After West Tisbury voters last month rejected an article for an accessory dwelling unit pilot program, the town’s select board members have doubts that public opinion will have changed enough by the April 11 town meeting.
But members of the affordable housing committee plan to submit a warrant article for the town meeting regardless.
At the town select board’s meeting on Dec. 13, housing committee member Jefrey DuBard said that the committee plans to engage the public during outreach meetings in January, February, and March.
“We have every intention of bringing [the proposal] forward again at the regular town meeting,” DuBard told the board.
DuBard, who spoke in favor of the article during the special town meeting, says the pilot program would work by boosting Aid for ADUs, an existing zoning bylaw program. DuBard also says that the pilot program would be the most cost- and time-efficient response to urgent housing insecurity needs.
The article rejected last month proposed raising $250,000 for the town’s affordable housing trust to promote year-round housing for households earning up to 150 percent of the county area median income (AMI). That funding would have provided forgivable loans of up to $25,000 to residential property owners, for them to create ADUs.
An accessory dwelling unit is a separate living space on or near a primary residential property.
At the special town meeting, the article was rejected, with 80 votes against and 24 in favor. Many felt the warrant article was unclear, especially regarding a proposed program administrator role. But others preferred that the $250,000 in funding be decided at the annual town meeting.
Given that town meeting warrant articles are finalized in late February, board members on Wednesday were concerned that April is too soon for the ADU article to adequately incorporate public feedback. Board members also wanted the affordable housing committee to consult the town visioning committee, and the select board’s Jessica Miller wanted time for input from town counsel. Members of the board, which approves warrant articles for the town meetings, also saw the housing committee’s preparation for the special town meeting as incomplete.
Board chair Skip Manter is in favor of the committee’s goals, but not their execution in November. “I think in general we support the concept of what the affordable housing committee has attempted to do here,” Manter said at Wednesday’s meeting. “But we were not pleased how the presentation and the discussion went at town meeting, specifically what I would say was a disappointing failure on the part of the affordable housing committee.”
The board’s Cynthia Mitchell was skeptical that enough time remained to develop a strong warrant article. “I would vote against putting it on the warrant for the annual town meeting, barring some miracle that it was in shape … I’m not willing to trust that an unfinished product will be ready [for] April in early February.”
Mitchell says that the committee must present more program details in order to get her vote: “They have to prove to me that the pilot program is well-enough papered out in detail, and is a product of the give and take, before I will put it on the warrant.”
DuBard says that the planned article for the annual town meeting will support the same pilot program proposed before, and be backed up by many more details about the program administrator role. He says that committee vice chair Amy Upton is assembling a document outlining the role’s responsibilities.
Dubard adds that this pilot program would provide cost- and time-conscious solutions to pressing housing needs: “These are not new constructions, they’re renovations of existing structures. So to potentially create 10 in a year for no more than $25,000 per dwelling would be an incredible success.”
He adds that compared with the pilot program, typical subsidized affordable dwellings would cost much more, and take much longer.
“What’s typically given to subsidize the creation of an affordable dwelling is more than $100,000 of municipal funds, and as you can imagine, those things then take years,” he said. “The budgets take years to conceptualize, go through the process, to get approved, the whole gamut of it.”
If the pilot program is not approved in April, DuBard says, housing-insecure individuals will feel the impact. “We are literally losing people every month. I’m constantly getting calls from people who are on the brink of having to move away, who are vital members of our community.”
Voters at the special town meeting did have support for affordable housing. A home rule petition for the affordable housing trust — enabling them to find community housing for households earning up to 150 percent of AMI — was approved unanimously. That vote also specified that Community Preservation Act funds apply only to projects for people earning up to 100 percent of AMI.
Workforce housing has reached a crisis point. Working people are moving away. Townships need to wake up. Houses are being snapped up by investors who get big bucks for summer rentals. That leaves a deficit of year round housing that is affordable. West Tisbury needs to get a grip on reality and step up to the moment.
You’re talking about a horse that left the barn, grew old, died, and had its bones picked clean by vultures twenty years ago. See Ryan, Preserving Community (2001). The towns and MVC need to be sued into oblivion, is what needs to happen. Add to that the state and federal governments for not checking the flood of illegal immigration and short-term rental “technology” companies.
Accessory dwelling units will not solve workforce housing shortage. Build and/or zone specifically for the workforce.
Accessory dwelling units could however help to solve the crisis for housing for our young residents. People in their 20’s and 30’s, out of college (with debt), starting their careers. We need them in our workforce! and they want to live here and be part of the community – lots of them grew up here, have family and roots here. They’re living in parents basement if they’re lucky! Why not support a path to create legitimate housing options on existing properties??
Comments are closed.