09/08/2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Subject to Approval

PLANNING COMMISSION-MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, September 8th, 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 Rice called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.

1. Pledge of Allegiance

II. ROLL CALL

1. Appointment of Alternatives: Richard Cortes promoted to full voting member.

Present: Michael Glidden, William Rice, Erin Leavitt-Smith, Julie Eaton, Holly Beum, Alan Needham, Richard Cortes, Alan Needham, David Blume

Absent: Craig MacCormac

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the TUESDAY August 25th, 2020 regular meetings

• Mr. Needham lead the minute review. Ms. Leavitt-Smith noted on page 4 line 188 it should read CHFA not CHAFA. Ms. Levitt-Smith also reported on page 5 Line 216, take out extra “that are sale” as it was a duplication of words.

• Chairman Rice made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Leavitt-Smith seconded the motion.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, one abstention Alan Needham (5-0-1).

IV. Commission Workshop

1. Affordable Housing Plan

• Chairman Rice noted the Commission got through half the document and will pick up the second half tonight. Mr. Glidden apologized as he did not get to load the revised document through page 6 in the dropbox before this meeting but will email it later. Chairman Rice asked about any input from the Board of Selectman. Mr. Glidden stated the Board of Selectman are going to receive the Commission’s correspondence at their next meeting. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated since they have not seen the revised draft, she is asking to first see the draft and have an opportunity to review that with the Commission prior to the listening forum and she then suggested the listening forum be pushed back to the first week of October. Chairman Rice agreed. Mr. Needham stated he is concerned that the public will come to the listening forum with a different notion of what will take place than what will actually take place, so if it is going to be a discussion of affordable housing limited to the 8-30g definition then the Commission should say so. He further stated that affordable housing to most citizens is bigger than 8-30g so if they are going to discuss a document created based upon 8-30j then it should be on the agenda explaining that is what they will be discussing at the forum. Ms. Leavitt-Smith ensured Mr. Needham the Commission discussed that at the last meeting. Mr. Needham stated he watched the meeting from last week but wasn’t sure. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated, Ms. Eaton noted at the last meeting that they should explain 8-30g and the limitations but that doesn’t mean that this plan can’t incorporate certain things; she stated there is a grid on page 4 or 5 that shows the other affordable housing options, such as the housing authority. She stated one of the things that was decided was to word the document in such a way that will describe and incorporate what is important, in regard to affordable housing, to the citizens of Simsbury. She then asked Ms. Eaton to clarify as she felt it was her suggestion. Ms. Eaton stated that the Commission discussed the education of 8-30j and g and why it is important to the community. Chairman Rice noted last meeting they got hung upon that section in the affordable housing plan about why it was important, as the section was very vague, and so they spoke about seeing how the residents of Simsbury feel. Mr. Needham was pleased by the discussion. Chairman Rice stated they also discussed having a PowerPoint slide about the objective of the meeting and a definition to set the boundaries for the forum. Ms. Beum noted it will take more than one PowerPoint slide to explain what they have already gone over as to the background, basis, results and consequences of 8-30g. She stated she feels they should take a few moments at the listening forum to ensure all the residents understand 8-30g. Mr. Needham asked if the Commission is looking more for a dialogue or input from residents. Chairman Rice stated he hopes the Commission acts as receivers of the input as he feels this topic could lead to a debate with the residents. Mr. Needham reminded everyone that the Commission will be there to learn. Mr. Blume recommended at the beginning of the form they can explain the objection of the meeting and the objective of the Commission; that it is their objective to listen and hear. He further explained it can be easily misconstrued as to what the purpose of that listening forum is so setting the tone and objection will be very critical. Chairman Rice noted he felt the Commission members were on the same page on how they want to open the listening forum.

• Chairman Rice asked to move forward with reviewing the rest of the corrections for the draft of the affordable housing plan. The Commission picked up where they left off on page 7.

