Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAWHC 2025-05-07 att AWHC 2025-05-07 Final 1 AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING COMMITTEE May 07, 2025 Virtual (via Zoom) Present: Leonardo Vargas-Mendez (chair and Town Board), Ray Burger (Director of Planning), Gina Cassidy (Planning Department), Charles Geisler, Miles McCarty (Village of Freeville), Michael Murphy (Village of Dryden), Martha Robertson Absent: Christina Dravis (Town Board) Staff: Loren Sparling (Deputy Town Clerk) The meeting was called to order at 2:04 p.m. Noting C Dravis’ absence, members briefly considered the possibility of changing the meeting time of the Committee to accommodate her schedule. Review and Acceptance of Minutes A typo was indicated in the Feb 12 draft minutes, which was subsequently corrected. C Geisler provided three clarifying edits to the Apr 02 draft minutes. RESOLUTION #9 (2025) – ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 12, 2025 L Vargas-Mendez offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee hereby accepts the meeting minutes of February 12, 2025, as amended. 2nd M Robertson Roll Call Vote L Vargas-Mendez Yes R Burger Yes G Cassidy Yes C Geisler Yes M McCarty Yes M Murphy Yes M Robertson Yes RESOLUTION #10 (2025) – ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 02, 2025 L Vargas-Mendez offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee hereby accepts the meeting minutes of April 02, 2025, as amended. 2nd M Murphy Roll Call Vote L Vargas-Mendez Yes R Burger Yes G Cassidy Yes C Geisler Yes M McCarty Yes M Murphy Yes M Robertson Yes Zoning Advisory Group Update AWHC 2025-05-07 Final 2 R Burger provided an update on the Zoning Advisory Group (ZAG). The first year’s focus has primarily been on housing issues, along with data centers and battery storage (BESS). The ZAG has had four meetings thus far, with the June meeting anticipated to finalize the first year’s scope of work for the zoning rewrite, which will then be forwarded to the Town Board for approval. This initial phase was intended to be an easier lift to amend a portion of the zoning and subdivision law, allowing the Town and public to get used to the process before moving to Phase 2 next year. M Robertson expressed dismay that Nan Stolzenburg, the consultant leading the zoning rewrite, initially had not read the Committee’s comments from February, although she later acknowledged receiving them. R Burger clarified that N Stolzenburg had received and likely reviewed the comments in February but hadn’t revisited the document until recently. M Robertson reported that the ZAG largely accepted the Committee’s recommendations regarding allowing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) height to match that of the principal residence and not requiring the owner to live in the principal residence. Significant discussion occurred regarding conservation subdivision density, particularly N Stolzenburg’s suggestion of a 10-acre minimum lot size. This issue remains unresolved, with N Stolzenburg directed to research examples of density-based ordinances from other townships. The recommended density number will likely be debated further as other sections of the code are written. A conflict somewhat exists between the comprehensive plan’s emphasis on preserving rural character and the desire to increase housing supply. Balancing this and providing flexibility for farmers’ land use are ongoing considerations. Planning Board Member Liaison to the Committee Committee members discussed the requirement for a Planning Board member to serve on the Committee. R Burger explained that this has been brought up as an agenda item at the past few Planning Board meetings, but no one has stepped up yet. Tony Salerno (Planning Board chair) indicated that, while he would not be stepping into the role of liaison, he may attend some of the Committee’s meetings. The Committee plans to raise this issue again with the Planning Board. The possibility of adjusting the Committee’s meeting time to accommodate members’ schedules was again raised. Project Considerations for Tompkins County Housing Affordability and Supportive Infrastructure Grant The Committee discussed pursuing a $10,000 Housing Affordability and Supportive Infrastructure Grant (HASIG) from the County. (Tompkins County has budgeted a total of $20,000 towards such grants, though projects may request no more than $10,000 in County funds.) Two potential proposals were considered: • Focusing on the Route 13 corridor, specifically the NYSEG area and the Leonardo parcel there, building upon previous studies and focusing on infrastructure needs to support densification in this focus/nodal area, as defined by the County’s and Town’s comprehensive plans. This aligns with the County’s interest in nodal development. • Focusing on assessing vacancies and housing conditions within the Town’s mobile home parks to identify opportunities for creating and preserving affordable housing. This aligns with a specific guideline in the County’s grant program to “create and preserve affordable housing opportunities in manufactured home parks and improve housing conditions within the parks.” AWHC 2025-05-07 Final 3 M Robertson favored the corridor study, seeing a clear path forward in building on past work and aligning with the ongoing zoning rewrite. She questioned what the Town could do with the information from a mobile home park vacancy study, as it is private property. C Geisler, acknowledging the merit of the corridor study yet advocating for the mobile home park study (see attachment), highlighted the significant number