Commissioner Fred Hancock, who has spearheaded the initiative to change the policy, said that giving applicants this option often left affordable housing proponents short-changed.
“We currently let the applicant decide what their [affordable housing] contribution will be,” said commissioner Fred Hancock at the meeting Thursday night. “And in many cases, we haven’t gotten good value for that.”
The amended policy now leaves that decision - whether to provide land or money - up to the discretion of the commission. It also changes the monetary contribution option for applicants. Rather than owing 20 per cent of the assessed value of the property, they will now owe 100 percent of the post-permit appraised value of the buildable lots that would otherwise go to affordable housing.
According to Mr. Hancock, need for this change became most apparent last year when a 34-lot subdivision off of Meeting House Way in Edgartown applied for DRI approval. Even though developers bought the land for $6.6 million, it was only assessed at $2.4 million, meaning the affordable housing contribution came out to less than $500,000. At a commission meeting in November, commissioner James Joyce estimated that each of the 34 lots in the subdivision could sell for $600,000 or more.
Now, with the new policy, the commission can force a DRI applicant to provide buildable lots rather than give a monetary contribution. In the case of the Meeting House Way subdivision, that would have resulted in three lots for affordable housing; or, if the commission had opted for the monetary option, the post-permit appraised value of those three lots.
The policy cannot be applied retroactively and will not affect the Meeting House Way subdivision.
“We’re looking toward the future,” Mr. Hancock said.
Although this change has served as a quick fix to the commission’s affordable housing policy, Mr. Hancock also said that he is looking at a way to offer a “lots-and-money” option for applicants that would hypothetically allow a 15-lot applicant to split their contribution between one buildable lot and half the appraised value of a buildable lot.
In other business, the commission speedily approved an expansion to the Clarion Inn on Main street in Edgartown. The Clarion is converting the former Shiretown Meats building into four new hotel rooms.
According to commissioner Richard Toole, who attended the Land Use Planning Committee meeting on the conversion, the project won’t result in a change in traffic flow on the busy thoroughfare.
“Edgartown has got it under control,” Mr. Toole said.
The project will go before the Edgartown planning board for a public hearing on Jan. 29.
The commission also voted to change its DRI fee schedule for the first time since 2002, raising fees for DRI’s by 30 per cent.
DRI coordinator Paul Foley said he used the 40 per cent increase in the consumer price index since 2002 as the measuring stick for the increase in fees.
“Some people thought raising by the consumer price index was too much, so the proposal is to add 30 per cent to base fees,” Mr. Foley said, “which is technically less than what we charged in 2002.”
Commissioners approved the fee raise while voting down a clause that would have charged DRI applicants for using more than four hours of commission staff time. They also added a $100 fee for non-compliance infractions.
The commission also unanimously passed a $1,627,352 budget for the 2020 fiscal year. The budget reflects a 5.1 per cent increase from 2019, and an approximately 2.8 per cent increase in town assessments.
MVC executive director Adam Turner said the budget increase was driven by a rise in medical insurance premiums, pension accounts, and the mortgage on his workforce housing unit.
“It’s all good with me,” said commission treasurer Ernie Thomas.
Comments
Rather than shaking down
WashAbhorred EdgartownRather than shaking down developers with outrageous fees and land grabs. Why not zone some land for higher density/workforce housing that would then be sold at reasonable rates. Instead of 1 house per half acre how about 8 townhouses? Builder can make money and we get affordable housing.
The fees and costs of what the MVC is proposing are just going to be added on to the cost of the houses they build making the Vineyard even less affordable.
The reason people are willing
deshandra brown EdgThe reason people are willing to spend $600k+++ for a lot is so they don't have to look at a dump with boats, junk cars, and all sorts of other crap on a neighbors lot. Take the money instead of forcing a developer to accept what will more likely than not be another island eye-sore in the name of 'affordable housing'. If the people responsible for enforcing the current laws did their job, people wouldn't have to move to an 'exclusive' neighborhood to escape the neighbors who become typical new England junk collectors.
Just me personally; I would
Beholder MVJust me personally; I would rather look at junky old boats and plywood in a yard than some McMansion owned by one of those Wall Street hustlers. Junk bonds are uglier than junker pickups. I guess beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.
So as far as the previous
charlie callahan so boston/edgartownSo as far as the previous commentor is concerned,anyone who lives in AFFORDABLE HOUSING is a slob and a junk collector who will RUIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. It's people like that UPPITY commentor who fights against affordable housing and probably looks down on those who really work for a living. Unfortunately that's a common belief of a lot of the Muffies and Buffies on the Vineyard
Please qualify what counts as
Mark EdgartownPlease qualify what counts as working for a living, who are you to judge the relative merits of one's occupation.
