07/14/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Subject to Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION-MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, July 14th, 2020
The public hearing was web-based on Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/2574297243
Meeting ID: 257 429 7243
I. CALL TO ORDER - Chairman William Rice called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
II. ROLL CALL
1. Appointment of Alternatives: None
Present: Michael Glidden, William Rice, Erin Leavitt-Smith, Julie Eaton, Craig MacCormac, Holly Beum, Sean Glenn-Fernand, David Blume, Alan Needham
Absent: Richard Cortes
Julie Eaton and Sean Glenn-Fernand promoted as full voting members however, David Blume and Alan Needham joined the meeting after roll call. Sean Glenn-Fernand and Julie Eaton were then demoted.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the TUESDAY June 23rd, 2020 regular meetings
• Chairman Rice noted that on page 1 lines 23 and 24 are a duplication of lines 27 and 28. Chairman Rice suggested to delete the text in line 23 on the basis that it shows up on line 28 as well. Ms. Levitt-Smith noted that on page 3 line 135 should reflect 5.3.3 not 5.33. Chairman Rice also suggested that on page 3 line 140 to separate the motion from the body of the discussion.
• Ms. Leavitt-Smith made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Beum seconded the motion.
MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, two abstentions David Blume and Craig MacCormac (4-0-2).
IV. Commission Business
1. Affordable Housing Plan
• Chairman Rice informed the Commission that he started to go through the plan however, he is not prepared to make his final comments tonight. Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden to present the highlights of the most recent changes to the plan from the last meeting. Mr. Glidden presented the changes from the last meeting to the Commission. Mr. Glidden reported he followed the format from the POCD, added a forward in the plan and stated it cites some of the things said in the POCD affordable housing section along with cites the statue of the Public Act that requires them to develop and maintain an affordable housing plan for the community; Public Act 17-170. On page 3 of the plan, Mr. Glidden reported he added in the 60% area median income figures to the income table; he stated it allows you to see what the 60% and 80% for a household based on the number of people living in the household. Mr. Glidden reported those numbers come from HUD income limits. The plan shows that Simsbury median income is $119,588.00. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked if the median income is per couple, but it was clarified by Mr. Glidden that it is per household. Mr. Needham asked the significance between the 60% and 80% median income based upon the housing that will be developed. Mr. Glidden explained that if the application is made pursuant to 8-30g of the general state statutes, a certain amount is set aside for the individuals making 80% and then some deed restricted has to go to the 60% income bracket. He explained that this gives clarification on the income brackets and what it really means. Mr. Glidden further stated that the numbers change, as these numbers reflect data from 2019. Chairman Rice clarified that these are maximum incomes. Mr. Needham referenced the beginning of the plan where it states a home is considered affordable; he reported feeling there needs to be clarification about what home is affordable to, asking if it is it is 8-30G or something else. Mr. Glidden stated a home is considered affordable is 8-30g, when 30% of the homeowner’s income is not devoted to household earnings. Mr. Glidden agreed to change the first paragraph. Mr. Needham noted that changing the paragraph would help clarify who and what it is affordable to, which is 8-30g. Chairman Rice noted there are also income restrictions in the workforce housing overlay zone. Mr. Glidden explained they want to focus on the statutes and not their own regulations. He then agreed with Chairman Rice but reported this plan is a statutory requirement so he will refer to all standards in the general statutes. Chairman Rice and Mr. Needham asked for there to be clarification in the plan. Mr. Glidden reported he will reword the first paragraph to clarify home is affordable and he will share it with the Commission. Mr. Needham asked if there is anything else besides the deed restriction for 30 years in terms of restrictions. Mr. Glidden stated he did’t add the point system for 8-30g in this plan as he reminded the Commission that they didn’t want the whole thing there but stated if the Commission wants it in the plan, he can put it there. Mr. Glidden explained that the point system gets into a lot of detail. Mr. Needham agreed that the small detail of the point system doesn’t need to be included however, asked Mr. Glidden about the deed restriction for 30 years including that the