Barriers to the Development of Affordable Housing

Survey of Permitting Conditions

2008 Vermont Law SchoolLand Use Institute

Survey Overview84 affordable housing projects were selected for the studyCompleted responses were collected for 26 projects –31% response rate18 different developers 16 non-profit; 2 for-profitSurvey examined affordable housing developers onlyParticipation was voluntary

More Survey OverviewLocal population from 876 to 38,889 (Median 8,313)23 permitted before Chapter 117 override date 15% (4) in municipalities without zoning regulationsProject size ranges from 2 units to 470 unitsGood mix of project types – infill, adaptive reuse, greenfield, brownfield.Questions Covered Four Broad Areas:1. Community Support2. Local Review3. Local Appeal Process 4. Act 250 Review Process

Geographical Distribution of Responses•Anderson Parkway, South

Burlington•Archibald Street, Burlington

•Basketville, Putney•Butterfield Common, Dover

•Cabot Commons, Cabot•Daniel’s Block, St. Johnsbury

•Farrell Street, South Burlington•Groton Senior Housing, Groton•Jeffersonville Village Housing,

Cambridge•Lighthouse Commons, Burlington

•Manchester Commons, Manchester•Manchester Knoll, Manchester

•McAuley Square, Burlington•Monarch Apartments, Essex Junction•O’Dell Parkway, South Burlington•Riverstation, Montpelier•School Street Family Housing, Rutland•Shelburne Family Housing, Shelburne•Stony Creek, Hartford•Sylvan Woods, Stowe•The Maples, Springfield•Venus Avenue Homeownership, Burlington •Vernon Senior Housing, Vernon•West River Valley Housing, Townshend•Witcomb Terrace, Essex Junction

Community SupportQuestions gauged impact of community supportPreliminary planning stages and during the permitting processAbutters and neighbors Support from community boards and groups

Community Support: Findings

Meeting with Abutters Prior to Permitting 15% (4) received a positive response

0 opposed, 0 appeals, all approved in less than 6 months

19% (5) received a negative response5 opposed, 2 appealed, 1 approved in less than 6 months

46% (12) received a mixed response6 opposed, 3 appealed, 2 approved in less than 6 months

19% (5) did not meet3 opposed, 1 appealed, 1 approved in less than 6

Community Support: FindingsEngaging Community Boards and Groups – Planning

77% (20) did preliminary planning work12 opposed, 5 appealed, 7 approved in less than 6 months

23% (6) did not1 opposed, 1 appealed , 1 approved in less than 6 months

Engaging Community Boards and Groups – Permitting

58% (15) had support through permitting7 opposed, 2 appealed, 3 approved in less than 6 months

31% (8) did not5 opposed, 2 appealed , 4 approved in less than 6 months

Community Support: Summary

42% (11) met with abutters and had the support of local boards or groups during permitting

1 (9%) appealed, 2 approved in less than 6 months

Local ReviewIncludes one or more of the following:

Administrative reviewSite plan reviewConditional use reviewSubdivision reviewDesign ReviewPUD review

Local Review: Timeline

Local Review IssuesBoards Required for Approval

19% (5) approved under PC/ZBA model23% (6) approved under PC only 23% (6) approved under DRB only23% (6) approved under variation

Subdivision Review

22% (9) Required subdivision approval6 opposed, 5 appealed, 2 approved in less than 6 months

Local Review: Zoning Compatibility

Compatibility with Local ZoningPermitted Use

42% (11) Permitted use6 opposed, 2 appealed, 4 approved in less than 6 months2 projects incurred additional costs

Conditional Use

22% (9) Conditional use6 opposed, 3 appealed, 2 approved in less than 6 months2 projects incurred additional costs

Compatibility with Local ZoningNot Permitted (zoning change required)

8% (2) Zoning change required1 opposed, 1 appealed, 0 approved in less than 6 months1 projects incurred additional costs

No Zoning

12% (3) No zoning1 opposed, 0 appealed1 projects incurred additional costs

Local Review: FindingsPUD Regulations

42% (11) Utilized PUD10 opposed, 5 appealed, 1 approved in less than 6 monthsInclusionary Zoning

23% (6) Inclusionary Zoning (5 Burlington, 1 Manchester) 3 opposed, 2 appealed, 1 approved in less than 6 months

Density Bonuses8% (2) Requested density bonus

2 opposed, 1 appealed, 0 approved in less than 6 months (5 years)