Page 7: Goals for Diversifying Housing Simsbury’s housing Market: Mr. Needham read the beginning of the first line which read, a greater diversity of the Simsbury’s housing market; he stated he feels that the word diversity has a different meaning and he wasn’t comfortable with it. It was discussed from the Commission that the word diversify came up in the last meeting on the previous slides and they did discuss that the word needed to be either replaced or taken out. Chairman Rice pointed out that in the left-hand column is an excerpt from the POCD. Mr. Glidden noted the term housing diversity, comes straight from the POCD from the housing chapter. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated it is interesting that they put that in the POCD, and they didn’t think about the meaning. Mr. Glidden stated they wrote the POCD in 2017, it was a different time and the term housing diversity took a different meaning then. Mr. Blume stated it doesn’t have to defer to the diversity of housing, but it could relate to the diversity of homeowners and diversifying the population of the community of Simsbury. Mr. Cortes clarified that it is talking about diversity of different types of housing and stated the whole document doesn’t get into race, only people’s economic means and the type of housing people can get into in Simsbury; section 8, affordable housing in new developments, etc. Ms. Beum stated page 90 section 10.2 in the POCD says, seek ways to help meet the diverse housing needs of present and future residents. Ms. Leavitt-Smith suggested they put that in to the first sentence on this page instead of the word options, where it says, the Simsbury’s housing market would increase options for first time buyers, elderly, or individuals that financially may not have considered home ownership. Chairman Rice stated he is having second thoughts about the word goals as this isn’t quantified nor a quantifiable metric. He stated they are talking about options. Ms. Beum stated in the header it said seek ways to help meet the diverse housing needs. Chairman Rice stated he doesn’t feel any of the information listed on the side of this page has anything to do with 8-30g. Ms. Beum stated this is straight from the POCD and a good transition into explaining the other things they would like to consider. Chairman Rice stated he feels they need to stay with the flavor of 8-30g, although the examples provided on this page do qualify under affordable housing under 8-30g, but the items listed on the side of the page are not 8-30g. Ms. Beum reminded the Commission that the column to the left states it doesn’t claim to be. However, Chairman Rice stated they are going to explain to everyone the requirement of the plan under 8-30j and its relation to 8-30g and then they will get to this page and it will talk to the diverse housing needs. Mr. Cortes recommended that this section talk about the different options for meeting affordable housing, the different real-estate types and feels it would address the first part and relate it to 8-30g and 8-30j. The Commission members asked for clarification. Mr. Cortes stated in the beginning of this plan they were only talking about deed restricted units but under 8-30g there are other options to meet the affordability goals. Mr. Glidden clarified stating there is a point system that goes to the 10%; if a community has less than 10% of their housing stock considered affordable (deed restrictions, mortgage assistance, federal assistance, etc.) than you are exempt but if you are below 10% a developer has the ability to propose an affordable housing development but a portion would have to be deed restricted to be considered affordable. Mr. Glidden further explained that from a land use perspective, the deed assistance individuals can’t develop a regulation to prompt those things, although they are given points towards the 10%. Mr. Cortes asked if apartments have no value as stated he doesn’t understand what the other options are and if those are things that should be developed as part of the POCD. Mr. Glidden stated there is no difference if the unit is owned or rented just as long as the unit is deed restricted. Mr. Cortes stated he feels there are other options, outside of deed restricted units, that should be incorporated as part of this document. Chairman Rice stated he just copied into the chat window paragraph 6 and 7 of 8-30g that defines how the points are assigned. Chairman Rice agreed with Mr. Cortes stating that there shouldn’t be only solutions that address just deed restricted properties. The Commission members read the information inputted into the chat window. Mr. Cortes stated the actions taken under this page should go to support the different things outlined in section 7 of 8-30g as those are the types of developments, they are trying to encourage under the POCD. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated she agreed with Chairman Rice that the information to the left on this page isn’t related to 8-30g rather it relates to the POCD. She further stated she would take out the heading about diversity for this page and reported feeling this page should outline the current housing stock that is affordable, as the current wording on the page is confusing. She stated it isn’t all about deed restriction so she feels that should be further explained. Mr. Glidden asked if the Commission wants to add in the point system for 8-30g. Ms. Eaton stated she thought that was going to be part of the re-write. The Commission did state they didn’t talk about including the whole point system and mentioned that may be a lot of writing. Chairman Rice stated he would like to exclude the writing to the left on the page as it does not explain how to develop qualified units and feels it may be able to be used elsewhere.