house has to be part of a government program too. Ms. Beum thanked Mr. Needham stating many people think the town of Simsbury already has a lot of affordable housing. Mr. Glidden explained this is where the point system comes in for fulfilling the 10%. Mr. Glidden provided the example that CT Finance Authority offers low income homes and provides down payment assistance so that kind of assistance is counted. Mr. Glidden reported he can provide further explanation in the document on how they get the points based on the Department of Housing’s determination and review of their records. Mr. Needham asked if they have to get into the points or if they can just state that it is the result of a government program. Mr. Glidden reported they cannot as it is so technical and stated the point system is very detailed. He did further state the plan can refer, very broadly, to the point system outlined in the statute; saying 10% of the housing stock has to be deemed affordable either by deed restriction for 30 years or for other qualifying factors as outlined by the general statute. Ms. Beum and Mr. Needham both acknowledged they liked the language Mr. Glidden used. Ms. Beum reported feeling it necessary to add in some of the qualifications as she feels many people will look at this and wonder why this is still an issue. She further stated there are a whole lot of homes at this level but most of them don’t qualify. Chairman Rice stated they are not mutually exclusive. He stated there are affordable units in some of the developments that were approved. Ms. Beum added it is important to point out that when you have such a large amount of stock in Simsbury that currently meets the concept of the amount of money required to pay for it they need to point out that the state statute have a restriction that do not apply to most housing stock. Chairman Rice disagreed. Mr. Glidden asked to step in. He explained that this plan is supposed to be furthering affordable housing and not using the plan to disagree with the statutes. Mr. Needham stated what people can afford to buy is the open market and this is something different that is more structured and may apply to more people. He added feeling as though this is two different things. Ms. Beum stated the fact that we need to have more affordable housing needs to be explained as so much of the current housing stock appears to be affordable, as the houses at this particular level don’t count as affordable. Ms. Leavitt-Smith voiced agreement with Chairman Rice stating there may be stock in that price range that is affordable, but it’s not deed restricted and that is the difference. She stated there may be stock within a price range that is affordable, but it isn’t deed restricted, so it’s not legally deemed affordable housing. Mr. Glidden went on to page 4; he explained the tables shows illustrate what monthly housing costs would be for someone making 80% and 60% AMI based on the household size; this is the monthly housing costs based on the amount of people living in the house. Mr. Needham asked if the housing costs and utilities cannot exceed 30% is that 30% gross or net of their income. Mr. Glidden reported it is the gross income and so Mr. Needham stated the plan should clarify that. Mr. Glidden agreed to put that into the plan. Chairman Rice went back to the previous conversation with Ms. Beum and directly stated to Ms. Beum that there is nothing stopping anyone who has the money to buy a non-deed restricted house. Ms. Beum politely informed Chairman Rice that he still does not understand her point and she went on to clarify that citizens of the town of Simsbury struggle to understand why we have issues with affordable housing when there is such a large amount of stock that on the surface appears to be affordable based upon the 30% or utilities and mortgage. Chairman Rice asked if people are questioning why is there a need for new affordable housing if they already have affordable housing, although not by definition. He stated he does not have the answer for that. Ms. Beum stated this is solely because of state statutes and in fact she maintains her position that our representatives could save millions of dollars if they would just change a couple of words. She stated it she feels the Commission should explain this as she spends time explaining to people things that are outside of the Commissions control; explaining why the statutes are counterintuitive to the situation on the ground. