HomeMy WebLinkAboutInclusionary Zoning 2004PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
JERIL~X/B. WOODHOUSE
Chair
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDW.~d~DS
M.&RTIN H. SIDOR
GEORGE D. SOLOMON
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOV~N OF SOUTHOLD
~LMLING ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
OFFICE LOCATION:
Town Hall Annex
54375 State Route 25
(cor. Main Rtl. & Youngs Ave.~
Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
To:
MEMOILANDUM
Joshua Y. Horton, Supervisor
Members of the ]['own Board
RECEIVED
~A¥ ~ 7 2005
%ulhold Town Cled~
From: Jerilyn Woodhouse, Planning Board Chair
Members of the Planning Board
Date: May 27, 2005
Re:
"A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Construction Specifications for
Roadways in Cooservation Subdivisions"
"A Local Law in relation to .Amendments to Streetlight Specifications"
"A Local Law in relation to Violations of an Approved Site Plan"
In response to the Town Board's request for comments regarding the above-referenced
local law proposals, staff has prepared the following observations and recommendations
for 5,our review:
"A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Construction Specifications for
Roadways in Conservation Subdivisions"
Under this new legislation, when development meets the minimum criteria for
Conservation Subdivisions pursuant to Chapter Al06 of the Town Code, the Planning
Board may approve a minimum right-of-way width of not less than 25', subject to
approval of the Superintendent of Highways. Tbe Planning Board adopted this as an
umvritten policy since thc new subdivision regulations went into effect. However, this
policy is contradictory to the current wording of the Highway Specifications enumerated
in Chapter Al08 of the Town Code.
Accordingly, the Planning Departlnent fully supports the enactment of this Local Law.
First, the reduced road specification may increase the area of preservation thereby
t~_wlherio~ the Town'~ x iSlOlt ol pl'otectmg farmland
IiaFEoweF ~l-oJ~sa) IS COIISISICBI WIlt] thc I'LII~J cl~al'aclct .... :~, ·
Subdix ision, particularl) o. a~ncultural parcds
significantly detract fi'om ibc SCClIIc qUaJltLC~ bcln~ ~[utcc'l~ ,~ ,,
specification is all added IllCC[l[IX c Iol 0[t~DCl't' .,~% tlC~ ,t~:x ..Iq,t~ ,
Conse~'ation Subdivisions rather ~hai, :xUlt/ddt..l
"A Local Law in relation to Amendments to Streetlight Specificatmn~
This pl,oposed legislation ,xould bcttc~ l'acilil, cltc 1}~ d~ktllitl~.
pole fixtures bccotlle dalllagcd allO ,k,,Uh: t iibtlii ilia ;1[
upon the street and 11ol upol; pl-i...'al,z Oft q',c~'t
rhe Plalltlillg Board has n. oblccBOll> t~, thc Icglslattolt ,i'~ Di', q}, ;-~, '
"A Local Law in relation to Violations ol an Approved Site Plan
Under this proposed legislalion. ~hilurc i,~ ~c, mpl ~ ;~ irh thc temi. ~lt,:
approved site plan ,.',ill be COIlsltlCIc~.~ .... ;atl,,,~; .,! ".Itc PI:Il; ,.!,
the general health, safer:' aBd xt, e[tagc t~l t}lt:. [}lllliltllllt'.' 1[l[? [}]atllill~e2 t¢¢},~,,
areas, access, landscaping and hg[ltin~, dl'l~C%zt~.. [~al'Kiil~ ~.tcc. . ,t.B~t= ~.,
COlIlprolBiSillg effect on thc Iox~n h ablltlx fo ~mde ~tltLll'c ffl~X~ ~l} 4,1G .B .. :. ~:,~
Planning staffhas l'ound a number ot'sttcs
approved site plans, x[[llcil lb ctmtrud~c[ol'..
respect to ~owth and devclopmenl Ihc Planning ~oaFd
because it will add credibihtx and subst.mcc [~, thc ~c pltm :,' [.,
importantly, it will be clear there , dl
Town's willingness to entbl-cc,
t 'c: Patricia Finnegan. '[o',,. n .Mtornc,-
Elizabeth Neville. I own t'lcl-I,
July 26, 2004
RECEIVED
To: Town Board JUL 2 6 2004
Fr: Phillip Beltz
Re: Recommendation for Inclusionar~' Zoning
$oulhold Town ClerJ
Attached please find the final draft for recommendations tbr inclusionary zoning. I have
incorporated comments from the Planning office and have strengthened the document
with additional research and information.
If you have any additional comments or questions, please let me know.
Recommendation for lnclusionary Zoning Formula
Purpose:
The Town of Southold has been struggling tbr decades to create affordable
housing opportunities for the majority of its residents whose incomes are
recognized as "moderate-income". The previous and current ideological
commitment to preserve, maintain and sustain the integrity of its rural
character and socioeconomic base is laudable and essential.
This report will provide documentation of the acute need for affordable
housing despite the Town's previous efforts to develop affordable housing
initiatives. In addition, the Town Board's efforts and current methodology
to promote solutions to the affordable housing dilemma are discussed to
provide a framework of where we are and suggestions tbr the future.
Furthermore, recommendations for additional legislative changes for
inclusionary zoning are contained herein.
Supportive materials lbr this report are referenced along with attached
exhibits. The United States 2000 decennial census along with the
comprehensive Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS):
Southold Comprehensive Implementation Strategy-Volumes I and II, May
2003 provided significant data and analysis utilized within the report. The
DGEIS was prepared for and accepted by the Town Board to promote
development and planning policies to save the Town's natural resources and
unique character.
In addition to addressing the preservation of land and environment, the
DGEIS study also included recommendations to preserve and promote a
wide range of housing and business opportunities that support a sodio-
economically diverse community. Included within the DGEIS text is a
Housing Needs Assessment. This assessment concluded "modest efforts to
provide affordable housing in the Town will not succeed due to escahtting
real estate prices". This conchtsion can only be interpreted as the
necessiO' for the current Town Board to seriously consider innovative and
drastic measures to increase affordable housing.
Historical Background:
The chronology below provides a brief historical context of public and
private efforts to create affordable housing for the Town of Southold from
1985-2003.
· 1985-The Town Board created a Housing Advisory Committee to
implement actions to create affordable housing. The Town added an
Affordable Housing Zoning District (AHD) to its Zoning Code "to
provide opportunities for the development of high-density housing
within certain areas of thc town for families of moderate income".
This was also known as "density incentives".
· 1986-Zoning Board of Appeals provided an allowance for single-
family residences to create accessory apartments. A very limited
number of apartments were created due to this allowance (11). This is
attributed to the financial costs incurred to create "legal" apartments
when in fact an abundant inventory of "illegal" apartments exists. To
mandate that these units comply with Building Code standards could
leave hundreds homeless.
· 1986-1987- The North Fork Housing Alliance obtained grants from
the State of New York's Affordable Housing Corporation that
provided fourteen units of housing. They continue to serve the
Town's poorest residents and currently have an active inventory of 53
property units.
· 1990-The Walsh Park project in Fishers Island was the first private
initiative to be developed exclusively for affordable housing through
the provision of 12 modular homes on a 24-acre parcel.
· 1991-Occupancy of the Cedarfields subdivision in Greenport began
with 37 units offered under the To~vn's AHD guidelines. This project
was also a private venture.
· 1992-The Town and the North Fork Housing Alliance partnered with
Habitat for Humanity whereby 2 homes were built.
· 1993- The Southold Town Planning and Zoning Committee provided
the Town Board with a "Statistical Profile of Southold Toxvn: 1990"
and a "Description and Evaluation of Southold Toxvn's Affordable
Housing Policies and Programs 1980-1992".
· 1994- Southold Villas provided 33 units of affordable housing and
received financial support from the New York State Affordable
Housing Corporation. The average sales price xvas $92,661 and this
was the second affordable housing development in the Town to
receive AHD zoning.
· 1998-The ElijaJh Lane Estates complex was completed offering 20
single-family homes to moderate-income families ($44,600 was the
average family income). Each unit received a $30,000 subsidy fi.om
the Suffolk County Community Development program.
· 2000-Census indicated that there were 13,769 dwelling units, a net
gain of 790 dwelling units within ten years. Of this gain, 84 were
resultant fi.om efforts to create affordable housing. The 2000 census
recorded the Town's population as 20,599, a net gain of 663 residents.
In addition, the census reported that few household incomes are poor
(below $10.000) or wealthy (above $200,000). The largest income
cohort would be deemed "moderate" ($50,000-$74,999).
· 2002-The Town Board convened a working group/moratorium team
to analyze and make recommendations regarding development of land
use for the Town. This led to the commissioning of a two-volume
report, Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGIS) issued
in May 2003. The Town Board adopted a moratorium on residential
subdivisions and multi-family developments requiring site plan
approval. In addition, the Supervisor formed the "Southold Town
Housing Committee" to analyze the urgent need for affordable
housing. This Committee met bi-weekly since its formation and made
formal observations and recommendations in its December 06 report.
The report highlighted several components necessary in developing
affordable housing: density is key, affordable perpetuity, utilizing
existing housing stock and developing partnerships.
· 2003- The Town Board charged the Human Services Director and
Director of Community Development to analyze the Town's ability
and capacity to promote affordable housing. This effort rekindled a
community-wide appeal for action to solve the growing dilemma of
the lack of affordable housing. They recommended the hire of a full-
time staff position to work exclusively on affordable housing.
· 2003-A grassroots movement swelled into the creation of the Steering
Committee of the Community Land Trust (CLT) of Southold to create
alternative housing that is affordable. The CLT model is affordable,
as the CLT owns the land and housing is leased to lessees. This
newly formed entity has not produced housing to date.
3
Findings:
Despite these previous attempts to develop affordable housing, the problem
persists and has exacerbated increasingly over the last five years. Simply
stated, the affordable housing crisis is predicated on supply and demand.
The Town's vigilant efforts to preserve land and open space has functioned
to further limit the arrtount of raw land available to develop new housing.
