Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “Affordable housing has been done for years before CPA.”
 
Ms. Sunnarborg discussed slides #8,9,10,11 Priority Needs #1, #2, #3, #4.  Please see these slides for details.  Priority Housing Need #1: Ms. Sunnarborg again said that a great deal of the information was taken from the 2000 census and a lot of it cannot be updated until the 2010 census figures are available.   Wherever possible the information has been updated.   She said that there are 450 individuals living in Scituate in poverty; almost 1,000 households earned less than $25,000; about 40% of the households will likely qualify for affordable housing; 26% of households are paying too much for housing.  Ms. Sunnarborg said that these figures are probably worse today.  Many people have been forced to leave Scituate because they can no longer live in town.  Market rents are about $1200.00 without the cost of utilities. 
 
Priority Housing Need #2 (slide # 9):  Ms. Sunnarborg read the items in this slide aloud noting that there are gaps in affordability and access to housing and that there is a need for first-time ownership opportunities and more options for empty nesters.  Ms. Sunnarborg reviewed the figures shown on this slide (median single family house price $482,200 which at the end of 2007 was $500,000).  She explained the ‘the affordability gap’ as being the difference between the median priced home and what a median income household can afford.  Ms. Sunnarborg said that Scituate still has a robust housing market.
 
Mr. Jim Boynton asked what the difference was between median and average.  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “Median is half the property above that and half the property below.  The average is that you take all the  numbers together and add them up and divide that by the number of units.  The reason that average is not used that much because they are easily skewed by prices way up high and way down low.”
 
A man in the audience said that the Scituate town employees are priced out of living in Scituate.  He asked  if there were any numbers available regarding the number of people who need housing in Scituate e.g. teachers.  Ms. Harbottle replied, “A couple of years ago we were aware that there were secretaries, teachers, in the school system who were interested in obtaining housing in Scituate and could not do so.”  Ms. Sunnarborg discussed First Time Homebuyers options.  The gentleman asked if there was a market for the 34 affordable units.  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “Typically police and fire don’t need it because of their incomes.  Office workers, cafeteria workers, first year teachers, DPW workers would like to live here.  Some of them would be eligible for the 34 affordable units.
 
Priority Housing Need #3 (Slide # 10):  Ms. Sunnarborg read aloud all the items on this slide noting that it was regarding support for those with special needs – include handicapped adaptable/accessible units in new development as well as supportive services.  She pointed out that because young people cannot afford to come into Scituate the population will be an aging population.  Housing will need more handicap accessibility.”  Mr. Kalishes said, “There is a population out there of young adults with handicaps that have zero options.  We need more group homes, especially for young people with special needs.  This is an important need and they are being neglected – kids in their twenties and thirties.”  Ms. Sunnarborg said, “There are resources from the state.”  Mr. Kalishes said, “The benefit of a group home is that five people in a group home will count as five units.”
 
A lady asked when Wheeler Park was built and Mary Dean from the Housing Authority said it was built in the 1960’s.  The lady pointed out that there has been no new housing like Wheeler Park built in Scituate for many years.  Mr. Ed McCann of the Housing Authority said that Central Park was rehabbed into senior housing  in the 1980’s.
 
Priority Housing Need #4 (slide #11): Resources to make property improvements – help qualifying residents access important programs.  Ms. Sunnarborg said, “There are resources available to help people make improvements – to fix up homes, do handicap modifications, to upgrade septic systems.  About ¾’s of Scituate’s housing stock was build prior to 1970 and could have traces of lead-based paint and have some deferred maintenance needs.”
 
Next Steps (slide #12):  Ms. Sunnarborg listed the next steps as being – prepare draft final section of the Housing Production Plan; hold another public form; obtain approval from Housing Authority; obtain approval from Planning Board and Board of Selectmen; submit plan to state for approval which takes 90 to 120 days.  That timing is important.
 
