Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAWHC 2023-11-01Dryden Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee Minutes for Nov. 01, 2023, Meeting Via Zoom Attendance: Martha Robertson; Ray Burger; Mike Murphy; Miles McCarty; Craig Anderson; Dillon Shults, and Chuck Geisler; Guests are Ben Carver (Deputy Mayor, Trumansburg) and Ben Darfler (T-burg Village Trustee chairing committee tasked with drafting T-burg zoning update). Today’s focus: T-burg MMH zoning: T-burg just introduced their proposed zoning law revision and, as yet, lacks experience with its implementa�on. Proposal is to remove their past MMH zoning law, treat MMHs like any other conforming single-family home, and leave it at that or reference the HUD code and the sec�ons of public health law that deal with MMH parks. See The FAQ that accompanies our latest zoning draft from Ben Darfler shared prior to meeting. Five ques�ons plus others from commitee structured today’s mee�ng: Q 1: Does this removal approach apply to mobile/manufactured home parks as well as to separate mobile/manufactured homes outside of parks? Ben Darfler (B.D.) The only prior MMH regula�on was that mobile homes had to be in parks and certain details about the parks themselves. We removed all this in our revision. Village tasked his commitee with redoing their zoning law. MHP regula�ons are a small part of this larger responsibility. According to NYS law (NYS DOS document on regula�ng manufactured housing), MMHs are now considered single-family homes and must be regulated accordingly. Q 2: Does this removal approach apply to M/MHs that don’t meet the provisions in Title 2 of Article 21-B and therefore not deemed to be a conforming single-family dwelling for purposes of the applicable local zoning law? Who decides whether a foundation is “permanent”? B.D.: We don’t specify what constitutes a “permanent foundation.” In NYS since 2015, MMHs are treated the same as any other housing. So why would we want to do MMH-specific zoning? H.U.D. defines code for MMHs. In our proposal, local code is H.U.D. code, meaning a MMH has to have a H.U.D. seal and be on a permanent foundation as defined by H.U.D.. MMHs can be treated differently and regulated if installed before 1976. (B.C.’s add this edit: If they are installed prior to the village’s current zoning law, they would be unaffected by the changes - this only applies to "new" installation of an "old" home.) Also, if a post-197 MMH didn’t meet town or village code, there might be reason to regulate them and the code enforcement officer would enforce MMH regulations. There’s already quite a bit of regulation in code that would apply. Old homes have a way of getting grandfathered, but new homes can be held to code-based regulations more readily. In general, the T-burg proposal stays away from the “look and feel” of housing and leave that to owner discretion. Housing aesthetics in the Village are already highly diverse. In Dryden this might cause push-back by stick- built homeowners concerned about property value impacts. There’s some of this in T-Burg; anything regarding zoning can raise hackles, e.g., density and infill plans. Q 3: The proposed approach for the Village of Trumansburg is elegantly simple. But do you see any hazards, difficulties, or weaknesses in it? B.D. and B.C.: Yes. Improving public understanding of code, and what it includes, so they are better informed and more comfortable with these provisions. Because the Park itself is considered a preexisting use, growth within the park is not prohibited. Growth in MMHPs could be done through development districts, which Dryden has already spelled out in its land use laws. Development districts allow for the higher density of a new park, if Dryden is uncomfortable restricting the creation of a new park. MMHPs are a designation of the health department—a separate body of law and regulation. Q 4: In pursuing this approach, how did your committee get community input, did you consult with the M/MH population, and the surrounding Town of Ulysses? B.D.: Community input primarily came from our comprehensive plan engagements. We followed that with public information meetings and hearings. We didn’t reach out to MMHP residents specifically nor to the surrounding towns. We did consult model ordinances for leads and ideas, especially from APA. (Their model ordinance is annotated and provides lots of helpful comments). Q 5: As you seek to expand affordable housing in T-burg, how do you foresee incentivizing developers to join in on this agenda? (p. 7 of the document Ben shared, bottom) B.D.: Incen�ve zoning encourages this—the standard density bonus approach. Allow more units per parcel small scale density using county ’s model ordinance. Need more tools here. New Ques�on: How much vacant land is to be developed in T-Burg? How can you increase density without radically changing the nature of the village? For infill purposes, according the FAQ sheet B.D. shared, there could be several hundred lots that could be developed, provided owners wanted to sell and there were buyers. B.D.: The village is about 1 square mile. Of this, 10-13 acres are larger parcels. But some vacant lots are smaller. 