Realtors have witnessed an unprecedented demand for housing in the Town
of Southold, primarily between second homeowners.
Within the last decade, the Town witnessed a significant increase of second
home ownership and seasonal rentals. The census data for 2000 indicated
that second homeowners comprised 34.1% of the Town's population. This
is believed to be a conservative number. The popularity of the Town of
Southold continues to escalate yearly as visitors "discover" the region's
unique charm of rural and agricultural landscape coupled with the
abundance of beaches and local vineyards.
Once deemed desirab][e for many second-homeowners, the South Fork .has
recently lost its appeal to those seeking a more rustic and pastoral scene.ry.
This has fueled consklerable interest in the North Fork as a viable alternative
to the South Fork. The Hamptons and North Fork Realtors Association
(HANFRA) affirmed that the influx of South Fork realtors to the North Fork
reflects the increased popularity of the North Fork.
The Toxvn's proximity to metropolitan New York City has significantly
impacted the housing crisis for local residents. Many of these individuals
desire second homes in the region and they possess extraordinarily higher
incomes than local residents. Due to increased demand and limited supply,
local residents are priced-out of the housing market.
To ascertain who was actually buying homes from sellers in the ]'own of
Southold, I requested the most current data from the Tax Assessor's office.
A report was generated that recorded housing sales from the year 2003 into
the first quarter of 2004. There were 473 sales, the minimum sales price
xvas $1 and the highest sales price was $4,600,000. Utilizing the computel-
printout and through assistance from the Assessor's office, I pulled files of
the first 50% of sales listed, utilizing tax map numbers to determine the
addresses of buyers for 236 properties sold during this period. The findings
are listed below:
Buyer's Address
Number
Percentage
Southold 56 24%
Other Long Island 92 39%
New York City 60 25%
Other Regions 28 12%
Within the last 15 months, less than 25% of purchasers of housing real estate
are from the Town of Southold. Included within this group are second-
homeowners in the Town purchasing homes, investors with local addresses
and properties that were bequeathed by estates.
Despite the Town's success in preserving and conserving land and open
space, it has not been able to protect its most vital resource, the residents of
the Town of Southold as well as its labor force who have become
increasingly marginal[zed in their ability to procure affordable housing in
the Town of Southold.
As evidenced above, the Town did attempt to address the lack of affordable
housing. However, it never anticipated that housing prices would soar
exceedingly beyond inflation. Therefore its previous efforts did not foresee
the necessity of creating housing that would remain affordable in perpetuity.
Housing developed as "affordable" in the 1980s and 1990s selling for
$85,000-100,000 are currently priced in excess of $300,000. Municipalities
that create housing that is affordable in perpetuity through covenants and
restrictions have an inventory of affordable housing units for which its
citizenry can avail. With the exception of the Walsh Park Development in
Fishers Island, the Town did not develop housing that is affordable in
perpetuio', it has no inventory of affordable housing and its previous
efforts (while well-intentioned) are for naught in offering solutions to the
current affordable housing crisis. The Town must now begin anew to
create affordable housing opportunities.
The lack of affordable housing creates many adverse effects for the Town.
Regional employers grapple with the task of hiring and retaining employees
ar prevailing wages due to the limited availability of affordable housing.
Recruiting and retaining essential personnel (police officers, firefighters,
teachers, nurses, etc.) ]has become increasingly a challenge due to the lack of
affordable housing. Volunteer emergency services are also impacted by the
lack of affordable housing, prompting the possible necessity of replacing
volunteer services with paid employees who would be faced with the same
need to find housing.
The Town must be able to sustain a population that can afford to live and
work in Town. Census 2000 data reveals that 34.8% of the Town's residents
are age 55 or older while 23.2% are under the age of 19 years of age.
Sandwiched between these cohorts are the "working class" residents, those
who live and work in Town or those who live in Town and work outside the
Town. The census data indicated that the mean time of travel to their place
of employment was 26.8 minutes for Southold residents.
The socio-economic implications are far-reaching because Southold's
economy is primarily seasonal representing agriculture, marine industries
and tourism. The Town must straggle to meet the demand of its services
from approximately one-third of its population that does not live in the
Town on a year-round basis. Residents who live and work in the Town on a
year-round basis cannot compete with second homeowners to purchase the
limited housing that is available.
Without a workforce, a region cannot sustain itself. Sociologists and
economists attribute that rising real estate prices frequently contribute to the
erosion of the middle ,class if affordable housing is not built. Toxvn residents
are becoming more alienated and frustrated because they cannot continue to
live in their own community where they were educated with established
bonds of family, friendships and church.
The greatest loss is that children reluctantly leave their communities of
origin after completing high school and college. The Long Island Housing
Partnership reported that Long Island lost 127,400 of its 20-34 year-old
population cohort over the last decade. The 20% decrease in this age group,
four times the national demographic, has been coined the "brain drain" as
these children received an excellent education at the taxpayers expense but
could not afford to remain and work in their communities as they cannot
avail ofhotne ownership opportunities. A study prepared for the New York
State AFL-CIO reported, "The scarcity of affordable housing is a major
impediment to local companies' abilities to attract and retain the workforce
they need to grow and prosper".
Other
are as
indicators of the lack of affordable housing in the To~vn of Southold
follows:
$390,493 was the average sale price for 2001-2002. From 2003-first
quarter of 2004, the average sales price was $498,584, an increase
of greater than 27% from 2001 to 2002.
· The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that the average
sales price in the nation for 2001-2002 was $152,950. For 2003 into
the first quarter of 2004, NAR data indicate that nationally $170,575,
an increase of less than 12%. The Town of Southold's sales price has
significantly outpaced the national average.
· According to the 2000 census, $49,898 represented the median
household income for Southold residents.
· 23% of homeowners with mortgages pay over 35% of their disposable
income towards housing (excluding taxes).
· 41% of renters pay over 35% of their disposable income towards
housing. According to the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), the burden of housing costs should not
exceed 35% of the household income within high cost areas.
· The Suffolk County Department of Planning-Office for Affordable
Housing testified before the Town Board of Southold that Southold is
uncharacteristically extreme in its inability to provide affordable
housing for its residents. Research supports that financial institutions
generally qualify, households for mortgages when a family can afford
a house priced at three times their gross income. Hmvever, based on
Southold residents' median income, they would need to spend 6.78
times their gross incomes to purchase a home based on the median
sales price of real estate.
· The North Fork Housing Alliance is a local non-profit agency that
functions to assist low-income residents in acquiring housing
(subsidized and non-subsidized). It reported that as of December 31,
2003 there were 125 people on the waiting list for Section 8 subsidies.
The waiting list was opened from January 15, 2004 until February 57,
2004 and 61 additional families applied for Section 8 leaving a total of
132 families. It is worth noting that the agency reported 30
households were on a waiting list fur Section 8 assistance as of
December 1992. From January 2004-April 2004, the agency
counseled 225 households about affordable rentals and 45 households
seeking to pursue home oxvnership.
The Village of Greenport's "2000 Demographics: Greenport Housing
Characteristics" reported that over 25% of its housing stock is utilized
as seasonal occupied units. The affordable housing crisis precipitated
discussions between the Town Board and Village Trustees earlier this
year, although no consensus of solutions have been established.
Housing costs are prohibitive throughout Long Island. The National
Board of Realtors reported that the cost of real estate in Long Island is
the seventh most expensive community to live in the nation. They
also stated that home sales in Suffolk County rose higher than any
other county in the state of New York. The New York State
Association of Realtors reported that median used-home sales prices
for Suffolk County increased 17% from 2000-200 i, 21% from 2001-
2002 and 19% from 2002-2003. A report prepared for the New York
State AFL-CIO, "The Crisis of Affordable Housing for Long Island's
Working People", stated that the decline of vacancies in the tight
housing market has severely lessened inventory for rentals and home
ownership. It stated that vacancy rates for renters in Suffolk County
was 3.4% and less than 1% for home ownership.
8
Conclusions and Recommendations:
The Town of Southold has reached a crisis in its inability to provide
affordable housing for those with moderate to low incomes. It is imperative
that the Town initiates immediate solutions to this problem by increasing
opportunities for Town residents to avail of a diverse housing stock
(apartment rentals and home ownership). [n particular, the dramatic
escalation of land prices in addition to the lack of available land for
development has diminished opportunities for Town residents to procure
affordable housing.
To address this serious housing shortage, the Town of Southold must
promptly and expediently create a myriad of innovative housing initiatives
that reim,est in the lives of residents who live and/or work in the Town.
The 2003 DGEIS study provided the following recommendations to increase
housing diversity within the Town to provide ownership and rental
opportunities. This information has provided a template for the current
initiatives undertaken by the Town Board. The report offered the following:
· Amending current affordable housing requirements and creating new
incentives in connection with new subdivisions and change of zone,
· Amending zoning to allow diversified housing stock including small-
to moderate-sized units in condominiums and apartment styles,
· Permitting mixed use development ~vithin or adjacent to existing
hamlets,
· Identifying appropriate parcels within the Planned Development
District (PDD) that be used to target public funds and/or transfer
development rights credits for the purpose of increasing density £or
affordable housing purposes,
· Enabling PDD uses that provide an array of special public benefits,
including affordable housing, and
· Considering density bonus for additional units that are provided as
affordable housing.
This year the Town Board has advanced man3, directives in an attempt to
solve the Toxvn's dire shortage of affordable housing. Most notably xvas the
unanimous vote in January 2004 to hire ora full-time staffperson (Special
Projects Coordinator) to assist the Town Board with developing housing
initiatives.
9
Current Initiatives
The Town Board has articulated three guiding principles of its planning to
create affordable housing: affordable housing must be evenly distributed
throughout the Town; the housing must remain affordable in perpetuity, and,
a broad range of housing must be created to meet the needs of prospective
housing applicants.