Potential Strategies (slides #13 - #21)):    Ms. Sunnarborg said she included some photos e.g. on slides #13 (Sandwich).  She said, “I have broken the strategies down into four categories:  1. Build Local Capacity; 2. Zoning & Regulatory Reforms;  3. Housing Production;  4. Housing Preservation.”  Ms. Sunnarborg discussed these four slides in detail.  She described some things done by other towns to promote affordable housing e.g. Town of Sandwich has written a zoning bylaw.  She said that there is a lot of mis-information about affordable housing.  To that end other towns have crated an educational outreach programs.  About forty Affordable Housing Trust Funds have been established. [She described how these worked.]  Ms. Sunnarborg said that the towns that make the most progress in obtaining their affordable housing goals usually have a professional support person on board (rather than just volunteers).  The Town of Marshfield has a Housing Coordinator.  Ms. Sunnarborg explained the benefits of applying annually for the Commonwealth Capital scoring program.  Many towns do an inventory of town-owned properties to see if certain pieces of properties could be used for affordable housing.
 
Mr. E. McCann asked about a Housing Committee that used to exist.  Mr. J. Danehey, Selectman, spoke about a new housing committee that was recently established called the Residential Development Housing Committee noting that some of the members of that committee were present this evening.
 
A man in the audience said there is a conflict with Scituate’s desire to provide affordable housing and Scituate’s desire to preserve open space.  He asked if the Housing Plan would consider those two desires.  Ms. Sunnarborg  replied, “Basically it is your plan.  It is important for the town to identify opportunities to combine open space preservation and affordable housing.  [She spoke about what was done in the Town of Carlyle. ]   There are ways of building in multiple uses and multiple opportunities e.g. using cluster development.”
 
Ms. Harbottle referred to a map up on the wall which showed the sensitive areas in town where perhaps building should not occur or if there is building it should be low density. A lady in the audience asked about the amount of buildable land in Scituate and Ms. Harbottle said that about 80% of the land is built out.  She spoke briefly about the various zoning districts in Scituate.
 
Mr. Paley and Ms. Sunnarborg discussed the Housing Trust Fund, bonding, and CPA funds.
 
Mrs. Pipes asked about the price for affordable housing.  Ms. Sunnarborg said it would be about $200,000 for a three bedroom house.  Condos would be less.
 
A lady in the audience asked about cluster zoning.  Ms. Sunnarborg said it would depend on the property.  There was a discussion about Zoning and Regulatory Reforms (slides #15 & 16).  Ms. Sunnarborg explained what Ch. 40R (Smart Growth Overlay Districts) was and she gave examples of how it could be used.   Under 40R there are three potential subsidies that can come in to support the development.  Ms. Sunnarborg said, “Inclusionary zoning:   A town would have an zoning bylaw  which states that any development over a certain threshold size must include some percentage of affordable housing.  Different towns have different bylaws with different percentages.  Most bylaws have a density bonus. [Ms. Sunnarborg described a zoning bylaw from the Town of Wenham.]  I would strongly recommend that towns do inclusionary zoning.  Towns should work with developers to get affordable housing e.g. allow affordable housing on non-conforming lots under certain circumstances.  You must understand that it must be financial feasibility.”  Ms. Sunnarborg described the cluster development picture shown on slide #16 as being a cluster development in Lynn.  It illustrates the benefits of cluster type development.
 
Slides #17 – 20 (Housing Production):  Relative to Housing Production, Ms. Sunnarborg mentioned the need to make publicly-owner property available for affordable housing; that a  town should support scattered-site infill housing; convert existing housing to affordable housing; explore adaptive reuse; and promote mixed-use development .
 
Slide #21 (Housing Preservation):  Ms. Sunnarborg noted the importance of monitoring affordability of  the Subsidized Housing Inventory  e.g. Kent Village; and  help qualifying homeowners access housing assistance.
 
The slide show ended at this point with the final slide which lists the town web site as a source of additional information.
 
Ms. Sunnarborg said, “Now we want input from you.  We want to include it  in the Housing Plan.  Please tell us your ideas.”  Ms. Sunnarborg listed all the ideas on paper up on an easel.  This information can be obtained directly from Ms. Sunnarborg.
 
A man spoke about a program for veterans in a group home and he questioned if individuals in that type of group home would count towards the affordable percent figures.  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “It has to be permanent housing in order for it to count.  There are opportunities to do that.”
 
A lady stressed the need for affordable housing and added that developers do not want to provide affordable housing.  Ms. Sunnarborg said that the idea was to work with developers.  She mentioned South Shore Housing programs.
 