of mobile home residents (1,124) in Dryden and the potential for creating a substantial number of affordable units by addressing vacancies (estimated at 5% or 56 units). He argued that this is a “bird in the hand” opportunity (as opposed to the contingencies that would arise from the corridor study), and there is potentially only one County source for mobile home park assistance funding. He suggested a study could assess the vacancies and the reasons for them, and explore options for the repair, refurbishment, or replacement of units, potentially involving organizations like Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS). Holly Hutchinson was identified as someone who could undertake this study. The possibility exists, however, that the mobile home park owners in our community could sell their landholdings to financial interests outside of the Town, thus dramatically changing the landscape when it comes to affordability. M Robertson questioned what the Town’s role in this would be, save for introducing a mobile home park owner to INHS. The conversation returned to the corridor study, particularly focusing on the 50-acre Leonardo parcel near the NYSEG substation (rendered in orange in the “Preferred Development Scenario” of the attachment). The availability of existing water and sewer infrastructure around the NYSEG substation and the potential to extend it to the Leonardo parcel (a multi-million dollar project, estimated at $1-2 million per utility) was seen as a significant advantage. INHS has long expressed interest in developing this parcel (at least 10 years), and their focus on development along public water and sewer makes this area particularly attractive to them. The potential for a large-scale development (potentially hundreds of units) that could include a mix of housing types, including affordable housing, was highlighted as a key benefit. INHS’s expertise in managing affordable housing developments and their focus on keeping housing costs reasonable over time were seen as crucial. The location along a major commuter route (Route 13) and in an area identified as nodal by the County increases the likelihood of County support for a grant application. The Committee discussed what a $10,000 grant could do to further the corridor study. Ideas included: • Consolidating existing information and studies on the NYSEG area and its periphery. • Hiring a consultant to analyze the information and provide sketch plans or different density scenarios, considering infrastructure demands. • Conducting a current market study to assess the desirability of units in this location. • Seeking input from INHS on what a study would need to include to help them move forward. M Murphy voiced his preference for the corridor option as a more practical way to increase reasonably priced housing within the Town, citing INHS’ history of maintaining the future pricing of their houses at affordable levels. C Geisler offered to remove his manufactured housing proposal from consideration for this specific grant application, recognizing the expertise of INHS. Committee members were encouraged to explore ways to move forward with addressing manufactured housing needs separately. AWHC 2025-05-07 Final 4 R Burger informed the Committee that there are two potential strategies to expand housing in the NYSEG area. The first is a prospective expansion east of NYSEG, onto land currently held by the Leonardo family (as was discussed earlier in today’s meeting). The second is a possible expansion east of Hanshaw Rd, onto land currently owned by Cornell (as was posited during a previous month’s Committee meeting with Jeremy Thomas). Both options would require about a mile of water/sewer expansion to serve around 30-50 acres of prime developable land. Both are good nodes to develop, and both have the potential for INHS (or other developer) to undertake a great project. He alerted members that the area around Hanshaw Rd does not have the County designation of a focus area. Of the two choices, Committee members felt the Leonardo property to be the more practical and preferable location for housing. Playing the role of advocatus diaboli, one member wondered if there were any drawbacks to building near the NYSEG substation. Respondents cited the closer proximity of Pinckney Rd to the substation and a lack of complaints from its residents. The Committee discussed the potential benefit of engaging with NYSEG to understand their plans for their property adjacent to the Leonardo parcel, particularly regarding any potential uses that would be unfavorable to future housing development nearby. R Burger will reach out about this to the new government relations person at NYSEG. Next steps in preparation for the grant application include: • Reaching out to Shawna Stevenson (Tompkins County Housing and Community Development Planner) to inform her of the Committee’s work on a potential grant application and inquire about the deadline and any relevant information. • Reaching out to Kate de la Garza at INHS to understand what information or study would be most helpful for them to move forward with potential development on the Leonardo parcel. • Obtaining the draft TG Miller infrastructure study from R Burger and circulate it for review (with the understanding that it is a draft). R Burger and G Cassidy were asked if they could draft a scope of work for the grant application, but they indicated that they would need more time and guidance to do so. The Committee will revisit the grant application discussion at the next meeting, with the goal of potentially finalizing an idea by the June meeting