Impact of Density

Project Density

Permitted Use Conditional UseFewer

15% (4) projects1 approved in < 6 months0 appealed

Same or Greater12% (3)0 approved in < 6 months 1 appeal

Fewer23% (6) projects3 approved in < 6 months2 appealed

Same or Greater12% (3) projects0 approved in < 6 months 1 appeal

Local Permit Appeal ProcessLocal 

Permit 

Appealed Who Appealed? Court

Added 

Cost  Timeline

Anderson Pkwy, 

South Burlington

Single abutter Negotiated an 

agreement, 

settled

Less than 

5%

McAuley Square,

Burlington

Group of neighbors and 

Developer

Environmental 

Court

16‐20% 1‐2 years

O’Dell Parkway, 

South

Burlington

Single commercial 

abutter and an abutting 

residential neighbor 

Settled out of 

court

5% 

($800,000)

1‐2 years

Sylvan Woods,

Stowe

DeveloperEnvironmental 

Court

11‐15% 5 years

Venus Avenue 

Homeownership,

Burlington

Single abutter, 

withdrew and was 

replaced by an 

intervenor, after an 

appeal to the Supreme 

Court.  

Environmental 

Court

Not Stated 4 years

School Street,

Rutland

Developer Superior Court Not Stated7‐12 

months

Act 250 Review81% (21) projects required Act 250 permit

Jurisdictional Trigger62% (16) – more than ten units12% (3) – number of projects by same developer within area exceeding ten units

12 (46%) approved in less than 6 monthsCost

5 less than 5%, 3 between 5-10%, 1 between 16-30%

Act 250 Review - Appeals

Act 250 Permit 

Appealed Who Appealed? Court Timeline 

Also Appealed 

at the Local 

Level

Jeffersonville 

Village Housing, 

Cambridge

AbuttersEnvironmental 

Board

7‐12 moths

O’Dell Pkwy,

South

Burlington

Residential 

abutters filed 

motion to alter

Settled 1‐2 years

Riverstation 

Apartments & 

Condominiums,

Montpelier

Abutter  Settled < 6 months

Preliminary Recommendations

State Level Local LevelInclusionary Zoning

§ 4414(7) – VoluntaryExplore Mandatory Provisions

Environmental Court Greater deference to local decisions Greater efficiency

Housing Commissions § 4403(6)Provide local advocate

Capacity BuildingTrainingTechnical AssistanceAwareness

Butterfield Common, Dover 2001 – 2004

Concerns Raised:• Project too invasive –affect the character of the area.• Potentially dangerous traffic conditions• Soil erosion concerns• Concern over impact on schools (senior housing) • Concern over impact on environment (wetlands)• Regional study identified need for senior housing• Engineering requirements prior to permit onerousRemedies:• Developer constructed berm • Installed vegetative screeningRecommendations:• Deference to local decisions • Capacity building

Population (2000): 1,410 Percentage below 80% AMI: 39.4%Developer: Windham Housing TrustZoning: Permitted UseNumber of Units: 40

McAuley Square, Burlington 1997 – 2000

Concerns Raised:• Required approval through 4 stages – many issues rehashed at each stage• Weight given non-expert testimony• Loss of open space and trees• Increased traffic• Impact on character of the areaRemedies:• Started at 110 units – final 74 units• Increased setbacks• CovenantsRecommendations:• Increase efficiency of EC appeal • Capacity building

Population (2000): 38,889Percentage below 80% AMI 37.2%Developer: Cathedral Square and HVTZoning: Conditional UseNumber of Units: 74

APPEALED

APPEALED

Sylvan Woods, Stowe 2002 – 2006

Population (2000): 4,339Percentage below 80% AMI: 32.4%Developer: Lamoille HP and HVTZoning: Conditional UseNumber of Units: 36

Concerns Raised:• Outside scale and character of area• Increased and dangerous traffic• Not consistent with plan• Pedestrian access to villageRemedies:• Redesign project• Sidewalk for pedestrians • Screening Recommendations:• EC deference for local decisions• Capacity building

APPEALED

APPEALED

School Street, Rutland 1999 - 2004

Population (2000): 17,292Percentage below 80% AMI: 41.1%Developer: RCCLTZoning: Conditional UseNumber of Units: 10

Concerns Raised:• Different values between developer and community• Increased traffic• Impact on character of the area Remedies:• Developer demonstrated quality of work• Overcome neighbor fearsRecommendations:• Housing commission• Capacity building • Increase efficiency of EC – heard by Superior Court because full docket

APPEALED

APPEALED

Venus Avenue, Burlington 1997 - 2005

Population (2000): 38,889Percentage below 80% AMI: 37.2%Developer: BHA and HabitatZoning: Conditional UseNumber of Units: 8

Concerns Raised:• Concerns about linkage• Concerns about flooding• Impact on natural area• Impact on character of the area• Did not conform to local ordinancesRemedies:• Eliminated basements from design• Plan was in conformance Recommendations:• Increase efficiency of EC appeal • Capacity building

APPEALED

APPEALED