Mr. Craig Dias asked about the 34 units of affordable housing as to who would be eligible e.g. a certain percent for handicap.  Ms. Sunnarborg described some of the criteria that is used and gave a couple of examples -  town employees, family members of citizens e.g. parents, siblings.    There was a discussion on the affordable housing lottery and community preference.  Ms. Harbottle asked if community preference was used at the Whitcomb Pines 40B development.  The answer was not definitive.  Selectmen Danehey said that the town likes to see community preference.  Mr. Limbacher said that the ZBA put criteria on the Harborside Village development and he also saw the need for local preference – people with ties to the community e.g. parents, son, daughter (even if they do not presently live in town).
 
Mr. Limbacher discussed inclusionary zoning and said that Duxbury has a bylaw but no one has ever used it.  Ms. Sunnarborg said that the problem with the Duxbury bylaw is that it does not provide a density bonus so developers do not use it.  Mr. S. Bjorklund said that the result in Duxbury has been that a number of Ch. 40B’s have been filed.    Selectman Danehey said that Marshfield has set aside money in lieu of a density bonus.
 
A lady said there should be some provision for empty nesters as there are really no small homes available in Scituate if someone wants to downsize from a big home and still remain in town.  Condos are more expensive than some of the homes in town. 
Another lady spoke about the lack of new elderly housing in Scituate.  Given the aging of the population she said that providing more elderly housing should be a priority.  Ms. Sunnarborg stressed the importance of identifying the needs of the community.
 
Mrs. Pipes said that a major problem is the cost of land in Scituate which can be $200,000+ per lot.    Ms. Sunnarborg  agreed that it was almost impossible to find a house in Scituate that costs under $300,000.  Ms. Sunnarborg said, “You could convert an existing house to affordable house under specific requirements  There would be insurance that that house will remain affordable in perpetuity.  Mrs. Pipes said, “This town is a snob town.  The only way to get affordable housing is with a big older home where the town can buy it and turn it into 2 or 3 apartments.  There is land on the Driftway that the town owns but they won’t let anything be built on it.”
 
Ms. Sunnarborg said, “The Housing Production plan must address certain things including the identification of all publicly owned land; identification of areas of town where comprehensive permits have been submitted; identification of housing types.  The changes in the regulations say that all of that must be addressed.  So if the plan is to be approved by the state the town must address the issues and must include some publicly owned property.  This is going to be an interesting process.”

Mrs. Chisholm said, “When people hear affordable housing they say not in my neighborhood.  I used to live on Stockbridge Road.  The neighbors there were not opposed to the affordable housing on that road.  What they were opposed to was the way that it was done.  It was sneaky.  The neighbors did not know about it.  They found out about it two days before the meeting occurred.    When you keep things like that under cover people will automatically think that it is going to be a bad situation.  We do have to get over that perception.  I work at CVS and when I talk to people about it I hear – sure we need it but don’t put it in my  neighborhood.  That is the first response all the time.  It is not just Scituate it is everywhere.  It should not just go in one section of town.  It has to be able to go everywhere.  When you look at those pictures – those houses don’t look any different than the houses that we live in.  It is the perception that is the problem.  That is what we have to get over.”
 
Mrs. Pipes said, “We must educate the town  That should be the #1 goal.  That piece of property on the Driftway has been earmarked for housing for many years.  It is ten years later and it is still empty.”
 
Ms. Sunnarborg said, “I must say – there is no substitute for good leadership.  This is something the town really needs.  It should not be in just one neighborhood.  It should be in all neighborhoods.  You will just have to assume that abutters will go crazy.”
 
A lady said, “We need to spread the word to others who did not come here tonight.  I was involved with that Kent Village fiasco.  The town was divided.  It finally got built by the Archdiocese of Boston.  We have to convince our neighbors.”
 
Mr. P. Scott asked Ms. Sunnarborg to explain the difference between low income housing and affordable housing. Ms. Sunnarborg said that the two were considered to be either the same or different and if often depended on where you lived.  She described affordable housing in New York City.  She said that a lot of people think of low income housing as being affordable housing.  There is no set difference between low/moderate/affordable.  Mr. Scott said, “There should be a distinction made because it is my recollection that Kent Village was considered low income and that caused the outcry in town.  The word affordable housing never entered into that.”  Ms. Sunnarborg said, “Some subsidized programs are geared specifically towards low income.”  Mr. Scott said, “Your Plan should recognize that the town has set up an Affordable Housing Trust and funded it.  Also, one of the strategies should be that the town has to partner with developers.  We need to get some inclusionary zoning.  I’m not talking about 40B’s.  I am talking about working with developers.”  Ms. Sunnarborg said, “Yes, it will work.”  Mr. Scott said, “I know for a fact that there are developers in other communities who are doing it – maybe not in Scituate and Duxbury.”
 