This year several initiatives have been launched by the Town Board that
align with these guiding principles:
An affordable housing and hamlet planning process has begun that.
xvill utilize public input and planning expertise to foster smart growth
principles of development within hamlet centers, also known as
HALO zones. This study will be completed by September 2004 and
presented to the: Town Board.
o
The Town Board has promulgated the necessity to create and/or revise
legislation to promote affordable housing. To that end, a resolution to
create a Housing Fund was passed unanimously by the Town Board
in May 2004. The Housing Fund is a critical measure to create the
necessary infrastructure for the Town to obtain funding and create
programs that will increase housing opportunities for families and
individuals who are residents of the Town of Southold and/or
employed in the Town of Southold who cannot procure affordable
housing. Properties purchased through the fund must be sold back to
the fund, which will accept bond revenues, grant funding, Town
surpluses, gifts of land, etc.
The fund will provide low-interest loans, finance production of
housing for sale and/or rentals as well as the rehabilitation of existing
housing. Another important component within the Housing Fund is
its mandate that all homes remain perpetually affordable. Profits from
home resale values will be realized through the equivalent percentage
of the Consumer Price Index as compiled by the Department of I,abor.
The Fund will also compensate the seller for major capital
improvements that are improved in advance. Depreciation may als()
be applied to capital improvements. The Housing Fund also
established income eligibility, that is households earning not more
than 120% of the HUD median income for the County of Suffolk.
10
One half of these households will have incomes below 80% of the
HUD median income.
The 2000 census data reflected that most households have moderate
incomes ($50,000-$74,999). The Town Board decided that by casting
a wider net to include a larger pool of prospective homebuyers, these
families would too benefit from affordable housing opportunities
because they cannot afford any homes currently listed on the real
estate market..Also, these families would not qualify at the 80% HUD
median income level, as their incomes are too high.
Lastly, the Housing Fund established priority populations tbr
affordable housing, which appear below:
· Income eligible individuals/families who live and work in the
Town of Southold
Income eligible individuals/families who live in the Town of
Southold
· Income eligible individuals/families ~vho work in the Town of
Southold, and
· Income eligible individuals/families who previously lived in the
Town of Southold and wish to return
3. Affordable Housing District (AHD) legislation changes are currently
being modified to further create an inventory of affordable housing.
A major component of this legislation will encourage the development
of accessory apartments in the AHD zone. This will promote venues
to create affordable housing through, the construction of single-family
dwellings with accessory apartments. It will also offer prospective
homeowners the opportunity to avail of additional income from
accessory apartment rentals, to defray the costs of assuming a
mortgage as well as increasing one's chances of procuring a
mortgage. Further, the AHD amendments are consistent with
Housing Fund legislation, ensuring the perpetual affordability of all
homes within the district, as well as establishing rental guidelines that
will remain affordable.
11
Future Initiatives
Within the last six months, The Town Board with the Planning Department
have initiated discussions about amending Standard Subdivision regulations
with Affordable Housing Requirements, also known as inclusionar~ zoning.
This will be applicable to proposed housing developments of five (5) or
more lots.
Through diligent research to ascertain additional methods to achieve
affordable housing, there is significant support for inclusionary zoning as a
successful mechanisn~t to create affordable housing throughout the country.
Inclusionary zoning refers to local ordinances or guidelines that mandate or
encourage residential developments to include a specific percentage of
affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning programs occur in strong housing
markets whereby landowners and developers can continue to realize healthy
profit margins while raaking economic concessions to promote affordable
housing.
In particular, research supports that inclusionary zoning is most successful in
regions with strong real estate markets where increasing market prices of
land have eliminated the construction of affordable housing. Currently, land
prices in the Town of Southold exceed $200,000 per acre.
The widespread shortage of affordable housing throughout the country has
prompted many local governments to change conventional zoning in order to
expand the variety and availability of housing stock. Inclusionary zoning
has proven to be an effective and innovative approach that enables local
governments to utilize its zoning authority to foster the development of'
affordable housing as market-rate housing is built. Successful inclusionars.'
zoning programs establish target populations, household income levels and
affordability controls. The Town Board has established these elements
within its Housing Fund legislation.
Many inclusionary zoning housing programs offer incentives that reduce the
developer's project costs. This can be attained through:
· Reduced or deferred developer fees
· Density bonuses
· Bond financing
· Reduced traffic/parking provisions
12
* Flexible design requirements
· Fast-track permitting
Research supports that providing developers flexibility in the development
of affordable housing is essential and this can be achieved in a variety of
ways. Some developers will build affordable housing on-site while others
may decide to provide,' affordable housing off-site if the site subject to
rezoning is very expensive land (e.g. near water). Some developers may
prefer to make cash payments to the municipality's Housing Fund.
Inclusionary zoning exists throughout the country, although Montgomery
County, Maryland outside of Washington, D.C. is the standard bearer. Since
its inception in 1974, ,over 10,000 affordable housing units have been
developed in Montgomery County through their inclusionary zoning
ordinance.
Because of its metropolitan proximity, the County elected to require all
subdivisions of 50 units or more to set aside up to 15% of the units as
affordable, one-third of which could be purchased by the local housing
authority or a non-profit agency. The developers in return receive a density
bonus of up to 22% beyond what the zoning allowed,
Inclusionary zoning ordinances continue to be adopted throughout the
country. An "Inclusionary Housing Programs around the Country" chart
appears in the attachment of this report. Not listed on this chart but worthy
of consideration is that Westchester County has instituted many inclusionary
zoning housing initiatives and they have mandated that no less than 20°,/0 of
units be affordable. In addition, the Town of Huntington provides an
affordable housing program that yields density bonuses to developers who
set aside approximately 20% of their residential development to build
affordable housing.
For inclusionary zoning ordinances to be established, communities must
justify the necessity to create affordable housing within market-rate housing
markets. Several factors are considered when adopting affordable housing
ordinances, including inclusionary zoning ordinances. They are as tbllows:
· Steep rise in cost of land
· Availability of land for affordable housing has become scarce
13
Increases in family incomes have not kept pace with regional housing
costs
. Housing production does not meet demand
· Diminished supply of affordable rental units
Recommendations
In reviewing the above noted indices, it is clear that the Town of Southold is
justified in pursuing legislative changes to support inclusionary zoning.
The rising cost of land has thwarted opportunities to develop housing that is
affordable. Without mandating inclusionary zoning, builders and developers
will continue to build expensive market-rate housing to realize handsome
profits from their investments.
The Town's efforts to promote open space and land preservation have been
extremely successful. Preservation efforts coupled with the cun-ent
moratorium has significantly curtailed the availability of land. Ironically,
this has also driven up the price of land.
The most significant fact in justiJ3,ing inclusionary zoning is that
househoM incomes have not kept pace with the rising costs of real estate.
According to the 2000 census, $49,898 represented the median household
income. Greater than 20% of homeowners ~vith mortgages pay over 35% of
their income towards housing (excluding taxes) and 41% of renters pay over
35% of their disposable income towards housing. HUD recognizes that
households paying over 33% towards housing are "burdened" by paying too
much of their income.
During the txvo-year period from 2001-2002, the average sales price in the
Southold was $390,493. To qualify for a mortgage to assume the above
noted average sales price, a household would need to have an annual income
of $130,000. Interpreted from the census, below find household income
population cohorts for the Town of Southold, listed in order of largest cohort
to smallest cohort:
Household Income 1. $50,000-$74,999
2. $35,000-$49,999
3. $75,000-$99,000
4. $100,000-$149,999
Percentage of Population
18.3%
13.7%
13.4%
12.l%
14
5. $25,000-$34,9'99 11.8%
6. $15,000-$24,999 11.2%
7. $10,000-$14,999 07.7%
8. <$10,000 05.8%
9. $150,000-$199,999 03.1%
>$200,000 03. 1%
Based on the aforementioned data, less than 15% of households would have
sufficient incomes of $130,000 to purchase the average sales priced home.
While Southold's median household income was greater than the state
average of $43,393, it was significantly lower than the County of Suffolk
average of $65,288. In fact, Southold's median income is the second lowest
of Suffolk County's ten towns.
In its interpretation or'the 2000 U.S. Census, the Peconic Community
Council reports in "The East End Experience" that Southold's total
employed population in 2000 was 9,118 individuals 16 years and older. The
occupations of its residents were as follows:
· Managerial/professional- 37.0%
· Service-15.5%
· Sales/office-26.2%
· Farming/fishing/forestry-l.9%
· Construction/maintenance- 11.0%
· Production/material moving--8.5%
This report also highlighted the education attainment of Southold residents,
as indicated below:
· High School Diploma-30.4%
· Did not finish ]High School-I 1.8%
· Some College, no degree-18.6%
· Associates Degree-7.6%
· Bachelor's Degree-17.3%
· Graduate/Professional Degree-14.3
Information and data regarding apartment rentals is difficult to obtain. It is
common knowledge ~that very limited opportunities exist to obtain legal
apartment rentals. Anecdotal information supports that there are numerous
"illegal" apartments in the Town of Southold. Some estimates have placed
the number as high as 1500 units. Due to the scarcity of rentals, legal or
illegal, word of mout]h generally suffices to provide prospective renters.
The Long Island Housing Partnership reports that Long Island has the
smallest ratio of rental homes to ownership homes of any region in the
nation. A local realtor commented that he does not advertise apartment
rentals because the incoming calls are so pervasive in response to the limited
supply.
Point in Time Survey
To assess the changes in the real estate market over the last four years, I
conducted a point in time survey of real estate prices advertised in the
Suffolk Times for the. second week of June for years 2000 and 2004. Only
homes listed as definitively in the Town of Southold were included.
Noteworthy is that June 08, 2000 listed 45 homes for sale and June 10, 2004
listed 88 homes. As real estate prices have skyrocketed over the last four
years, additional reallors fi.om outside the area (notably from Manhattan and
the South Fork) have developed a presence in Town and in many cases: they
have merged or acquired existing firms.