Page 8: How Will Simsbury Meet the Goals: Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden to explain what was in the box to the right on this page; Mr. Glidden explained it clarifies and further explains inclusionary zoning; what is it and where is it from. Mr. Glidden stated there are two options, first you can develop a regulation that has a density bonus for the creation of more affordable housing units and/or apply a affordable housing fee on every single building permit application that comes through which would go into a fund which the town would use to build affordable units. Chairman Rice stated he was currently reviewing the town of Essex’s document where they wrote out, the document is intended in part to satisfy the state mandated requirement 8-30j, while clearly demonstrating what Essex can do to encourage the creation of affordable housing units so that it does not remain exposed to the 8-30g appeals process. The Commission agreed they did not like that example. Ms. Eaton referred to Salisbury’s affordable housing plan in the section why it is affordable and explained that Salisbury provided 5 reasons why it was important and had a clear goal about needing to have more affordable housing units and put a number to how many units; 75 over the next 10 years. Ms. Leavitt-Smith reported she isn’t sure she wants to put a number to it. Chairman Rice stated different things are scored differently so it might be difficult to have one single number. Mr. Glidden reported the town would need 481 units to meet the 10%. Mr. Glidden stated they cannot compare themselves to Salisbury and Essex as they are two communities that have room to grow and Simsbury is very limited and approaching buildout. Ms. Eaton stated they should be some goal that shows what they are working towards. Mr. Glidden suggested they move on to the goals on page 11 then come back to this section of the plan. Chairman Rice stated he isn’t opposed to adding a goal similar to Salisbury as long as there are numbers that go along with it.