to submit an application by July. In the event that the grant application deadline was missed, C Geisler wondered if there were any Town funds that could be used. R Burger responded that there may not be funds in this year’s budget, but the Town Board could consider it for next year’s budget, depending on the Town’s priorities. Other Items Annual Report – Committee members were reminded about the need to prepare their annual report. This will be an agenda item for the next meeting. Short-Term Rentals – Nick Helmholdt, Tompkins County Tourism Program Director and its short-term rental data manager, had planned to attend the Committee’s June meeting. However, due to their focus on the county grant application, M Robertson will ask him if he can attend in July instead. A new state law passed in February requires counties collecting room tax from short- term rentals to establish a registration system by November and to report its data back to the municipalities. Tompkins County intends to comply, which should provide valuable data to the Town, potentially including addresses to assist with code enforcement. AWHC 2025-05-07 Final 5 July Meeting – The July meeting will be moved to July 9 at 2:00 p.m. from its usual date to avoid conflicting with any July 4 holiday plans. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Loren Sparling Deputy Town Clerk April 29/25 Tompkins County Housing Affordability and Supportive Infrastructure Grant The NOFA for Tompkins County’s Housing Affordability and Supportive Infrastructure Grant (HASIG) appeared in March. HASIG provides municipalities up to $10,000 to address affordable housing shortages in several ways, including research (housingaffordabilitygrant_programguidelines_2025.pdf). Manufactured housing is an eligible housing type. I would like to see our town pursue HASIG funding. To expedite our submission, the Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee will assist in completing the application. I offer to do this. I serve on AWHC and the county’s Manufactured Housing Working Group. In the latter capacity I recently conferred with the County’s Department of Planning and Sustainability and with Greg Mezey, chair of the County Housing and Economic Development Committee and a Dryden Representative to the Legislature. Mezey encouraged a HASIG proposal. HASIG’s emphasis on infrastructure is timely. Infrastructure is a prevalent theme throughout DRYDEN 2045. When it comes to housing, infrastructure plays a major role in location and future nodal development. DRYDEN 2045 also points to mobile home communities (MHCs) to expand affordable housing opportunities (the town has the largest endowment of MHCs of all towns in the county). MHCs are infrastructure-dependent as well, particularly when it comes to sewer and water (Hanshaw Village MHC being a bellweather example). As MHC infrastructure ages, vacancies may increase. Whatever the cause, vacancies are a doorway to affordable housing. Dryden’s HASIG proposal should explore the causes of MHC vacancies, addressing the role of infrastructure therein. In its application, Dryden would be wise to collaborate with Tompkins County’s Manufactured Housing Working Group because of the member’s substantial understanding of these and other connections. Our joint work plan with the Working Group might include 5 goals: 1) Vacant lot and vacant unit enumeration (number and type) for each MHC in Dryden. 2) A status report of the reasons behind vacancies, using data from County Assessor’s office, park owners and residents, Google maps, and park walk-throughs. 3) An analysis of park infrastructure utilizing data gathered from TC Health Department, Dryden code enforcement officers, MHC owners, utility and internet providers, flooding records, resident complaints, and infrastructure age estimates. 4) An townwide infrastructure overview of Dryden’s sewer, water, utility, road, and internet services in relation to our current MHC s, yielding a gap analysis of favorable and unfavorable MHC locations. 5) A case study (time permitting within the allowable 1 year award period): a preliminary evaluation of MHC expansion potential in the emergent nodal area at the intersection of Hanshaw Rd. and Hwy 13. This is non-competitive grant opportunity of $10,000, and will require the town would cover 10%, or $1000. The funding may be used “to hire consultants or add staff time” to identify and assess sites for densification or new affordable housing development. As noted in a NOFA footnote, “projects located in or near County Development Focus Areas are strongly encouraged. Activities related to stick-built, modular, and manufactured housing may be supported by this grant program. The project must support Tompkins County and local comprehensive plans.” Figure 12 –Village Undeveloped Lands September,2007 Figure 13 –Village Undeveloped Lands Aerial September,2007 Examples of Possible Residential Character Figure 14 –Village Residential Concept Legend Single-Family Residential Buildings Multi-Family Residential Buildings September,2007 Examples of Possible Architectural Character Figure 15 –Village Mixed Use Concept Legend Existing Buildings Multi-Family Residential Buildings September,2007 Commercial Buildings Figure 16 –NYSEG Development Lands September,2007 Figure 17 –NYSEG Development Lands Aerial September,2007 Figure 18 –NYSEG Land Use Concept September,2007 September 2007 Examples of Possible Commercial Character R Legend Industrial Buildings Multi-Family Residential Buildings Figure 19 - NYSEG Mixed Use Concept Commercial Buildings Existing Buildings Single-family Residential Buildings