Home Prices for Sale
June 2004 June 2000
>$3,000,000
$2,000,000-$2,999,999
$1,500,000-$1,999,999
$1,000,000-$1,499,999
$900.000-$999999
$800 000-$899 999
$700 000-$799 999
$600 000-$699 999
$500 000-$599 999
$400 000-$499 999
$300 000-$399 999
$200 000-$299 999
$100 000-$199 999
4 0
2 0
8 0
4 0
5 0
4 1
6 5
13 4
18 2
16 5
8 7
0 13
0 8
Total 88 45
16
Of the information listed above, the average home price for sale in 2000 was
$380,284 whereas in :2004 the average home price for sale is $797,828. The
highest sales price is $3,600,000 in June 2004 and $875,000 in June 2000.
The lowest sales price.' is $355,000 (for sale by owner) in 2004 and $125,000
(3 bedroom needing TLC) in 2000. This information clearly indicates that
affordable homes have disappeared in the last four years. The greatest
percentages of homes for sale in 2000 are below $399,999 (62%). However,
in 2004, only 9% of homes are below $399,999 and greater than 20% of
homes for sale are in excess of $1,000,000.
Recommendation for Inclusionar}, Zoning
Inclusionary zoning ordinances have proven to be a successful vehicle to
promote affordable housing throughout the country and ensure affordability
tbr the future. In particular, it is viable model in areas like Southold where
household income does not keep pace with the real estate market. The
question at hand is determining the percentage of housing units that should
be mandated as affordable.
In an effort to accelerate the Town's ability to create affordable housing, 1
recommend a formula that 25% of all new subdivisions in excess of five lots
be dedicated as affordable. Despite the obvious economic implications for
potential landowners and developers, profits will still be realized through
allowing density bonuses. In addition, the skyrocketing prices of "market
rate" housing will supply ample profit incentives for developers.
To date, 1 have met with six developers in discussion of potential affordable
housing projects within the Town of Southold. Four developers wish to
build exclusively affordable housing, one rental property and three home-
o~vnership properties. One developer of apartments is willing to offer 50°,/o
of units as affordable while another seeking to build houses, is requesting to
build 15% as affordable. Clearly developers are finding ways to realize
profits in the building of affordable housing.
Without inclusionary zoning legislation, affordable housing will not be built
in sufficient numbers to address the needs of its residents, as ~vell as those
who work in the Toxvn. In researching modalities of inclusionary zoning
throughout the country, it xvas noted that California has developed many
inclusionary zoning ordinances to develop affordable housing. Due to their
17
extreme needs, particularly within coastal communities, inclusionary
requirements have reached a maximum of 3 5% to mandate affordability.
Southold too is a coastal community, lying between the Peconic Bay to the
South and the kong Island South to the North. Because of its expansive and
unspoiled coastal exposure as well as its proximity to one of the ~vealthiest
metropolitan areas in the world, a quaint Town now stands at the precipice
of losing its identity. The unprecedented and massive purchasing power
from "outside" has usurped homes from the Town's residents who can no
longer afford to live here.
Based on the documented need, mandating 25% affordability for
inclusionary zoning within the newly revised subdivision regulations is
appropriate and necessary.
Prepared by: Phillip Beltz~ MSW~ Special Pro,jects Coordinator
18
Supportive Materials:
The following source:; provided data and information that was utilized in this
report:
1. The U. S. 2000 Census Report [br the Town of Southold.
2. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGIS): Southold
Comprehensive Implementation Strategy-Volumes I and II, May
2003.
3. Town of Southold Housing Needs Assessment, May 2003. The East
End Experience: A Resource Data Handbook: February 2003.
Prepared by Steve Maguire, Peconic Community Council.
4. "Statistical Profile of Southold Town: 1990" and "Description and
Evaluation of Southold Town's Affordable Housing Policies and
Programs 1980-1992". The Southold Town Planning and Zoning
Committee prepared both of these documents.
5. Long Island Housing Partnership, Inc.
6. Suffolk County Department of Plarming and Office of Affordable
Housing.
7. "The Crisis of Affordable Housing for Long Island's Working
People". A report prepared for the New York State AFL-CIO by
David Muchnick: July 2003.
8. Suffolk Times
9. North Fork Housing Alliance
10.Southold Town Housing Committee Recommendations, December
06, 2002.
1 l.National Association of Realtors
19
· PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN
TOWN ATTORNEY
pat ricia.finnegan~town.southold.ny.us
KIERAN M. CORCORAN
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY
kieran.corcoran(,~,town.southold.ny.us
LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY
lori.montefusco,~ town.sout hold.ny.us
JOSHUA Y. HORTON
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York ~_1971-0959
Telephone t631~ 765-1939
Facsimile t63l ) 765-1823
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To'
From:
MEMORANDUM
Members of the Town Board
Patricia A. Finnegan
Town Attorney
Date: March 22, 2004
Subject: Inclusionary Zoning
For your informatiorh i am passing on some research provided to me by
Phillip Beltz regarding InclusionaryZoning. I hope to have a draft and list of
issues for discussion to the Board in the near future.
Please contact rne if you have any questions.
PAF/Ik
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Phillip Beltz (~;~::~rrcl.)
Town Clerk :./
March 18, 2004
To: Pat Finnegan
Fr:
Re:
Phillip Beltz , l j
Additional Information regarding Inclusionary Housing
The attached provides the following:
· "Enterprise Foundation Issue Brief' that offers the most comprehensive
information on inclusionary zoning
· "Inclusionary Zoning Around the Country" that presents findings throughout the
country, but not 'New York
· "What is Affordable Housing" from the Westchester County government's
Department of Planning's website that mentions inclusionary zoning as an
effective tool to ,develop affordable housing. Note that their zoning ordinance
requires no less than 20% of new development be affordable.
Page 1 of 11
INCLUSIONARY ZONING:
PROGRAM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
(WITH A PROGRAM DESIGN CHECKLIST)
An Enterprise Foundation Issue Brief
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
The following document discusses many of the major considerations involved in designing an
inclusionary zoning program for the purpose of creating more affordable housing in a community.
Topics covered are:
· Appropriate markets for inclusionary programs
· Mandatory versus voluntary programs
· Impact on landowners m~d developers
· Need for economic analysis of proposals
· Nexus argument
· Definition of affordable housing
· Applicability of guidelines
· Qualifying individual households
· Percentage and types of affordable housing required
· Construction standards
· Nature and duration ofaffordability controls
· Provision of affordable housing on-site and off-site
· Payments in lieu of providing affordable housing
· Regulatory agreements and enforcement
· Compensating benefits to developers
· Desired results of guidelines
Attached at the end oft. he docmnent is a shorter program design checklist that addresses similar issues
more succinctly.
LIMITATIONS OF DOCUME. NT:
· Programs of this type are most applicable to strong real estate markets where increasing market
prices of [and have forced out most affordable housing construction.
· Because of its brief and summary nature, this document docs not describe in detail: (I) legal
issues, (2) examples of local programs. O) the general effectiveness of such programs, or (4)
many day-to-day adnfinistrative issues.
· ~e brief does not address staffing requirements or internal costs to local governments that
implemenl these programs.
SOURCE OF DOCUMENT:
http://wx~w.enterprisetbundation.org/model%20documents/e512.htm 3/I 8;2004
Model Inclusionary zoning overview Page 2 of 11
Author: Peter Werwath, Senior Program Director, Research, Evaluation and Documentation Division,
The Enterprise Foundation. The checklist was produced under a contract with the City of Santa Fe.
INCLUSIONARY ZONING:
PROGRAM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
(WITH{ A PROGRAM DESIGN CHECKLIST)
An Enterprise Foundation Issue Brief
General Considerations
· What is inclusionary zoning? The term refers to local ordinances or guidelines that require or
encourage residential developments to include a certain percentage of affordable housing.
lnclusiona_,y rules are usually triggered by the filing ora residential site development proposal;
this sometimes involves a rezoning or annexation. The housing may be on-site or oft-site. Often,
payments may be made to a trust fund in lieu of building housing. Similar programs affecting non-
residential rezonings are called "linkage" programs and are not discussed here.
· Who benefits? The poorest households are obviously most in need of affordable housnig Yet
most programs are aimed at assisting families with incomes at 80 percent or I00 percent of
median income (for the cil~, county or MSA) which .typically means lower middle class or
middle-income housing. Developers prefer a higher income standard, because it has less adverse
economic impact on their projects. Advocates and plarmers often prefbr a lower income standard;
pointing out that the alternative is "creaming" the disadvantaged target group.
· With what kind of housing? For philosophical and political reasons, many advocates of
inclusionary zoning favor providing owner-occupied housing to the exclusion of rental or special
needs housing. However, such housing is more expensive to build than rental housing and
excludes many household:; that are either unable to become homeowners (because of Iow incomes
or other reasons) or disinterested. Whatever the goals of a program, its designers must decide what
forms of housing and pricing should result from the ordinance.
· For how long? Some newly created inclusionary zoning programs have made the mistake of
creating affordable housing that did not remain affordable for very long. Some home buyers in
these programs got windfall profits. Developers often resist long-term controls, and the:/require
more regulatory apparatus. But such controls are feasible if desired.
Appropriate Markets for Inelusionary Programs
Virtually all inclusionary programs have occurred in strong housing markets, presumably because
developers' and land owners' profit margins were wide enough tbr them to make economic concessions.
Mandatory vs. "Voluntary" Requirements
Anecdotal evidence indicates that so-called "voluntary." programs are more common and have produced
much more affordable housing titan local mandatory requirements. Up-to-date studies are needed to
veht~ this, but it appears many inclusionary programs have been based on "guidelines" or resolutions
asking voluntary compliance.
The reasons are c~ften unspoken'but obvious: t I ) voluntary programs are harder to assail in court and (2)
http:,'/~w, vw.enterprisetbtmdation.org/model%20documents/e512.htm 3/18/2004
Mode[ Inclusionary zoning overview Page 3 of 11
their administration can be more flexible. The negative side is also obvious: there is no absolute
authority to make people comply. However, many jurisdictions underestimate the clout of their silent
power in ruling over the entire development process.