Page 11: Goals: Mr. Glidden presented the goals to the Commission and explained that when he developed the goals outlined on this page he tried to pick up themes from what everyone else is doing in their affordable housing plans. Ms. Leavitt-Smith reflected on the first goal and stated she doesn’t feel there should be a subcommittee for the affordable housing plan and stated she feels the first goal should be taken out. Chairman Rice agreed. Ms. Beum disagreed and felt there may need to be a subcommittee to continue this work beyond this plan to work on the action items. Mr. Needham stated they could go with a committee that has nothing to do with the Planning Commission. Chairman Rice agreed and noted that could be considered. Ms. Beum stated there is a lot of action items listed here rather than actual goals. Chairman Rice noted the goal is to achieve the 10% number but he feels that is a copout and feels that if the intent is to provide options for housing needs of present and future residents is the goal and if that isn’t the goal they need to figure out what they are really trying to do. Chairman Rice noted that is what he is hoping to hear from the Board of Selectman. Ms. Beum asked if Chairman Rice is objecting to specific goals listed on the screen. He stated no but feels these are action items not truly goals. Ms. Beum agreed and stated she feels they are more recommendations. Mr. Cortes asked if they need to add 481 affordable units, he feels there should be a long-term goal as this is not a short-term plan. Chairman Rice suggested they list a short-term goal and a long-term goal. Mr. Cortes stated he isn’t sure the 481 number is achievable, and Chairman Rice noted they shouldn’t create a plan that isn’t achievable. Ms. Beum stated this doesn’t mean they have to create new stock, if all of the existing homes that were in the affordable price range were deemed affordable then they would have more than 400 of those. Mr. Cortes stated those do not meet the criteria for affordable. Ms. Beum asked if HUD or FHA are part of the 10%. Mr. Glidden reported it is about the individual. He stated there may be a housing stock that qualifies but it would be tough to have an entire population that qualifies as qualifying for the loans are tough, tougher than the conventional loans. Mr. Glidden stated there is one option, but it is a question for the Department of housing; there is a community block grant program started in 1984 and it was the housing rehab loan program. He stated there is about $200,000 of program income in that fund that has not touched since 1990. He stated one of the goals and national objectives from that program was to provide to affordable housing to an individual making 80% or lower of the area median income and in addition an action item is down payment assistance. If so, Mr. Glidden stated they could offer loans for down payment assistance, but he isn’t sure if it would be town wide or Tariffville only because the housing rehab program was specific to Tariffville. He further stated that is a question for the Department of Housing. Mr. Cortes was in agreement and stated that is a very good idea. Mr. Glidden reported that is why he made that block grant a part of one of the goals. Ms. Beum stated they have to meet 8-30g and the largest part of it is the deed restriction, which she feels is a horrible thing to do to people who need affordable housing. Chairman Rice stated the housing market hasn’t been lucrative in the past 10 years, so if this plan helps someone get into a unit, they might not have previously been able to, that might be incentive enough for them. Ms. Beum asked how a deed restriction helps a family move into a unit that they couldn’t normally afford financially. Mr. Cortes stated they allow someone who is qualified for the loan but doesn’t have the funds to close, so this down payment assistance program will give them cash towards buying a house. Ms. Beum noted she was only referring to 8-30g and stated she still doesn’t see what benefit it gives anyone to have a deed restricted house at a price level that doesn’t help you qualify to buy a house at that price level. Ms. Leavitt-Smith stated this is a good discussion, but it doesn’t relate to the plan and they are speaking about a law that they cannot change. Ms. Beum stated her point is that these recommendations are not just 8-30g, they are more about what people consider affordable rather than deed restriction. Mr. Blume stated they should go through the goals although he feels they are recommendations and see if the Commission agrees with them. Ms. Eaton stated she is struggling with talking about establishing a subcommittee and not having an action on what they are going to do, which produces a result. Mr. Blume doesn’t feel this should be the first item. The Commission agreed. Ms. Eaton then read the second goal out loud. Mr. Glidden stated the second goal, develop an affordable housing ordinance, is a requirement of the community block grant program so that cannot be removed, and it is part of the federal funds received. She stated she is trying to understand what that goal gives them from stock. Chairman Rice asked if the ordinance is the end product of the plan and should it follow the affordable housing plan. Mr. Glidden stated no, the ordinance is related to federal funds and this is just a statutory requirement but stated it would be good planning for the ordinance and the plan to mirror each other. Chairman Rice asked if the term affordable in goal two is the same as 8-30g. Mr. Glidden stated it is because you are making units available to the 80% are median income individuals. Mr. Blume asked if the January 2022 date is realistic for this goal. Mr. Glidden stated he did it because they will have to do closeout with the Department of housing around that time and they will have to start doing the actions that are on that plan for that grant. Mr. Glidden did note it can be changed to 2023 if needed. Mr. Blume asked if the Zoning Commission is reviewing this as they are revising the zoning regulations. Mr. Glidden stated they are looking at the workforce housing overlay zone which is considered inclusionary zoning. Mr. Blume noted for goal number 3, investigate inclusionary song regulation, should have a lengthier target date from January 2020 to 2021. Mr. Glidden noted that any large date listed for each goal can change. Goal 4 states amend subdivision regulations to require a percentage of new developments to be deed restricted affordable units. Chairman Rice