Mr. J. Boynton and Ms. Sunnarborg discussed tax relief programs.  Ms. Sunnarborg explained that some towns have  a tax reduction program for seniors who earn below X income level.   Mr. Boynton asked for an explanation of putting a deed restriction on a house for affordable housing reasons.  Selectmen Danehey said there were two homes in the Greenbush area that could be moved to a new site and possibly used for affordable housing.  Ms. Sunnarborg said that in Nantucket houses are recycled and moved to town owned lots for affordable housing.
 
Mr. Ed McCann said, “Will your final report be referencing the adequacy of the water supply and the sewer treatment capacity?”  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “There is a section in the Housing Needs Assessment and in the Housing Production Plan where we identify the challenges and how to deal with them.”
 
Mr. Ed McCann asked, “Have you measured the ownership versus rental?”  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “In some cases we quantify that.  In the Production Goals we have identified housing types and priorities.” 
 
A lady asked if there was a list of all the town-owned land that would be available for affordable housing and, if so, has the list been prioritized with pluses and minus’.  Ms Harbottle replied, “There is really not much town-owned land at all.  There are a few parcels scattered throughout the town.  A lot of the town land is used for Conservation purposes, schools, playing fields, recreation.  What we are trying to do here with you is to hear what your preferences are as to where the housing should go.  We have talked about having more development in the Villages, near the train stations, in the Harbor.  We would like to hear if that is your idea too, or if you have other ideas.”
 
Mr. C. Dias asked, “Can you identify all the properties, where they are, who owns them, and have you been in touch with people who own properties?”    Ms. Harbottle mentioned where some of the town-owned land was located.    Ms. Sunnarborg added, “In the Plan we do a property inventory and we can comment on it.”  Mr. Dias asked about private properties.  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “Are there any particular parcels in town that we ought to look at? We may be able to identify opportunities.”
 
Mr. Ed McCann said, “This is not a specific site but it is a concept.  Do we currently allow two-family homes in town?  That could be two rental units or an owner and one rental units.  I grew up in the city with two-families and three-deckers.”  Ms. Harbottle explained the existing restrictions on two-family homes (need double the lot size) and she also mentioned accessory dwelling units.  There was a discussion on the possibility of having two-family affordable homes/units.  Mr. Kalishes suggested that they could be put in the Business District.  Another lady said there was a large wooded area behind the High School that could be used.  Mrs. Pipes said that area was Conservation land.  Mr. Kalishes said that it took over a year to find the one lot for the Habitat house.  He also mentioned the land along the Driftway that is set aside for housing.
 
A lady asked about the possibility of hiring a professional person to work on affordable housing.  Mr. Kalishes said that it is possible to use CPA funds for that purpose.
 
There was a discussion about the Housing Land Trust .  Ms. Sunnarborg said that the Trust purchases properties.  A gentleman pointed out that it could hurt the town because the property would not pay taxes if it belonged to a non-profit group.  Another gentleman discussed the impacts on the schools because of children living in affordable units.   Selectman Danehey said it is not possible to exclude families. 
 
There was a discussion about Ch. 40B’s in general.  Selectman Danehey mentioned  Whitcomb Pines because it is considered to be a friendly Ch. 40B project.  The developer worked with the ZBA with a good result.  Whitcomb Pines proves that a Ch. 40B can work.
 
Ms. Harbottle said, “Maybe if there was  a little more acceptance of affordability and  higher density it would be helpful and maybe the town would be able to get more affordable housing.
 