Impact on Landowners and Developers
It is an unprovable, but fair, assmnption that every inclusionary zoning ordinance has somehow taken
into account its economic impact on land owners and developers. This is the likely reason that no
ordinance in the country requires a developer to provide 100 percent affordable housing to households
with poverty incomes. That would be wholly uneconomic.
Programs that require delivery of"near market rate" housing cost developers very little, if any, money
out-of-pocket, so that program administrators can more feasibly require higher percentages of affordable
housing. However, looking at th,: opposite extreme, rentals costing $400 a month or home prices at
$50,000 are absolute money losers for developers in most markets.
An ordinance that is too aggressive with the pricing of affordable housing can have the effect of
devaluing the land and might be considered a "taking." Some inclusionary zoning ordinances offer a
quid pro quo in the form of density bonuses, expedited development processing, or both,
Most communities enacting such ordinances have sought review and input by citizens, advocates and
real estate development professionals. In the best of circumstances, everyone sees the greater economic
and social good of providing some affordable housing, and also respects developers' needs to make a
profit.
Need for Economic Analysis of Proposals
Because of the considerations just mentioned, it is best to allow developers maximum flexibility in how
they provide aftbrdable housing. Othenvise, putting a $80,000 home on a $200,000 lot could be an
absurd result.
Some may want to build affordable housing off-site. Some may want to pay money. Some may want to
pay money up-front and some over time. If this flexibility is built in, expert analysis of each deal is
required, either by the local gow,'mment or an expert third party. The analysis involves: (1) what is the
developer really giving up in economic terms, and (2) if this is part of the program, what does the
developer get back?
Another technical but important point: how do you treat t~vo developers who got to the same result by
very different routes? Developer A produced his required 20 apartments renting for $550 a month by
using massive federal subsidies trod making no financial concessions on his own. When Developer B
was building, the subsidies had run 6ut and she had to absorb $500,000 in lost profits to create $600
rents in her 20 affordable apartments.
Such intricacies of affordable housing development required highly skilled evaluation and flexible
administration.
Nexus Argument
~5' ["rom a legal standpoint, an inclnsionary~ zoning ordinance must have a reason More specifically, it must
· t h ~ v Ir I ~ or"n "between 1 the con tm tton
have data and an argument at [ ro 'es an historica e at'onship exus : ( ) ' s c '
htlp://www.enterprisetbundation.orb'model%20documents/e512.htm 3/18/2004
Model Inclusionary zoning overview Page 4 of 11
of higher-priced housing or commercial properties and (2) the lack of affordable housing and the social
and economic ills that have resulted from that.
This argument is similar to the one used by local govermnents to require developers to contribute impact
fees for roads, fire stations and other off-site infrastructure. With impact fees, the nexus can be proven
with traffic projections, population projections, costs and other statistical data.
With an inclusionary zoning program (particularly a mandatory one), it is generally believed 'that the
nexus argument must be made with great care so the ordinance will stand up to potential law suits. It can
take the form of a report referred to by the ordinance.
Applicability of Guidelines
These are typical issues:
· To what kinds of housing will it apply? Both rental and for-sale housing? How will it treat
proposals for Iow-cost honsing?
· To what scale of project will it apply? Most ordinances exclude projects with less than a specified
minimum of dwelling units or square tbotage.
Definition of Affordable Housing
Every effective inclusionary program must include a firm definition of what developers must deliver,
and to whom. Otherwise, developers will have no standard with which to comply. The results will be
called affordable housing, but may not serve the most serious housing needs of the community.
The definition usually follows these logical steps:
· A statement of the income groups to be served (e.g. below 80 percent of median, below 50
percent, etc.) There may also be a tiered standard, that is, quotas for units at different price levels
or at least inducements to "go lower." One inducement is to require a lower percen 'tage
affordable units if the units are lower priced.
· Income eligibility standards are usually adjusted by family size. The easiest standard to use are
HUD's, which are updated annually for each MSA.
· Formulas to calculate to maximum prices for housing units, adjusted by bedroom sizes that
relate to the family size/income standards above. Different formulas are used for rental and for-
sale housing, usually 30 percent of income for rent and 28 percent of income for mortgage
payments on a home. Formulas for home sales usually take into account current interest rates.
· Optionally, some other requirements. These may include preferences tbr smaller or larger units,
rental vs. for-sale units, special needs housing etc. These would typically relate back to the
findings of the needs stud:; and nexus argument.
Qualifying Individual Househnlds
Eve~ program has some system lbr the following:
· Verifying and certi~ing incomes and perhaps other characteristics (such as disabililies) of
households that are eligible to live in this "discount" housing.
· Indexing over time (e.g. by using updated HUD figures)
· [n rental housing (and sometimes for-sale housing certi~.'ing incomes m "turnover" units.
http://wwxv.enterprisefoundatlm~ org/model%20documents/e512, btm 3/18/2004
.- Model. Inclusionap] zoning overview Page 5 of 11
Percentage and Types of Affordable Housing Required
Programs ,typically require developers to make 10 to 20 percent of the units in their projects affordable.
The rationale for this percentage could be the estimated "shortfall" of affordable housing m the
community, and the estimated anaount of new affordable units needed each year. The often unspoken
factor is the perception of what developers will accept without rebelling.
As mentioned, a rational system might accept a lower percentage of very low-priced units if this
represents an economic concession similar to providing a larger number of moderately-priced units. A
program might (based on community needs) also set quotas for various .types and sizes of housing (small
and large units, rental and for-sale units, types of special needs housing, etc.).
Developers, loft to their own devices, may not meet the most serious commumty needs. For example,
larger affordable apartments for 'very low-income families are needed in most communities, but many
developers don't like to include them because they cost more to build and maintain.
Construction Standards
It is also essential for programs to have construction standards for the affordable units to be delivered.
These usually consist of minimum square footages and amenities, which may be subject to considerable
negotiation. Otherwise, aflbrdable housing may simply turn out to be cheap housing.
Minimum square footages need not necessarily relate to the minimum square tbotages that are
proscribed in most building codes--those are usually too minimal to be marketable.
Nature and Duration of Affordability Controls
These are some key considerations in this area:
· Rental projects are often required to maintain affordable rents over 10 to 20 years, with an
indexing method tied to current income data.
· A program might include incentives for developers to provide housing, land or cash to nonprofit
rental or special needs housing developers that pledge to maintain affordability in perpetuity..
· Programs involving for-sale housing might utilize one or more of the following control
mechanisms: ( 1 ) "soft" second mortgages for the difference between appraised value and the
delivered price, (2) terms for repayment of such mortgages upon sale and/or forgiveness over 10
to 20 years, (3) ownership, of the underlying land by a land trust, which is a stronger mechanism
for sharing equity appreciation, and (4) other related devices such as rights of first refusal.
· To enforce some affordability controls such as shared equity arrangements, it may be necessary
tbr the local government or an agent (such ,'rs a nonprofit groap) to take title to the affordable
units.
· Where the affbrdability control involves a cash repayment, funds can be recycled through a trust
fund to develop additional aftbrdable housing
Provision of Affordable Housing On-Site or Ofi-Site
A program may benefit from giving developers the flexibility of delivering affordable hoasmg on-site or
off-site. In some cases, off-site housing may be much more desirable for these reasons:
· Il'the-site subject to rezonmg is ve~ expensive land, more affordable housing can be dehvered
http: qwww enterpfisel'oundation.org/model%20documents~e512.btm 3/18/2004
Model. lnclusionaty zoning ovev,'iew Page 6 of 11
off-site, given the economic capacity of the project.
· Some types of housing such as rental and special needs housing may require locations near
services, on bus lines and/or near employment. The subject site may not have these de:,ltrable
attributes.
Payments In-Lieu of Providing Affordable Housing
Many developers may prefer the ease of making an in-lieu payment of cash rather than delivering
affordable housing directly. These are the benefits of such an approach:
· "Market-rate" and "high-end" developers may not have the skills and experience to market and
operate an affordable housing program, particularly programs involving social services and long-
term affordability controls:.
· Qualified affordable housing producers are almost always starved for subsidy capital, which is
typically the main limitation on production. Sometimes the lack of subsidy capital has led to a
complete lack of local capacity to produce affordable housing, whether by for-profit or nonprofit
entities.
· "Trust fund money," particularly if it is used to write down project costs through "soft" financing,
is the most flexible device: to deliver the exact kind of affordable housing the community needs.
As long as there is land avadable for affordable housing development, communities that are land
starved migbt at times want land contributions more than cash. For this and other reasons, the
program administrator ought to have some flexibility to ask tbr the kinds of contributions that
meet current needs.
Because in-lieu payments are often made at the time of pulling building permits on specific lots within a
land development, it typically takes three to eight years for all the funds to be paid in.
Well thought-out programs will include formulas for evaluating the present value of in-lieu funds
delivered on various schedules. Needless to say, a dollar today is worth a lot more than a dollar ten years
from now.
Formulas for in-lieu payments are difficult to devise. One rational basis is to relate them to the financial
concession a developer would have to make to deliver the desired products. For example, assume 10
three-bedroom affordable homes were required of Developer A. The price had to be $80,000. The
cheapest comparable homes in the market cost $ 110,000. That amounts to a $30,000 concession per
home, or $300,000 total, a reasonable in-lieu payment.
For simplicity sake, it may be advisable for a program to use similar logic to establish a schedule of
"buy-out amounts" for units of ~/arious sizes, that otherwise would have been provided on-site or off-
site. These amounts could be indexed over time, tbr example, by the percentage increase per year in
median income.
Regnlatury Agreements and Enforcement
Programs that are t'air and effective in producing a wide range of affordable housing will generally not
have simple roles. Projects are typically subject to regulatory, agreements defining very carefally what
will be delivered, when ,and to whom, along with longer-term-affordabiliD' controls. Some controls must
be passed along to successor developers, rental property, owners and home owners.
Sometimes, a third party might become revolved in certain aspects of the program. In some
http:i~www enterprisefimndation.org/model%20documents.'e512.htm 3/18/2004
Model. Inclusionaty zoning ovep~iew Page 7 of 11
communities, nonprofit groups qualify home buyers in for-profit developments that are subject to
inclusionary requirements. A nonprofit may also administer trust fund monies and be owner of any
"soft" second mortgages involved.