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated it can simply be explained by the deed. She reported, taking it a step further, she wouldn’t consider the $279,000 affordable housing although it is by federal law. Mr. Glidden asked Ms. Beum if she feels it would be beneficial to add the point system into the document. Before Ms. Beum could respond, Mr. Glidden stated he will put the point system in a chart for the Commission for the next meeting and the Commission can determine if it is appropriate to include into the plan or not. Ms. Beum voice appreciation. Mr. Glidden moved onto page 5 of the plan. He explained there are some changes in the body of the page however, the key to this is the figures from the 2000 Census and 2011-2015 American Community survey, stating that in 2000 16% of homes in Simsbury were valued under $150,000, a decrease based on current figures. Mr. Glidden also stated that $328,000 is the median home value in Simsbury right now. Mr. Glidden stated that is based on the 2018 housing profile from Connecticut. He stated they are waiting for a new update for the current median house values for Simsbury. Mr. Glidden explained to the Commission that he wanted to put those house values out there as it ties it back to the first two pages and stated it speaks to the point Ms. Beum made. To Ms. Beum’s point, Mr. Glidden stated half of their housing stock is below $328,000, meaning there is a good portion of that 50% which from a number perspective of the 60% and 80% median income, could consider that housing option affordable and not exceed 40% of their income. However, Mr. Glidden presented two factors; the homeowner may not be getting a CHFA loan or another government assisted loan to qualify or the house that they are buying doesn't have a deed restriction limiting on income and price level, so it doesn’t qualify. Ms. Beum reported feeling like the explanation just given by Mr. Glidden should be incorporated into this plan as it provided a clear explanation. Mr. Needham stated this plan should be readable to the average person and liked Mr. Glidden’s statement. Page 6 presented by Mr. Glidden was a chart from the Department of Housing that summarizes total households in town and breaks into categories based upon the point system. Mr. Glidden pointed out the Temporary Four-Year Moratorium which is a community that demonstrates and documents to the Department of Housing that they have made an effort in promoting affordable housing in town, you can apply for a four year moratorium, meaning for 4 years a developer cannot come in and file a 8-30g. Chairman Rice reported feeling this part doesn’t need to be included as he feels it tells people that this is a way to slow down the inclusionary housing. Ms. Beum reported feeling that including the four year moratorium makes it appear as if they are looking for a loophole. Mr. Glidden reported he can take it out. Ms. Beum stated she just wants real affordable housing; she doesn’t have a problem with more affordable housing. Mr. MacCormac chimed in stating he feels that language should stay in the document as it provides explanation to what exists, and it doesn’t mean that the town of Simsbury is trying to take advantage of it. Ms. Leavitt-Smith agreed stating it is already part of the statute. Mr. Needham stated this plan is supposed to be pro-affordable housing and stated feeling this may be conflictual however, he agreed it is factual information. Mr. Glidden asked to come back to this topic. The next page presented by Mr. Glidden were goals listed for diversifying Simsbury’s housing market. Mr. Glidden stated the housing goals listed were outlined in the 2017 POCD. He also provided the example of Ojakian Commons, a Simsbury specialty housing for individuals with MS, a low income housing development in town, as it shows a difference in how Simsbury has diversified their housing stock. Mr. Glidden confirmed with the Commission that they would be okay with including Ojakian Commons and there was agreement. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked Mr. Glidden to center the picture. Mr. Glidden then moved on to page 8 and presented how Simsbury will get to the goals of furthering affordable housing based upon statutes, comments and goals in the 2017 POCD; one is inclusionary zoning, a tool available under current statute that says that current statutes have set aside a certain percentage of developments as affordable as outlined by 8-30g. Mr. Glidden stated one point being discussed has been where to put affordable housing, like in the center or by the former Hartford insurance campus as it is near necessary transportation and is walkable and part of the community. Mr. Glidden moved on to page 9 explaining that the town of Simsbury used to have a housing rehab program which has program incomes for around $200,00 which hasn’t been used since the 90’s. Mr. Glidden suggested using that small programs grant as a financing option for things such as a zero interest loan, that would have to be paid back within 15 years, as an option to fix a roof. Mr. Glidden further explained that this program would then require that unit would to transition over to a deed restricted affordable unit. Mr. Glidden stated it is allowing someone to afford to stay, along with improve their property. Mr. Glidden reported he has been looking into how to restart that program as he feels it is a fantastic option. He stated the Simsbury Housing authority is another option as there was a