noted that would be something they would craft and send through the approval process. He stated the Commission would be regulating any subdivision application which would have to have a percentage of deed restricted units. Mr. Glidden stated this was an attempt to control the number of market rate units being approved on a yearly basis. Mr. Blume asked if developers would resist this. Mr. Glidden stated he hasn’t shared this with any developers in the area. Ms. Beum stated that can be a conversation with developers that if they want to build here, they have to make a percentage of affordable stock. Mr. Blume stated he has heard repeatedly that people felt Simsbury was a difficult town to do business with and feels this may add to that. He further stated maybe developers will be more likely to go along with it he doesn’t know. Mr. Cortes stated that the Commission is not here to prevent development and doesn’t want to tell the developer a percentage that would be too high and prevent development, so he wants a percentage that makes business sense. Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden if there are organizations in existence that concentrate on developing affordable housing units, specifically a private investor who feels an affordable housing development is the right thing to do. He further stated there has to be organizations who are looking to build 100% affordable housing developments and wants this to be explored. He stated every one of these goals is good but comes with resistance one way or another. Mr. Cortes stated the organizations he knows get a subsidized property from a town, towns like Hartford or New haven or New Britain, where it is demolished buildings that the town owns. Chairman Rice stated everyone loves the idea of affordable housing but then people feel like they don’t like it once it is all put out on the table. Chairman Rice stated he feels that to put a real dent in this a subdivision should have 90% or 100% of units that qualify as why just have 10% that will just set them back. Chairman Rice stated they also spoke about the town investing in properties that have been abandoned, Mr. Glidden stepped in clarifying the tax sales and stated that can be looked into adding it to the goals. Mr. Glidden noted they can add a goal that states, developing a policy that tax sales will have deed restriction. The Commission members agreed that goal should be added to the list. Chairman Rice stated they cannot put on the goal list, to create a section 8 housing somewhere in town. He stated he is trying to get the Commission to stretch their thoughts and be pioneers in this planning. Ms. Beum stated she feels Simsbury is a pioneer with their Housing Authority and that is an institution dedication to affordable housing. She stated this is one of their discussions under how they are going to meet their goals on page 9. Ms. Beum noted they could add that to page 9 where they outline the organizations whose goal is to build a high percentage of affordable units. Page 9 lists the following organizations; The Small Cities program/Tariffville, Simsbury Housing Authority, Multi-Family Housing and Rehabilitation of Distressed Properties. Chairman Rice asked if duplex is no longer allowed in Simsbury. Mr. Glidden agreed and stated the three exceptions are cluster zone, village design district, workforce overlay housing and 8-30j. Mr. Glidden stated he will carry over the concepts from page 9 over to the goals chart. Mr. Glidden asked who should be the responsible party listed for each of these and Mr. Blume stated he feels that should be up to Mr. Glidden as he knows best. Chairman Rice noted that the Board of Selectman’s guidance would be helpful for next steps. Chairman Rice noted he was just reviewing Essex’s plan and noticed their goals are very specific developments identified with numbers and guidance. Mr. Glidden stated they their consultant is also the town planner and so this was always an ongoing conversation but 8-30j just forced them to put the numbers to paper. Mr. Blume stated he is happy with the rest of the items of the list along with the priority levels attached to each one. He stated he is in agreement with the remaining ones on the list and isn’t sure if anyone is in disagreement. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked if the second to the last one could state explore training options available for staff and commissioners instead of explore options for training available for staff and commissioners in the area of furthering the creation of affordable housing. Chairman Rice asked the Commission members to use their own search methods and see what they can come up with on the means to increase the number of affordable housing units that have been put into operation or just proposed. He stated they don’t need to make up stuff if other municipalities have already done the work for them and he would like the Commission to think outside of the box. Chairman Rice also asked Mr. Glidden for the revised draft for the next meeting ready for the Commission. Ms. Leavitt-Smith asked about a date for the listening forum. Chairman Rice stated he doesn’t want to commit to a date as of yet and noted it will not happen on 9/22/20. Ms. Beum agreed. Chairman Rice noted he wants to have deliver more for the residents. Mr. Glidden asked the Commission if they want him to start to draft a PowerPoint for the listening forum. Chairman Rice noted he wants the first priority to be to finish up the corrections of the draft but if he has a chance that would be great also. Chairman Rice asked the Commission members to think about a short term and long-term goal. Chairman Rice noted this conversation will be tabled for now and asked the Commission members to bring new ideas to the table for the next meeting, along with thinking about their ideas for the short term and long-term goals. He stated it is clear from the statutes that the goal is to achieve 10% affordable housing and if they think that is right then fine but if not, he would like that to be discussed further.

• Chairman Rice asked Mr. Glidden for any correspondence or applications. Mr. Glidden stated no.

• All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (6-0-0)

V. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Beum made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Leavitt-Smith seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:38pm.

MOTION: All in favor, no opposed, no abstentions. (6-0-0)

Respectfully Submitted,

Amanda Werboff
Commission Clerk