Agreements may set forth financial penalties; however, in the end, they must be constructed with an eye
to enforceability in court.
Compensating benefits to Developers
Some inclusionary programs have offered developers such benefits as density bonuses and expedited
development processing as "carrots" to go along with the "stick" of the inclusionary requirements.
Needless to say, such programs are much more popular with land owners and developers. However, in
very strong markets, such inducements may not be necessary because of higher profits on land and
housing sales relative to those in ordinary markets.
Desired Results of Guidelines
lnclusionary programs are only ,'ts good as their results. So, it is wise to design them with careful
thought to the desired outcomes. Designers should ask questions such as:
· What types of affordable housing do we want, and at what price ranges? Do ~ve want these prices
tiered to help poorer households, or simply all within one range?
· How much of a financial concession can we expect of land owners and developers, m terms of the
percentage of affordable units and "depth" ofaffordability?
· Do we want the program to build the capacity and output of nonprofit developers'? Who will serve
clientele not being reached by the tree housing market?
· Do we want to create a flexible trust fired? Do we need land for special projects'? Or both'?
· Perhaps most importantly, do we want to build in the flexibility to respond to evolving needs and
market conditions that are not predictable at this t/me?
By Peler Werwath
Senior Program Director
The Enterpri.~'e Foundation
12 6 94
Cop),right. fhe Enterprtsc Foundation, 1994.
INCLUSIONARY ZONING:
A PROGRAM DESIGN CHECKLIST
I. Will the program be mandatory or "voluntary'?"
Answer: Mandato~,
2. To what class of residential developments will the program apply'?
Single-family:
http:!/wx~ w.enterprisefnundation.org/model°'o2Odocuments/eS 12 btm
3/18/20(14
· Model lnclusionary zoning overview Page 8 of 11
4. How
5. How
6
Multi family:
Mobile home:
Threshold number of units:
Other characteristics?:
3. What income group(s) will benefit from the affordable housing?
Local or MSA median income standard?:
o <100 percent of median:
o <80 percent of median:
o <50 percent of median:
o <30 percent of median:
o Some of each?:
o Different percentage to deliver depending upon category. (e.g. 5% affordable ~f<30%; 15%
affordable if < 100% etc.)?
will these income limits be adjusted/bt t:amily size'?
will income limits be,' updated over time'?
What formulas and factors will be nsed to derive affordable rentals and sales price¢~
Percent of income considered attbrdable tbr:
o Rent:
o Mortgage payment:
Will utilities be included in any calculation'?
What standard will be used for an interest rate?
Will "affordable prices" be calculated and published on a periodic basis or xvill they be calculated
deal-by-deal?
7. What svstem will be osed to qualify beneficiaries?
8. What types of"aftbrdable housing" may be delivered'?
For-sale homes?
Rental housing?
Group homes'?
Shelters'.'
Other?
http://www.enterprisetbundalion.org/model%20documents/e512.btm
3: I 8:2004
Model Inclusionary zoning ove~Aew Page 9 of 11
How will these be valued in relationship to each other? E.g. dwelling units vs. beds.
Is there a presumption tha~[ certain of these types of housing are more appropriate for certain
income groups, and that t[ey should be priced accordingly? E.g. for-sale units for incomes 50-
100% of median; rental 30-80% of median; shelters under 30% of median.
Will a unit be considered "complying" if it was made aftbrdable only by outside subsidies (such as
subsidies from the city or state)?
On the other hand, will developers be encouraged to incorporate subsidies to make the housing
even more affordable than required?
With regard to the last two questions, will for-sale and rental housing be treated differently?
9. How can the City assure a high quality program vs. just dwelling units delivered?
Review and approval of property management and service plans?
Require involvement of nonprofits in homebuyer training?
Encourage joint ventures with qualified nonprofits?
10. Will there be any mechan~ism tbr the City to control the bedroom sizes or other basic
characteristics nf the housing offered'~ If so. what?
11. What percentage of affordable housing must be delivered?
Set percentage?
More il' near market prices?
Less if very low priced?
12. Can the housing be provided off-site?
13. Can the developer make in-lieu contributions?
Land?
Money'!
Other in-kind?
What is the t'ornmla tbr dcri~ing thc valne of the "buyont?"
14. When are affordable units or in-kind contribulions to be delivered'~
[ Ipfront?
http:~/w~ ~.enterpr~se[k~undatio n.org/model%20docurnents/e512, htm 3/18; 2004
Model. lnclusionary zoning ovendew
Staged pro-rata with rest of development?
How is the time value of money accounted for?
15. What minimum standards will the city have for an "affordable housing unit."
Square footage:
Amenities:
16. What will be the duration and ofaffordability controls on rental housing?
Number of years:
Wilt there be a regulatory agreement?
How will it be monitored .and enforced?
Page 10ofll
17. What will be the duration and nature of affordability controls on fbr-sale housing?
"Soft" second mortgages'?
Rights of first refusal?
Equity sharing?
Land leases/land trusts?
If some mechanisms require an intermediary, owner, is that OK'?
18. Can the city use third parties:
In any part of negotiations?
To monitor compliance?
19 Will the program administrator be given discretion in any of the following areas?
Io analyze the internal economics of each proposal?
To assess and take into account the economic impact on landowner/developers?
To analyze the impact of "outside" subsidies?
To attalyze the "efficiency" of requirements as applied on-site, off-site or in-lieu and to ha,,e the
discretion to dictate which should be provided'~
To take into account the desirability of social and economic integration?
httD: ;/w-,wv enterpr~setbundation.or.~, model%20documents/e512 btm 3/18/2004
Model Inclusionary zoning ovevAew Page 11 of 11
To analyze the desirabilit~ of the site for proposed affordable housing use? E.g. re: services,
transportation, etc.
To have the discretion to dictate the "type" of housing delivered: for-sale, rental, group home,
shelter, etc.
Ditto for unit sizes?
Ditto for percentage of at~brdable housing units to be delivered in various price classes'?
By Peter Werwath
Senior Program Director
The Enterprise Foundation
Produced under a contract with the City of Santa Fe, NM
12, 10.94
Copyright 1994 The Enterprise Foundation. Inc. All fights reserved. Permission is granted ONLY to non-profit community
based organizations to reproduce and/or adapt this document for their own use.
hup://~ww.enterprisefoundation.org/model°/;20documents/e512.htm 3/I 8/20(14
Page 1 of 8
Inclusionary Zoning Around the Country
This compendium was' assembled to assist a community preparing to develop an inclusiona~, zoning
program. Joyce Siegel, March 2, 2000
This ia' published without modification from the printed document to expedite access. A web-oriented
version is in process which will offer quicker loading and links from the table of contentx. IHI
Webmaster, March 2, 2000
What is inclusionary zoning?
There are various definitions of ][nclusionary Zoning. The 1994 report of the California Coalition for
Rural Housing Project conducted a comprehensive study of inclusionary zoning in that state. Their
definition is appropriate for this paper, "Inclusionary... is defined as a mandatory requirement or
voluntary goal to reserve a specific percentage of housing units for lower-income households in new
residential developments."
Introduction
One of the earliest applications of inclusionary zoning occurred in California. 1'he Calitbrnia Coastal
Commission has had, for many ),ears, an inclusionary (affordable) housing requirement for development
of any property within 1,000 feet of the coast. Subsequently, numerous InclusionaD' Zoning programs
appeared in Calitbrnia in the early 70's. Housing phces had escalated to a point where there was little
supply of "aflbrdabie housing." i~here was a growing ~nterest in the need to develop programs that
would provide housing at a price: affordable to low level employees, public servants and others whose
needs were not being met by the market. Statewide legislation was passed that applied to all
redevelopment areas: if developed by a private developer there had to be a 15% set-aside; if developed
by a public agency the set-aside is 30% (65'o of the units must serve very low income households, 3%
low and 6% moderate income). In addition, a model inclusionary zoning law was written and
subsequently at one time, approximately 75 California jarisdichons adopted their own inclusionary
zoning laws.
The preamble to California's model inclusionary zoning law states:
The housing shortage for persons of low and moderate income is detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, since Iow-and moderate-income households are tbrced to live in
unsafe, unsanitary, over.-crowded housing and/or housing they cannot afford Thus, in the name
of ~he public interes[ inu[usionary programs promote the de,. eh)pment of communii¥ housing
that would not other,,vise be built."
Common Elements of lnclusionary Zoning Programs
· There is a densi _ty or other bonus to developers x~ht) participate
· For ~ ohmtary programs thc bonuses are u~cd as an inccntisc
· For mandatopy programs the bonuses are tlsed as compensation and to
avoid constitutional challenges of"a taking"
· There are income limits for eligibili~'
· '['here are pricing criteria tbr the affordable units
· There is some period ofcontrnl t, al resale price or rental increase
bttp://inhousing.org/USA%20[nclusionarv/USA%20Inclusion.htn~ 3/I 7/2004
'Page 2 of 8
· There are building standards
Poor economic conditions make it hard to have an effective inclusionary zoning
program Mandatory programs that don't provide incentives generally serve
moderate income households, not low income. They also require smaller set-
asides.
The California Experience
(From a 1992 study and the 1994 CahJbrnia Coaliaon fi~r Rural Housing mentioned above)
· As of 1994 there were 64 jurisdictions that had inclusionary zoning in
place (54 cities and I0 counties) which produced just over 25,000 units
statewide
· 66% of the programs are mandatory. The mandatory programs produced
the most very low and low income affordable units
· The programs typically apply to a specified project threshold (average 5
to 25 units)
· In 2/3 of the cases the inclusionary requirement is from 10% to 15 % of
the number of market units but the range is from 5% to 35% and apply to
developments ranging in size from 2 units to 100 (the most common is
10 but some require the units regardless of size)
-- The size of the land parcel is not used as a threshold
· Some jurisdictions lower the requirement if the affordable units reach
lower than required limits
· There is considerable variation in income limits (typically low and veD,
low income is; defined by Federal Section 8 income limits and moderate
goes to 120%) Some jurisdictions link the ratio of affordable unit
requirement to the size of the development
· All programs define targeted income linked to regional median incomes.
