Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Committee was familiar with Inclusionary Zoning, before drafting of regulatory language <br /> occurred. Mr. Lehrer provided Committee members with resources, highlighting the elements of <br /> Inclusionary Zoning. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that Inclusionary Zoning required or incentivized the private sector to <br /> subsidize the development of affordable housing by building in thresholds, such as density, and <br /> identifying the number of affordable units that would be triggered. At present, Mashpee does <br /> have an Inclusionary Zoning provision that is incorporated into the Cluster Subdivision <br /> Regulation. It provides that 1 deeded affordable lot would be generated for every 10 lots <br /> developed, and is incentivized by allowing an additional lot for development. The regulation has <br /> not been highly productive, but the latest development, Ockway Highlands, generated an <br /> affordable housing lot for Habitat for Humanity. The Open Space Incentive Development Bylaw <br /> was intended for parcels greater than 20 acres in size, intended for Mashpee Commons, but has <br /> not been utilized. Mr. Lehrer suggested the necessity of considering the marketplace, the type of <br /> units, land area and redevelopment opportunities. Mr. Lehrer emphasized that considerable <br /> thought was necessary to identify the best options for Mashpee. <br /> Mr. Willard inquired about impacts to Mashpee Commons and Mr. Lehrer explained that they <br /> would be entering in to a Development Agreement, whereby affordability would become part of <br /> negotiations. Ms. Pina inquired about additional resources and Mr. Lehrer confirmed that there <br /> were additional articles available. Mr. Lehrer added his findings from research that Inclusionary <br /> Zoning was only productive in markets that were producing market rate housing. It was Mr. <br /> Lehrer's opinion that Mashpee could create the ability to produce units at market rate with <br /> modifications to the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Lehrer also discussed the visioning process to better <br /> identify neighborhoods and use potential, in order to better identify affordability thresholds. <br /> Mr. Lehrer emphasized that there was no single approach, and that multiple approaches would be <br /> necessary. The Chair referenced the limited availability of acreage necessary to develop multi- <br /> family housing, suggesting the necessity of increasing density and encouraging affordable <br /> housing with incentives. Mr. Lehrer added the need to understand the costs to the developers <br /> and expressing caution about regulating development to the point of infeasibility. The Chair <br /> pointed out the necessity to consider residents making less than 80% AMI but to also consider <br /> those above 80%, particularly given the effect of the current pandemic on the economy and the <br /> unprecedented loss of jobs it has caused. Mr. Lehrer confirmed that the incentives should match <br /> the need. <br /> Mr. Lehrer also noted potential challenges in productivity due to lack of consistency, <br /> administration and enforcement. At present, there was no housing coordinator in Mashpee to <br /> coordinate a Community Development Program. Mary Waygan, Planning Board member and <br /> affordable housing contact in Yarmouth agreed that there was a benefit to having someone in the <br /> position. Ms. Waygan confirmed that Yarmouth did have an Inclusionary Zoning. Ms. Waygan <br /> noted that Inclusionary Zoning was recently discussed at the Planning Board, due to the recent <br /> development activity in Mashpee and related to New Seabury's 1966 Special Permit, which did <br /> not require affordable housing units. Ms. Waygan stated that Yarmouth's Inclusionary Zoning <br /> triggered at 5 units, providing bonus density with 1 additional unit. Ms. Waygan noted that <br />