Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAWHC 2025-02-05 AWHC 2025-02-05 Final 1 AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING COMMITTEE 05 February 2025 Virtual (via Zoom) Present: Leonardo Vargas-Mendez (Town Board), Michael Murphy (Village of Dryden), Craig Anderson (Planning Board), Ray Burger (Director of Planning), Gina Cassidy (Planning Department), Charles Geisler, Martha Robertson Absent: Christina Dravis (Town Board), Miles McCarty (Village of Freeville) Staff: Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. Announcements C Anderson had previously informed members via email that he would be stepping down as Planning Board liaison to the Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee after today’s meeting. The selection of his replacement was an agenda item at the last Planning Board meeting (held on 1/23/2025), but no one came forth as a candidate. The matter will be revisited at the next meeting of the Planning Board (scheduled for 2/27/2025). Review and Discussion of Comments to Zoning Report L Vargas-Mendez opened the dialogue by asking what form the Committee’s final comments will take so as to be relayed to the Planning and Town Boards. He wants to avoid long comments along the edge of Nan Stolzenburg’s report and make it more readable for the Boards. M Robertson did not think it too cumbersome to send embedded comments to the Boards and advocated that the Committee in fact do so, in order that those Boards could very clearly see the context of comments or suggested changes. She offered that a cover sheet listing the pages with changes also accompany the document. C Anderson thought that embedded comments would be fine for the Planning Board. It was noted that the Planning Department is conferring as a separate entity with the Planning Board about the zoning report and update. One Committee member wondered if comments by Planning staff who are also on the Committee should be embedded in the Committee’s comments to the Planning Board, as the water may be muddied. G Cassidy and R Burger responded that they were asked to comment on N Stolzenburg’s report; whether the Committee chooses to endorse those comments is for the Committee to decide. C Anderson added that the Planning staff are members of the Committee and should be able to provide comments; whether the Planning Board adopts these comments is another question, but nonetheless they will be read. Once all comments on N Stolzenburg’s document have been reviewed and vetted by the Committee, the names of the individual members associated with those comments will be supplanted by a more general moniker (e.g., “Housing Committee”). Any comments not endorsed by the Committee as a whole will be deleted. A single document that merged comments from M Robertson, G Cassidy, and C Geisler was then circulated among Committee members for review and discussion today. The Committee reviewed comments in the sections of N Stolzenburg’s report as outlined below. (The working product of today’s session is attached.) Subdivision Law 240-2.1 (p 2). C Geisler felt that the phrase “affordable housing” needed to be written into the chapter’s purpose statement. Others agreed to the comment with the knowledge that the Planning Board or Town Board may accept, modify , or reject this perspective. AWHC 2025-02-05 Final 2 Article IX. Design Standards – Recommendation 5. 240-11.5 – Parks, Open Spaces and Natural Features (p 7). Comments were reviewed at last month’s meeting. The need for balance was stressed, as opposed to trying to define what is most salient or unique. The phrase “preservation of those features most important to preserving the Town’s rural character” was particularly applauded. Zoning Regulations 270-2.1. Purpose - Recommendation (p 8). Taking N Stolzenburg’s recommendation that the purpose statement be more specific and more forceful (per the Town’s Comprehensive Plan), Committee members suggested language to this end. Article III. Terminology – Recommendation 3 (p 9). C Geisler explained that many people feel that short-term (e.g., Section 8) and other traditional approaches to affordable housing is acceptable. He would like to see an emphasis on the long-term or durable nature of affordable housing included in its definition. A definition of “Community Land Trust” was also proposed and revised. Committee members recommended that the Planning Board add a definition of “Workforce Housing,” with the understanding that this may already be defined at the state level. Article III. Terminology – 270-4.3. Boundary Determinations (p 10). Committee members assented to N Stolzenburg’s recommendation. Article III. Terminology – 270-5.1. Restrictions (p 10). Committee members agreed that manufactured housing should be included in the Allowable Use Groups chart. Article III. Terminology – 270-5.2. Allowable Use Groups Chart – Recommendation 5 (p 11). Committee members wondered how “large-scale retail” is defined and asked that Planning Board members take note of this. Article VI. Area and Bulk Regulations - Recommendation 6d (p 13). Committee members considered a comment that suggested that the Town develop certain building designs, such that, if a developer were to use one of those designs, they would get automatic approval from the Town . This has been used in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in an effort to streamline the approval process there. M Robertson cautioned that the development of these designs would require time and money to be spent by the Town. On the surface, this appears to be a good idea, but it is pretty hard to find a boilerplate design that would suit every location in Dryden. Other municipalities have expended time and money on such pre-approved designs, with the result that they never get used by developers. This might be better suited to bigger cities where there is a lot of development going on. Providing a counterpoint