"The main problem is that as incomes increase ....the median is increased
commensurately. Housing targeted to very low and low income
households m) longer meets the needs of the poorest members of the
communities..."
· Ifa multi-family development is sold the deed restrictions on
affordability pass to the new owner
· There is a different approach to resale of ownership units Some
.jurisdictions restrict profit on resale, some require maintenance of
aftbrdability of the units (in Palo Alto there is a 59 year control period
that renews ca resale)
· The period ot'affordability ranges t¥om 5 years to perpetui _ty
· Non-local subs/dies are used by 50% of the jurisdictions. Sources include
tax credits; [I()ME; Section 8; Mo~lgage Re~ enue Bonds; State Housing
Agency; Farmers Home Administration; HUD 202; and other programs
· Assets are gerxerally not used to determine eligibiliD'
· Generally. affordable means households pay no more than 30°o of
income tbr rent
· Jurisdictions have a variety of monitoring methods but the most common
method is through local government. Income x erification, house price,
http:/imhousiugorg/USA%20h~chtsionarv/U S A° 020Inclusion. htm
317/2004
:Page 3 of 8
zoning compliance etc are generally the responsibility of local authorities
· 2/3 of the jurisdictions permit the payment cfa fee in lieu of providing
the affordable housing. There is a great variation of the "in lieu" fee,
donated land or credit transfers"
· Most of the programs don't require that all the below market units be
provided on-site. Some programs permit the transfer of aftbrdable
housing credits from a prior project or the sale of credits from one
developer to another
· There are frequently comparability guidelines so the affordable traits are
similar in appearance to and are dispersed throughout the market-rate
units
· Almost all the programs offer the developer density increases. Less
commonly, fee waivers are offered. Other incentives vary from fast-track
permit approval to relaxation of design issues.
· 34% of the programs utilize housing trust funds to subsidize the
development of the units for lower income households
· Generally, affordable means households pay no more than 30°,/0 of
income for rent
· 17% of the jurisdictions require permanent affordability ( I 0 years to
perpetuity)
· [f units are not protected in perpetuity many localities give the
jurisdiction or a non-profit the right of first refusal.
· Deed restrictions regulate subsequent sales to income qualified buyers
162% o f localities)
., Both for-profit and non-profit developers and public agencies develop
these units
· 72% of the jurisdictions rely solely on for profit developers
· 35% of the jurisdictions allow for a land dedication option
· Affordable units developed through Jnclusionary zoning laws are
expected to look like the market rate units -- many of the California
programs require dispersal and equal site access to community amenities
· In multi-family housing the most common approach is that the units be
dispersed, that 50% of the set aside units are affordable to very Iow and
50% to Iow income. There is also regulation about the time the units are
brought "on-line" (in the same sequence as the market unit)
· One jurisdict, on contracts out compliance monitoring, others require
reports from property owners. Another approach is to assign compliance
monitoring to the local housing agency
· Stone localities reduce parking requirements and,'or reduced set-backs
· 66% of the j~trisdictions require concurrent building of market rate and
affordable units
· Penalties are applied tbr failure to comply
· 37% report they have policies which reduce or eliminate developer's
obligations because of int'easibility {most rely on thc jurisdiction's
financial analysis)
· 20% allow absolutely no finding of mllmsibililT
. · Most jurisdictions allow units to be built on other sites. Some allow off-
site development at the discretion of the builder, some allow oft-site only
under certain circumstances with limits on thc location
http: :ii, housing org/USAOi,20[nclnsionary/t ISA°,b201nclus~un.htm 3/17/2004
:Page 4 of 8
· Land dedication programs generally allow for land to be deeded to the
local govenmtent in place of construction of the affordable units --some
jurisdictions (not many) require the sites be identified at either
subdivision approval, rezoning approval or other stages of permitting.
Only two cities have a formal disclosure policy.
· Some localities give preference for purchase or rent to local residents or
those employed locally. Employees and officials and relatives of the
developer are not eligible. In some areas there are random drawings, in
some weighted needs tests are used
The following recommendations are based on the findings of the California Coalition for Rural Housing
Project study:
· Monitoring and tracking ofinclnsionary units needs improving
· All programs should be mandatory
· There should be an income level below "very Iow income" incorporated
in all programs
· It is important to ensure the quality of affordable housing is maintained
· Non-profit participation should be encouraged (affordability is more
readily maintained)
· [nclusionary requirements should apply to all residential development
regardless of size
. A progrrun should be designed for jurisdictions that are "built out"
· Subsidies should be used to bring down affordability
· There needs to be greater incentives for deeper targeting and longer
terms of affordability
· If[n-lieu fees are allowed they should be high enough to be effective
· Units should be aflbrdable in perpetuity "to the extent possible"
· "Adopt and implement inclusionary programs in non-urban jurisdictions"
· "The most effective programs allow flexibility in the ways in which
requirements can be met (i.e. the variety of incentives: density, in-lieu
tees dedicated to honsing, land dedication, flexible design standards,
reduced parking requirements, lot size"
The New Jersey Experience
New Jersey has produced more than 55,000 aftbrdable housing units through a mandatory statewide
program resulting from a series of law suits. In 1975 the NAACP sued the Township of Mt. Laurel on
the basis that their zoning was "exchrsionary." The State Supreme Court detemuned: "Zoning,
Ordinances that foreclose the opportunity for affordable housing are invalid"; Municipalities must
permit development of housing to accommodate the fair share of Iow and moderate income housing in
the region."
NAACP filed suit a second time because the situation had not been remedied. The State Supreme Court
stated, among several decisions: "Communities that are growing and creating jobs have a responsibifiD'
to house the poor who v, ill arrive in these locations in pursuit of jobs"
Thc State required all jur~sd~ctic, ns to develop and implement plans that would, among other
http. ¢inhousing.org/USA° o2OInclusionao'/USA°,b2OInclusion.htm 3/17i2004
Page 5 of 8
requirements, be mandatory and target those who fall within Federal Section 8 limits. The State
established the Council on Affordable Housing to develop regulations and procedures local j u risdictions
needed to follow. A municipality must develop a fair share plan and housing element targeted to people
below 80% of median income. A house is deemed affordable if the cost is 25% or less of annual income
The State had concluded that only a mandatory program would be effective. The mandatory set-aside is
20%. The New Jersey system provides an incentive to builders who file exclusionary zoning suits with
court ordered benefits (increased density bonus, relief from some regulations and fees).
Most plans include mandatory programs and the definition of low and very low income (above). The
type of housing involved is typk:ally new construction, family ownership units with 25% new affordable
housing must include 25% rental units and elderly units are restricted to 25% of the affordable units.
Each municipality must come up with a target number of affordable units based on size of the
jurisdiction, amount of vacant land and ratio of existing affordable units to market rate. Needs must be
calculated in six year increment.,',.
"The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) was created by the Fair Housing Act of 1985....in
response to....the Mount Laurel decisions. The Supreme Court establsihed a constitutional obligation for
cch of the 566 municipalities in the state to establish a realistic opportunity for the provision of fair
share low and moderate income housing obligations, generally through land use and zoning powers." A
number of jurisdictions have responded to their obligations by adopting inclusionary zoning laws.
Montgomery County, Maryland
Montgomery County's Moderately Priced Dwelling Units Law (MPDU), passed in 1974, has produced
in excess of 10,000 aflbrdable units scattered in almost three hundred different subdivisions. 'Pae law
was passed and exists in a healthy housing market. The goals include: provision ora full range of
housing choices; to provide for low and moderate cost housing to meet existing and future employment
needs; assure dispersal of moderate and Iow income housing; ensure developers suffer no loss.
Significant elements of the program are:
· Currently applies to all developments of 50 units or more (this is being
reviewed with possible recommendation to lo~ver the threshold)
· Developers receive a density bonus up to 225/, and must set-aside 12.5°./o
to 15% of the units as affordable. If the full density bonus of 22% is
achievable the MPDU requirement is the full 15%.
· Developers rnay convey land suitable construction of the MPDUs to the
County
· Developers may propose to contribute to the I-lousing Initiative Fund or
provide units at another location in lieu of development (approvals tbr
this are difficult to obtain - examples include luxn~~ high rise
condominium with high monthly maintenance fees unafibrdable to
people of modest income). The Housing Initiative Fund (now
approximately $25 million) provides assistance fur affordable housing
projects
· The County oversees implementation of the program Ihouse price.
income limit,.',, applications, waiting list and lotteD' for offenng available
units - qualified applicants receive certificates allowing them to
participate)
· There is a windfall profit recapture with what is deemed excessive profit
shared between seller and County
http://inhousing.org/USA%201nclusionarv/USA%20[nctusion hun 3/I 7/2004
Page 6 of 8
· MPDUs must be of same tenure as other units in the development
(ownership or rental)
· Resale price is adjusted by improvements and changes in the cost of
living
· There is a l0 year control period on sales units and 20 years tbr rental
· If the units are not sold (or rented as the case may be) to eligible
households after 90 days on the market they can be sold to the public at
the MPDU price with MPDU covenants
· 33% of MPDUs must be offered to the County's Housing Opportunities
Commission (HOC) and are generally linked to federal programs to serve
low income households. Most of these units are kept as rental.