I am admittedly still
Density Dan My Parents Converted GarageI am admittedly still fleshing this point out, but I can not help but returning to the idea of increasing popilulation density as a solution for the housing situation.
It is beginning to feel as though the "affordable housing regimes" power lies in their ability to bend the zoning restrictions on density.
The ownership of the affordable housing is controlled by a board that limits the gain a family can receive from the sale of the property. Does the board determine who the house is sold to when the current family moves on? I don't quite understand this dynamic and what it means for affordable housing, but it seems like it would be susceptible to coercion of some kind - if only from the lack of exposure to a market.
Imagine if this new Meeting House project received a variance on the density of the units. The developers could then build as many units as they saw fit and sell it at market price - and maybe do well.
While this would never be allowed. What if it was just one development. Anyways I think it starts and ends with the amount of houses that are allowed on an acre.
I just typed this on my phone so please forgive any typos. Basically I think that as long as density by-laws are in effect this is not going to get any better.
Here is a quote from an article, "Do the Economics of Density Really Create Affordable Housing?", that could be copied and pasted as a response to well meaning individuals addressing the density issue.
"But the draft version of the Minneapolis 2040 plan, which will continue to be revised and discussed until it goes to the Metropolitan Council at the end of the year, also floated the idea of allowing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on “traditional-size city lots.” That proposal kicked up a hornet’s nest of protest from angry residents—many in the city’s affluent Linden Hills, Lynnhurst, Fulton, and Kenwood neighborhoods—who say that the plan will lead to developers buying up sites, razing homes, putting multi-unit buildings everywhere, and ruining the character of the city’s single-family-home neighborhoods."
Fourplexes or Bust!
(How do I add paragraphs!?)
I believe that so far the
Islander TooI believe that so far the density "solution" has been discussed in terms of "filling in" already developed in-town areas, where infrastructure and services are already in place and land-use issues raiased by new development (e.g., new sewerage, new mass transit routes, new bus stop shelters, new electric lines, more policing, fewere new predicted auto trips, etc.) are mitigated by the fact that the neighborhood is already developed.
Planners should adhere as much as possible to "smart development" concepts, which include keeping municipal costs low by avoiding opening up new areas to development. But if a development is approved and is going forward, then variances for higher density should certainly be considered.
The mvc works on a detriment
Katama resident EdgartowbThe mvc works on a detriment benefit system in analyzing projects. This new rule does need to be in the future. The mvc can request via a vote anything it wants as a benefit so apply that fact to this 34 lot project now. The article says future projects only but the mvc can establish that now claiming the need more benefits
When I bought my house in
Douglas Korves AIA Always on IslandWhen I bought my house in 1981 on the corner of Meeting House Way and Vicars drive, the Dutch gambrel-roofed house with the wrap-around porch that I added, my wife and I were about as “affordable” a couple as you get. It was unfinished and 1,400 sf on a 2/3 acre lot and I declined to buy the adjoining lot.
We purchased it for $85,000 and I could not afford the adjoining lot for $19,000.
I was a 32 year old struggling architect in NYC and afforded the house only with summer rentals. I then built the guest house which allowed us more frequent seasonal use of the property and more income in lean years.
We sold my daughters legacy in 1998. Why? Because the numerous and long recessions are quite impactful on service professions. I sold it when the capital gains tax was 30%, interest rates were not creating false wealth as they are now and inflating prices.
Fishing, Agriculture were a stronger industry on the Island than today’s tourism, Presidents and princesses and the media swamped the Island. That era is past as the comments are always save my solice of open spaces and do not build it next to me.
I came to the Island one weekend and found an extension chord running out of my house and down Vicars Lane. Six extension chords later I found my plumber building his first and “affordable” house with that power. That fact never helped me in a price negotiation with him on a repair or new hot water heater.
Several years and much success later, he sold that house and built a larger house and multiple car garage just west on Meeting House Way. Such is the way of the Vineyard.
I do not know the details of the affordable housing law on the Vineyard, but in New York City, you get a slightly higher density or building size by making 20% of the units affordable. The developer can not clump or group them but must distribute them evenly through all parts of the project. There is an alternative that they must be built concurrently in any other site but they do not account for any affordable contribution to that second development or zoning bonuses and it the building of that site must achieve the construction of those units. It is never a good idea to group or collect affordable housing units. That is ghetto building.
Footnotes: I love the Gazzette’s e-notes. I never could afford to get back to the Island hence my location is: “Always on Island”!
Add new comment