for the sake of discussion, C Geisler advanced that if the vision for Dryden (via the Comprehensive Plan) is to protect its rural character, then isn’t that what we want? M Murphy offered that Dryden is not a community that has a lot of development, and so such an action would be counterproductive. The idea makes sense in a lot of other places, but not here. L Vargas-Mendez voiced that the initial investment that the Town would have to provide for these designs to be produced would be quite high, costing at least $50,000-$60,000. After some wordsmithing, Committee members opted to retain the comment for the Planning Board to consider as an example of how other communities are streamlining the building approval process. AWHC 2025-02-05 Final 3 Article VI. Area and Bulk Regulations - Recommendation 6h (p 13). It was indicated that a definition of “green space” already exists in Dryden’s existing zoning law, and so a comment to this end was removed. Article VI. Area and Bulk Regulations - Recommendation 7a (p 13). N Stolzenburg recommended that density regulations in the mixed-use commercial district “could be simplified,” but Committee members observed that she does not say how this could be done. Resolution of members’ comments on this topic were tabled. Article VI. Area and Bulk Regulations - Recommendation 7f (p 14). At last month’s meeting, Committee members recommended against 10 acre lots and for cluster development instead. Article VI. Area and Bulk Regulations - Recommendation 7g (p 14). Committee members were confused by N Stolzenburg’s recommendation. The neighborhood residential (NR) overlay district currently specifies both water and sewer, and places density at 6 units per acre. Members amended the comment to advocate for the extension of public water out from the nodes in order to accommodate higher density. Where there is already water and sewer, higher density should be encouraged. Article VI. Area and Bulk Regulations - Recommendation 7h (p 14). Committee members questioned the limit of one dwelling per three acres placed on NR districts. Consultation of current Tompkins County Health Department regulations was also advised. 270-7.7 and 7.8. Green Neighborhood Development, Redevelopment, Additional Density – Recommendation 1 (p 15). Committee members acknowledged that it is counterproductive to incentivize sprawl. If density and incentive bonuses are specific, they are not going to be misused due to loopholes. 270-7.7 and 7.8. Green Neighborhood Development, Redevelopment, Additional Density – Recommendation 2 (p 15). Discussion centered around Governor Hochul’s plan to address New York State’s housing crisis (New York Housing Compact) by removing local barriers to housing production. As it was perceived that the plan ultimately would not pass muster in the State Congress and that local zoning regulations should not depend on state leadership, Committee members decided to remove a previously inserted comment. Clarification was made to a comment that advocated that developers be rewarded only if they surpass current code requirements and not just meet the standard. 270-7.7 and 7.8. Green Neighborhood Development, Redevelopment, Additional Density – Recommendation 2a (p 15). Not all identified nodes in the Town have water and sewer. Committee members briefly explored the restrictions on water/sewer infrastructure imposed by nodal proximity to local waterways. Currently, Etna does not have any services, and what services are available in Varna are very limited on account of Fall Creek. Members agreed that density bonuses should be applied to locations in the Town considered as nodes or outfitted with at least sewer infrastructure, not just anywhere in the Town, because these are the places that can accommodate higher density. Such bonuses should not be given to developments outside of these areas. The comment was qualified to reflect this. Mixed-use commercial was identified as a hard-sell to developers because the commercial space was not instantly rentable, whereas people will pretty much move into residential apartments as soon as they are available. AWHC 2025-02-05 Final 4 270-8.2. Large Scale Retail Development District – Subsection (D). Commercial Design Guidelines (p 16). C Anderson related that the Planning Board agrees with N Stolzenburg’s recommendation that the design guidelines be incorporated into the zoning law as design standards and not be kept as a separate standalone document. 270-9.3. Off-Street Parking – Recommendation 12 (p 18). G Cassidy relayed that there is no real foundational basis for many of the parking standards in use today; they emerged from thin air and have simply been copied over the years. There currently exist studies and recommendations on parking that are based on usage, and so she advises that parking codes be redeveloped from the ground up based on this research. M Murphy considered that rural households do not have the same choice of transportation alternatives at their disposal that city households do; working households in rural areas often use two cars to undertake the business of any given day (e.g., employment or errands). C Anderson bolstered G Cassidy’s comment by stating that if people do not have ready access to public transportation, more parking is needed; for those who have ready access to public transportation, less parking is needed. It is location-dependent, and so parking standards need to be rewritten from scratch to reflect this. M Robertson pushed back against multi-bedroom units having one parking space per bedroom. C Anderson noted that IvyRidge went with the standards and is now beset by the problem of not having enough parking for its residents. Committee members agreed to reconvene next Wednesday (2/12/2025) at 2:00 p.m. to complete their review of the zoning audit. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3.58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk