Town meeting on Zoning draws a crowd

The June 8 public meeting sponsored by the Town Housing and Zoning Update Committees was attended by a crowd that one organizer estimated as more than 130.

The two-hour meeting consisted of a short presentation by consultant Michael Allen, of Regrowth
Planning, followed by residents’ comments and questions.

Allen reviewed potential housing options that the joint committees have identified to address the lack of housing in Chatham. He cited accessible housing (defined as costing less than 30% of household income), workforce housing, and senior housing options.

Residents voiced many comments and questions. A video of the meeting is available on the town website, and comments can be directed to Housing Committee Chair Destiny Hallenbeck
(dhallenbeck@chathamnewyork.us) and ZUC Chair Angus Eaton (aeaton@chathamnewyork.us).

The committees continue to meet jointly on the second Monday of each month. The public is invited to attend.

COMMENTS BY CINDY BOBSEINE

(To give a flavor of the meeting and the complexity of options and questions, here are some comments that Chatham Dems president Cindy Bobseine — speaking as a resident and not on behalf of Chatham Dems — sent to the committees.)

I attended the public presentation by the Town's Zoning Update and Housing Committees on Saturday.  I appreciate all of the work that the joint committee has done to date to generate potential housing options for the town. The primer and advertising for the meeting were excellent, and you generated much interest in your presentation. I think you came away with lots of feedback, much of it related to the sheer scope of what you presented

I came away with the following reactions:

The primer and the initial part of the presentation emphasized the housing needs of people at different points in a life cycle. According to available information and survey results, it is clear that the town has very limited options for housing for two broad age groups: young adults and people with young families (most often in the workforce or with limited incomes) and seniors who are downsizing and looking for housing in the town (some of whom have limited incomes, and some with resources to spend more on housing in a town with no properties to buy). Both of these age groups were identified as a focus of housing needs in the Comprehensive Plan summary.

In both age groups, income affects how much these individuals and families can spend on housing, especially when the recommendation is that an individual or family spend less than 30% of available income on housing. It was implied in the presentation today that affordability is an especially salient factor in deciding what priorities need to be in Chatham for the short term at least. Conclusions are strong that we need workforce housing, starter homes, and smaller, low / no maintenance housing for seniors.

With the range of options presented today, what seemed to be a focus on the underlying priorities of affordability and housing for these two groups was diluted. 

Some of my feedback, which I could not formulate well enough to say aloud at the meeting, is this:

I want to urge the committee to prioritize the needs of our town community, and to focus on one or two high-priority needs first.  There is no need for the committees to devise a fully developed zoning change in order to accommodate all housing needs in the town in one fell swoop. In fact, such a comprehensive approach is sure to generate opposition because it's too much potential change to consider at one time, and  town government oversight with existing resources would be difficult.

One speaker at the meeting suggested the possibility of provisional changes in the zoning law, which is a slower approach, but one that allows for actual data to accrue on what works. This approach is one option, and implies a narrower but deeper and more articulated focus on changes in zoning laws.

I recommend that the committees focus on prioritizing housing needs and options for  young adults and families in the workforce and seniors. By extension, the reality is that income levels in this group will often dictate what type of housing is best. A look at how other communities have funded and developed "affordable options" in general, and also at how communities have encouraged / supported housing for these two broad segments of the population could be instructive. I believe that funding options and support may be relatively more available for these categories of housing at this point in time, which increases the attractiveness of related initiatives and the likelihood that they will be completed. Within this context, I recommend that the committee look first at the most popular and least controversial options for housing, identify funding supports and barriers, and make a plan for those options and related zoning changes. One or two priorities will allow the committees to plan thoroughly and increase the likelihood that increased housing options will actually occur in the short term.

Some thoughts on specifics:

I heard much support for ADUs, or accessory dwelling units. whether they be for extended family use or full-time rental units. A cap on numbers of ADUs within a time period would show interest and doability, without risking townwide changes that are found to be undesirable after the fact. I strongly agree with the speaker who questioned whether ADUs might be utilized as short-term rentals. That option is contrary to the desire to increase housing options, including rentals for full-time residents, and intensifies the concern about neighborhood integrity.

That comment also reminds me that the STR law is on the books, but I have not recently heard any updates on implementation relative to the required registrations and oversight; to the extent that is not in place, the town does not know enough about how STRs are affecting our housing stock. 

I thought the repurposing of existing large houses as limited multifamily housing and mixed use options are likely to be more acceptable in the short term to residents.

Again, the question of who will develop these options and what if any funding support is available is outstanding. It seems that these would be at the property owners’ initiative alone, and if so, may be less likely to occur. I also heard the sentiment that people value the rural character of Chatham, and that this is an important factor when the committee makes recommendations for changes in zoning and types of housing as priorities. The proposed location of new development will continue to bring this issue to the fore, and needs to be an underlying consideration in planning. 

Again, the scope of changes presented, which were proposed across many current property zones, with only a building permit needed to proceed,  seems like too much too soon to me.

I personally think that any large congregate housing options (e.g. nursing homes) are not a priority for the town.  Regional planning is more suited to that type of development, and is consistent with the idea that Chatham does not need to offer up every type of housing that can be identified.

Finally, several comments about water sources and aquifers in the town, and related issues of available water and sewer needs bring up an essential planning criteria for housing. I am not clear from the presentation if this has been taken into account in the recommended use tables, relative to what type of housing can be sustained in various areas of the town. I know that the Town did a water survey with a NYS agency in 2018 or 2019. I hope that data is being used as the building department considers building permits for any incoming applications. That information is a crucial consideration for any recommendations that the committees are making for overall zoning changes in the town.

Relatedly, I would like to know if the town has formally approached the Village of Chatham to determine if there could be a possibility that the two municipalities might agree on an extension of the Village water and sewer systems to increase the feasibility of housing outside of the village along Rte. 295 or Rte. 66. With the exploration of town properties contiguous to the Town Hall for potential housing sites off of Rte. 295, this could be an important factor for potential development in a site that would be less likely to disrupt the "rural character" of the town while allowing a more substantial amount of housing. Similarly, if there is an option to use part of Crellin Park as a housing site for prioritized housing needs, this option could make it more feasible.

In sum, I think the committee has some good ideas, and some of them are more palatable and less complicated to institute. Your task is huge.

My advice is that the joint ZUC and Housing committees recommend that the town board do something to increase housing in our community. Choose an option or two that will increase housing to some degree, but that admittedly will not solve the total problem. Then use the process and planning for that  "something" to build trust with the community, who can experience that the committee has a focus, and has respect for the existing community, all while recognizing that the housing deficiencies in the town are real, and they need to be remedied.  Everyone will not be happy with everything you do, but by keeping your focus smaller, doing something, and monitoring and reporting on how the priority project(s) are unfolding, you and the Town Board will gain ground with the public.

Thank you for listening, and for all of your efforts.  The recognition that change is needed is a strong message, and the question of how best to proceed is still unanswered.