7500 �. is the minimum lot size and up to 60% of this can be built on. Martha asks how many new homes could be built in the village if this 60% rule was invoked on smaller lots? B.D. says they haven’t done this calcula�on, though they fully expect that the 60% limit is a light enough touch that it will not restrict new building.* Impervious soils and run-off are important concerns in deciding what’s buildable as well. Village is going to do a stormwater management plan. His commitee did a lot-by-lot analysis using assessment data to determine the actual size of all of the lots. The intent was to incrementally increase density in a way that the local community supports. Martha recalls work done 5-6 years ago by the Incremental Development Alliance poin�ng out that the 60% rule could, if applied, mean there’s no developable land available. B.D. acknowledges this and other density concerns relevant to affordability but not immediately relevant to MMH regula�on. EDR worked with village on its comprehensive plan that kick-started the zoning rewrite. Village worked with EDR to get more informa�on out of assessment data. Volunteers did much of the work. Ben D’s commitee didn’t look at other zoning codes in New York State. Instead, they looked at the zoning ordinances in other Tompkins County jurisdic�ons and the APA model ordinances, which are annotated and very helpful. Ques�on: Chuck went back to the three exceptions to the current New York State law. Does it make sense to retain a MMH and MMHP zoning law to handle them? These excep�ons are: • Pre-1976 MMHs • Post-1976 MMHs that aren’t on permanent foundations • Exceptions that are other non-conforming uses B.D. you absolutely could regulate MMHs in these cases, but we elected to simplify the task and abide by the spirit of current NYS law. And these cases would be hard to regulate with zoning because they already exist—they become nonconforming uses. It’s the new MMH installments where zoning would likely affect. Question: Martha askes how is the Compass initiative is progressing? B.C. Compass is doing well. It is a $7.5 million project and includes sewer, mains, repaired water, mains, and electrical infrastructure, paved roads. Residents have been pa�ent—bearing up with lots of construc�on in their homes and driveways. Ben is not sure he’d do another infrastructure project of this size (200 people live in Compass.) Ques�on: Is there a resident council? B.C.: No. He thought it would happen a�er they started mee�ng with residence. But it hasn’t. He has asked for volunteers, e.g., to build a playground. Volunteer efforts are sporadic. Maybe it’ll be beter a�er the construc�on is done (it’s been constant). Work should be done in next two months. Technical comple�on date by April 2024. Ques�on: Chuck asks if replacement of 8 MMHs in Compass, presumably the older ones, eliminates a zoning problem. B.C. No. Pre-exis�ng non-conforming uses – – zoning would never require replacing them. Village zoning doesn’t single out old houses in the village or change things in exis�ng housing stock; it can only apply to new homes (permanent founda�ons for MMHs, for example). That said, from a social welfare perspec�ve, replacement has an public goods agenda: INHS wants to replace the oldest MMHs because it can’t efficiently heat them. Pu�ng a heat pump in a poorly built older MMH it’s not going to help anything: INHS has put heat pumps in all 8 of the new MMH’s. MHR is the NYS replacement program for homes within parks. MMHR is the replacement program for homes outside of parks. Aside: NYSEG is redoing the load profile of the program, which has caused delays. *** Since there was a meeting of the County’s Housing and Economic Development Committee starting at 3:00, we ended out meeting to attend. At that meeting, Eliot Benman reported on the Tompkins County 2022 Housing Snapshot and a be a discussion of the Continuum of Care's “Home, Together: Tompkins Plan,”proposing a coordinated strategy to address homelessness. Here’s the agenda packet. See p. 9 – 20 for the homelessness issue and 24-33 for the Housing Snapshot. Minutes of Oct. 4 mee�ng approved. Mee�ng adjourned at 5:00 PM: no Ac�on Items. Minutes by Chuck Geisler. Please send correc�ons to him before Dec. 6 mee�ng. *The village didn’t do a comprehensive study on this. But in the lots they spot-checked they were substan�ally below this. Setbacks on the smallest lot already restrict the house plate to ~25% of the lot.