Mr. Bjorklund mentioned S450 (Residence Multi-family District) also known as the E-District.  The uses in that zone are written in the bylaw but there has been no land designated as that zone.  Mr. Bjorklund said, “The solution is in our bylaw.  The Planning Board has to find a way to put that zoning on the ground. Section 450 is perfect for multi-family dwellings and allows single family dwellings on 5,000 S.F.  The only problem is that they have to be on the municipal sewer system.  If we could change that one sentence that bylaw would work perfectly.  You just have to put it on the ground.    It allows for 12-unit buildings but they all have to be broken up into different designs.  It is a very well thought out bylaws.  I think it has been there for 20 years.  Nobody will put it on the ground because nobody wants it in their back yard.  This could solve most of the problems you are talking about here tonight.  I am happy to hear Donna say that we should be allowed to do this anywhere in the town.  It is usually the abutters who drive what happens.  You could have a perfectly good project and abutters decide they do not like it and that is what prevents a lot of the affordable housing from happening.”
 
Mr. Limbacher said, “One of the concerns that I have is that the affordable housing seems to be located in a single location.  It should be scattered throughout the town.    You should not be able to distinguish between what is affordable and what is not affordable.  Whitcomb Pines is a very good example.  Where the opportunity is there the developers have shown that they are willing to work with the town and the town has shown that they are willing to work with developers.  Going back to your idea  - the E District would be a phenomenal way to go.  The point is that there is an opportunity there, but the hurdle you have to get over is how to handle the septic.  That is an important issue.”
 
Ms. Sunnarborg said, “The state is requiring more information on future planning e.g. expansion of infrastructure.  Any thoughts on that e.g. the sewer situation?”
Mr. Bjorklund replied, “The town does not want anyone to tie into the town sewer system – for one unit or one hundred units.  At least the majority of the Selectmen (maybe not all of them) do not want you to tie into the town sewer system.  Again, there are a lot of people waiting to tie in for their single family homes.  I can understand where the Selectmen are coming from.  People who have been paying taxes for years – why can’t they tie in?  Then someone wants to tie in a brand new house.  It is a Catch-22.”
 
A gentleman asked about benefits for people earning below a certain income.  Ms. Sunnarborg described various programs.
 
Mr. Dias asked how the professional position would be funded.  Ms. Sunnarborg replied, “That is one of the best uses of CPA money – to hire a consultant/professional person.”  Mr. Bjorklund said, “The town needs to pick  a project, find a spot for it,  and go for it.  Find one and concentrate on a good project.  The problem is that if one person speaks against it the town gives up, even if it is a good project.   Don’t talk about hundreds of pieces lets talk about one piece and when we are done with that one we can talk about another piece and start another project.  We are just going in circles.  We sat here five years ago and talked about affordable housing.  Just do it.  The Habitat house was fantastic and it had a group of people behind it who pushed and pushed and pushed until they got it built.  It did not hurt anybody and it helped a family.  A great family got it.  It was well deserved.  We need to do another one whether it is another Habitat house or another project that might be ten units or six units.  With all due respect, Donna, I do believe that the Stockbridge Road one that was proposed at Town Meeting was a good one.”  Mrs. Chisholm again said that there was no plans or information available at Town Meeting about the project.  She again said that the neighbors would likely not  have had the problems they did if the whole thing was handled correctly.  Mrs. Chisholm and Mr. Bjorklund continued to discuss the Stockbridge Road project.  Ms. Sunnarborg stressed the importance of having a dedicated process so that everyone is aware with the proposal.
 
Mr. Limbacher said, “We talk about the journey but not about taking the first step.  Thank all of you for attending tonight.  Clearly there is an interest and there has been an interest all along.  It is a matter of one step at a time.  Obviously our current approach is not working so we are looking for a fundamental change in how we do it.  I think if we follow up on this Summit I think we can get there.  We will work through the wish list that you guys provide.  There has been some good input.  Some of it is new and some of it reinforces what we have done.  I think collectively we can put together a plan.  Currently we issue in the neighborhood of 45-50 building permits a year (that may be high).  We are trying to come up with a vehicle that would make 35 affordable.  We are talking about a fundamental change in the zoning and the underlying conditions that would allow those houses to be built.  You have provided good input.  There have been some new ideas and for that I thank you.  Obviously the Planning Board will be following up.  John Danehey has his Committee and we will be working with them on it.  Thank you.”

MOTION TO ADJOURN:  Mrs. Chisholm Moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 P.M.  Mr. Limbacher Seconded the Motion and the vote was a unanimous vote in favor of the Motion.
 

Respectfully submitted,

Merrilyn O’Brien, Secretary
 

Mary Patricia Brennan, Clerk

Date Approved