ land now dedicated ~o modera{e-tnCOme, full residents of Fly,ers Island would eventually not be a~allable {o such Therefore, ti Is recommended lha~ long-term leasiag of the land would more likely assure the Co~{iuuing achl¢*'ement of WPBC's purposes. MAWR T~Rb~II$ OF GROUNp LEA.RF l. ']'erm: 2, Premises: 3. Rent: 4. Improvements; $. Permitted .Mo~-tgages: 6. Iiomeowner~ As~octallon: 7. Sable~Iing or Assf£nme,t: 35 years. One acre !of, tncl,adlng foundation, utilitie:; aitd septic syslem, subject lo conservancy easement. per annum, plus real estate taxen, insurance and !zssessments (utilities lo be billed directly to Lessee). Lessee '~'llI purchase and COnstruct 0ne-faafiiy residential unit (Unit) on Premtses within a sti~niatec[ period of time. U'nll may be one of ~o model~ of hou~hlg available from Connecticut Valley ttouslRg Corporation. Ap~roxlmale antielpa*ed price range $70M ~o $90M. Lessee will be able [o sttDulate a *ariety of fnternM finishes and configuration,. Lessee will al~a be permitted ~o make addlIlonM struelural and non- glructura[ ]mprovemenis upon ~ tilden conseot of WPBC. All such Improvements wHI remain lhe property of Lessee ~ab~ee~ 16 lhe pro~islonc in "Disposition of lmbro~emenls" below. MaxDnnm~mount of $90,000; to be lieid by Instilut!onal lender or SONYMA only; morIgnglag ~ermlt~ed only for construction co,ts or wlih WP~(Ys consent for olher purposes. Mortgages will encumber both Improvements and Les~ee's leasehold ;interest in Premises. In addition. $QNYMA financing may require encumbering WPBC's title to the Premises. Mortgages must pet'mi( WPHC lo keep morlgage curren~ or ~urehase upon Lessee defnulL Mortgagee musi agere Io u~e best effor~ to sell Premises 1o WPBC-quallfled buyer upon foreclosure. Lessee wit be required lo be a member, :~nd comply with roles, of l{omeowners Association retatlng ~o ouldoor activities, land, lmprovemcnt~, appearance and other matters deemed appropriate. No subletting or assignmenl, excep! to WPBC- qualified purcha.~er. g. Disposl;lon of Improvement: 9. Secaud Mnr~g~es: lO. ludemniflc~t~on; Insurance: ]I. Death of Lessee: ,Upon expiration of [,ca~e nr o{her tcrulJnatiun of L~ase, lrnprovemeuts will be: a) ~f~red aa ~ sealed bid basis ~hrough WP~C Ia qualified buyers on WPBC waiting Iisi. 1[ Lessee accepts one of ~he sealed bids, WPBC shall have ~he right Ia require ~cceptance of another bid upon paymen~ by WPBC of difference ia blds; b) If hal sold under (~), Lessee has rlgh~ '~o find a buyer who wo~ld meet WPBC's qualifications. c) If ROI sold under (b), WPBC has rtght fo purchsse ~t price of no~ more than cost ("(?Onlracl Price") 0f all Improvements (excluding "sweat equity."} less depreciation, adjusted for the compound annual Increase (decrease.) of the Consumer Price index for the Eastern Seaboard Slaflstlcal Area over ~he period of t'he ~erm of the Lease. d) If not sold Under (c), Lessee free to setl to any buyeG subject to WPBC rigbl of first r~fugal at bona fide offer price. If sold ut. der (d), but no~ to WPBC, Lessee must purch~s,~ Premises for the lesser of (l) $100,00~ or (il) one-haU of a bona fide offer. p.rm~;ted; except for $I$,000 grant from NYS Affordable House Ow,crsbip Program or similar prol~ram, which Lessee will assume. Lessee to tudemuify 9,'?i~C from all clabnss e×peases or Oiher llabllltles arising from l'remtses and leasing ihereof, other than those caused by WP~C's gress negligence and WPBC iucom~, ~axes, If any. Lessee ~lll mahtt'ala genera/ liability and hon~eowners Insurance naafing WPBC as additional Insured tn arno,al, safisfaclcry to mortgagee and WPBC. Lease !o couttnue for (l) spouse's life or (il) children or oiber rcla,qvc who resided in Premises for at least three years prior to dealh, provided child or relative meets WPBC crilerla. 1~. Restricted Use: Year-round prltaary residence. foregoing ~id ~he Ground Lease ~sHI be resoh, ed in favor of thc Grennd Lense:. Bibliography of Reports on Housing: Southold Town "Special exception for modest housing and light industry" Memorandum to Town and Planning boards February 11, 1985 ~ William F. Mullen, Jr. "Town Planning Study" Report on The Public's Attitudes Toward the Master Plan Program February 28, 1985 G.F.Proud Marketing Communications, Inc. for Greenport-Southold of Cormnerce "Affordable and/or Lower Cost Housing" Memorandum to Southold Planning Board and Town Board March 29, 1985 Raymond, Parish, Pine & ~einer Inc. "Housing - Affordable" Memoranda to Southold Planning and Town boards May 1, 1985 and July 23, 1985 Wil'liam F. Mullen, Jr. "Southold Housing Advisory Committee Report to the Town Board" Undated: circa 1985-86 Southold Town Housing Advisory Committee "Thriving Village: Southold's Affordable Housing Program" Undated: circa 1985-86 Southold Town Housing Advisory Committee Chamber