plan for an expansion of the facility and the town of Simsbury can assist in investigating that expansion plan. Mr. Glidden’s last two points on this slide were multifamily housing and distressed properties; in 2017/2018 the town owned a parcel on Mountain Road obtained through a tax sale, where it sold for less than $100,00 with no deed restriction. Mr. Glidden offered that it may be worth investigating that in these situations where they have tax sales, maybe a deed restriction can be placed on it. On page 10, Mr. Glidden discussed partners who can assist Simsbury; specifically, the Simsbury Housing Authority and other not-for profit housing organizations which can provide awareness for the need for affordable housing and provide tools to assist in meeting these goals. Mr. Glidden reminded the Commission that in order to meet their 10% they have to add 481 affordable units in town. Lastly, on slide 11 was the recommendations. Mr. Glidden stated he followed the same format from the POCD with the goals. He reported interest in having the Commission add to amend some of the goals listed. Mr. Glidden read the goals as follows; establish an affordable housing subcommittee, develop an affordable housing ordinance, investigate inclusionary zoning regulations, amend subdivision regulation to require a percentage of new developments to be deed restricted affordable units, identify state and federal funding that can assist with the construction of new affordable housing units, investigation “incentive housing zones” and determine whether sites could accommodate development, explore options for training available for staff and commissioners in the area of furthering the creation of affordable housing, explore using program income from CBDG program to assist with creation of affordable housing units. Mr. Glidden reported he is always open to change and direction from the Commission. Mr. Blume reported feeling this plan is a very good start. Chairman Rice concurred and stated he will further read over the plan and send over his written comments. Chairman Rice stated he wants everyone to be prepared to present detailed comments and areas of concern for the next meeting. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated she thought this meeting was also tasked to give feedback and so she was a little surprised and confused. Chairman Rice reminded the Commission that in two weeks the Commission will have a detailed review. Mr. Glidden reported he added in the packet for the Commission a presentation from desegregate Connecticut and he asked the Commission to review it, so the Commission is aware that there are changes coming. The Commission members, specifically Chairman Rice, Ms. Leavitt-Smith and Mr. Needham, spoke about the impossibility to achieve the 10% and Ms. Beum noted this is not a market driven plan. Chairman Rice reported over the weekend he received a call from an acquaintance who called about Cambridge Crossing as they were helping a potential buyer close on the mortgage. He stated he was told that the lender got cold feet, as the lender felt if the property went into default that the deed restriction should be lifted. Mr. Needham agreed that was a good question. Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden about the deed restriction and Mr. Glidden reported it is there for 30 years. Mr. Glidden stated the deed restriction is there for 30 years and further stated the lender may have been treating it like contract zoning and they may have thought the deed would be associated only with that specific individual living int he home at that time. Chairman Rice reported he brought it up so that the Commission members and Mr. Glidden are aware of hiccups that can occur along the way.
Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden for any correspondence which Mr. Glidden denied. Mr. Needham asked for clarification as to why there is a scheduled meeting for August. Chairman Rice reported that was based on feedback from people involved with the Commission business throughout the year that they didn’t want there to be no availability of the committee for a whole month. Ms. Beum asked Chairman Rice about the news in West Hartford and the sale of the UCONN West Hartford campus to a scam artist. She wondered if the town of Simsbury has an obligation or a process to look at the financial stability of people making proposals that could change the landscape of the Simsbury environment. Mr. Glidden stated no and reported legally that cannot be done; if they show a development that meets the regulations, they are obligated to approve it but Mr. Glidden stated you can use bonding as a tool for financial surety.
V. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Blume made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Leavitt-Smith seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:13pm.
MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (6-0-0)
Respectfully Submitted,
Amanda Werboff
Commission Clerk