· 7% of the units are available to non-profits certified by HOC
· The Montgomery County Planning Board approves site plans, including
MPDUs, and staging of construction. MPDUs must be built before or
along with market rate units
· The amount of density bonus achieved in the development determines the
percentage of total units that must be MPDUs
· To participate:, a household cannot have mvned a residential property in
the prior 5 years
· The number of efficiency and one-bedroom MPDUs must not exceed file
ratio of the market rate units
· MPDUs must be owner occupied
· [fan owner must leave the area temporarily he may rent the property but
the control pehod is extended by the length of time of the rental
-- Resales must be handled by the Coung~' for the first 60 days The CounD'
is responsible for notifying MPDU certificate holders
Fairfax County, Virginia
Fairfax County, an :affluent suburban community abutting D.C. passed an
inclusionary zoning ordinance in 1970, but it was declared unconstitutional by
the State's highest court because it was not authorized by Virginia's Zoning
Enabling Act; it was "arbitrary and capricious" and; "represented an unlawful
delegation of zoning authority to HUD" (a developer ~vould be bound by the
law only if there were federal subsidies available). Subsequently, for twenty_
years. Fairfax used another incentive program (proffers) allowing zoning
exceptions with an acceptable percentage of development of affordable
housing). A voluntary inclusiona~' law was passed in 1090 and a mandatory_
law was passed in 1997. The Aflbrdable Dwelling Unit (AD[J) Laws modeled
after Montgomery Coanty's Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit Law (see
belowl. It requires:
I. Income eligibility limits by household size at no more than 70°,0 of median income for the SMSA
2 Applies to developments of 50 units or more
3. Multi-thmily dwelling or hoosing for the elderly with 4 stories or more and with an ele~'ator are
exempt
http:.,/inhousmg.org, U SA%201nclusionap,'/USA? o20lnclusion, htm 3717/2004
Page 7 of 8
4. There is a 20% increase in density
5. Not less than 12.5% of adjusted number of Affordable units
6. Affordable units will be designated on the record subdivision plat
7. Affordable units won't be identified in multi-family except for condominiums
8. The County's Housing Agency has specifications for prototype aftbrdable units
9. Sale of ADUs is regulated by the County Redevelopment and Housing Authority
10. Original offer of ADUs is for 90 days. At 60 days non-profit groups can have access to purchase
and at 90 days they can be sold to the public
11. Sales prices are established initially and semi-annually thereafter
12. Sales prices don't include price of the land
13. 1/3 of ADUs are offered to Housing Agency
14. It is the builder's responsibility to market and sell the units, the housing department holds lotteries
to provide the develop with interested buyers
Arlington County, Virginia
Arlington County also borders D.C. It is the Country's smallest county (26 square miles) will little
developable land but properties that have aged and are being replaced. Passed in 1983 this jurisdiction's
incentive based program provides a 15% density bonus and a bonus of additional height (up to six
stories) if the developer provides Iow income housing. It applies to multi-family housing only.
Because construction costs are l~igh and rents are high it is not of economic benefit tbr developers to
seek extra density as all units produced this way, by state law, must serve the targeted low and moderate
income households (tbr example, a two bedroom "aflbrdable units" would rent at $900 and the market is
$1800). The County is rely ing on applications for special cxccptiom; to provide some affordable units.
'['here is also protection of existing affordable units which must be replaced on a one to one ratio if
buildings are replaced. The General Land Use plan outlines maximum permissible zoning, typically
higher than what exists. The developer comes to the Count)' with a "proffer" which does not require all
bonus units m be afl-brdable as in state law.
Loudon County, Virginia
Over the last 5 to 8 years Loudon County. has experienced explosive, uncontrolled growth and is,
politically, governed by officials elected on a "no gro~h" platform. It is politically infeasible for any
development program that prowdes a density bonus to get approvals. Loudon began its Affordable
Dwelling Unit program in 1995. under the same Virginia State regulations governing the programs in
Fairfax and Arlington. The program produced 140 ownership and 82 rental units. Incomes served range
from $1%500 to $54,000 (50 to 80% of median). Currently, many builders use the program in
conjunction with rezoning applications. For example, they will ha~e a properly, that can produce 100
units and will file tbr 85 with the expectation that they will be allowed the density bonus. This has been
successful in a few recent cases The program is being modified to allo an "in lieu of' payment ~vhich
will be placed in a down puymcnt assistance fund
Sanibel lslaml, Florida
An inclusionary zoning law was passed in 1984 based on incentives, providing developer~ with a
density bonus The original design controlled the units for up to 21 years. The law requires lhe dexeloper
to get super-majorit?, approval l¥om thc C~ty Council. As is thc cusc xvith almost all incenti,,e based
http:/i nho usi rig. org/U SA~'o201 nc l usionarv/U S A%201 nc I us ion. btm 3/17,2004
Page 8 of 8
program no housing units were produced by the private sector. 53 rental units have been produced under
this law by Community Housing Resources, a non-profit. The City of Sanibel has a total limit, approved
by the state, of 95 units. Since the City incorporated and lowered its total housing production fxom
90,000 to 9,000 units land prices: have escalated, making future development problematic.
Sanibel, like Vail, Colorado and other resort communities share the problem of providing shelter for
needed employees who will support the resort based economy (often seasonal) in areas of excessively
high priced land.
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Santa Fe's newly adopted inclusionary zoning law requires provision of affordable housing based on the
price of the market rate units. The higher price the market rate is the steeper the affordable housing
requirement. Santa Fe adopted this program after the city was almost completely "built out" and has
little potential to provide a significant amount of affordable housing.
Boulder, Colorado
Adopted in 1983 Boulder's program is mandatory ,vith a 10% set-aside of units within city limits and
15% of units in areas that are annexed It applies to residential, not multi-family housing and there is no
"in-lieu" option. Densi~' bonuses are available for providing affordable units above the requirement.
Income limits are 80% to 120% or,he city's median.
Longmont, Colorado
The l.ongmont fee waiver program was implemented in 1995. It allows 50% of 14 different
development t~es to be waived for construction of rental housing and up to 75% of the fees to be waived
for affordable owner housing
The density bonus program was also implemented in 1995 and allows a bonus of 6%. No units have
been developed to date. At the t~me this paper was written (December 1999) the City was considering a
mandatory program for annexed areas requiring at least 10% of the total residential umts, by type, be
constructed as affordable housing in each phase of the development. "This requirement can be satisfied
by constructing the affordable units on another property or of a different type acceptable to the City
Council, on a case-by-case basis, provided the units are constructed concurrently with the development
of each phase of the development or before issuance of any building permit for the annexation parcel
payment to the city_ of an amount as determined for the number of affordable dwelling units otherwise
required The money received ...would be used only to promote affordable housing."
Although this paper is not a completely comprehensive report of inclusiouary zoning activities around
the counm/' it provides a broad sample of existing programs and their requirements.
http:.','inhousing.org/USA°o201rtclusionaD',USA%20Inclus~onhtm 317/2004
What is Affordable Housing Page 1 of 3
What is Affordable Housing?
l~br a home to be affordable, it must cost no more than 30°.4o of the
monthly household income for rent (rnortgage,'taxes) and utilities.
",4ffordable" housing refers to housing that is guaranteed to
remain aJJbrdable for a period of time to farndies who qualiJ3,
under spec~c income guidelines.
Ho,sing in Westcheqter Cnn,nty is among the most e_xpt;nsdve in the
n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n.n.~on. Probably someone you know is straggling under the
escalating costs of housing in {,'very community in Westchester.
Several factors combine to create this housing crisis:
increases in family incomes have not kept pace with housing
costs. (Most families who have lived in Westchester for more
than 15 years, would not. be able to afford to purchase their own
home today)
over 40,000 rental units vanished in the 1980's when many
buildings were converted to cooperatives and condominiums or
were converted back to single-thmily homes
· the amount of land suitable tbr affordable housing has become
scarce
· land values have continued to rise
· housing production is not meeting demand
the amount of financing tbr infrastructure and related costs,
particularly from federal sources, has dropped significantly in
the last 15 years
the complexity of land use regulations increased between 1970
and 1990, diminishing developers ability to package and
produce Ioxver cost housing
As of the third quarter of 2003. the median income for a thmilv of
four m Westchester County was $90,100. 'fhe median cost of a home.
(for all housing types was $.~6( ,000, requiring an income of$145,000
to purchase This discrepancy between median income and median
home price creates an "aftbrdabili _ty gap" of $54,900 lbr thc a~ erage
Weatchester lhmily.
coramunity
Most people haven't had an opportunity to find out about
contemporary attbrdable housir~g Today's affordable housing
provides a stepping stone Gr young hmilies, a smaller, more
htlp: ~x~ w. westchestergov.com,housing/What.htm 3/I 8,'2004
What is Affordable Housing Page 2 of 3
manageable home tbr seniors, or creates housing for the County's
workforee. Workforce housing focuses on providing homes for
public employees, public safety volunteers and employees of small
and large business in the County. Affordable workforce housing
helps businesses remain in the county and helps public employees live
closer to their jobs. Contemporary affordable housing can be
ownership or rental, a two family house, accessory apartment,
townhouses or typical market-rate aparUnent units. Many
developments have won design awards. You may live near an
affordable housing development and not know it!
These 10 townhouses
' with 10 attachedrental
~;artments restored a
blighted neighborhood
in New Rochelle with
attractrve architecture
aid housing for 20
farnilies attd rental
income fl~r IO fitmihes.
Contemporary affordable housing is designed to
high-quality construction and professional
management
Aflbrdable housing developments meet local building standards and
design requirements. Prot'essional management includes stringent
tenant selection and quick responses to maintenance requests.
"l,br every 100 new units q/'affhrdable housing cons/ruction,
eigho,jobs are created and more than $10 milhon ts generated itt
construction wages, sales tares on building materials',
development rites and propero, t~Lres. "
government
Affordable housing is de~eloped by private developers_ often non-
profits, many ot'which are local community or thith based
orgamzations~ using a combination or' rental income, private
financing, income from sales and government subsidies. Other
affordable housing is develo~d by the private sector through
jn¢~si~it_r~zoning. Fundin~ and technical assistance are also
a~ailable from private teodcrs and the sale of ownership units
Westchcstcr has created a "Housing hnplementation Fired" and a
http: ~xww ~estchestergov.convhous lg,What htn
3,18,2004
Equitable Development Toolkit:
http:/A~,ww, policylink, org/Eq uitableDevelopmentffI'op.htm
3/17/2004