Agway and Affordability - Open Letter to SB/PC

To the Planning Commission and Selectboard:

First and foremost, I'd like to express my appreciation for Creigh Moffatt's efforts to bring a concrete proposal before the Town. Creigh has shared her thoughts on this effort with me for some time and never once faltered when faced with my jaded outlook. Her energy and tenacity in pursuing this opportunity show once more than individuals can make a real difference in a community such as ours.

The debate regarding development of the Agway Property has included a number of broad assertions which, I am concerned, may obscure more practical difficulties. As I understand the issue, the Planning Commission is considering two options to secure the density boost necessary to accommodate the proposed housing project.

The first, an extension of the Village Residential District down Church Street/Route 5 North, would allow a Planned Residential Development ("PRD") under Section 12 of the Norwich Zoning Regulations based on the 1/2 acre minimum lot size permitted within the Village Residential District.

The second proposal would amend Section 12 to increase the "density bonus" granted for projects designating a certain proportion of units as "affordable housing," allowing the Agway property to remain in the Rural Residential District, but securing sufficient density to allow this project nonetheless.

The limited documentation I have seen suggests either option would be able to accommodate the level of density the developers feel necessary to make such a project economically viable. Nonetheless, I have practical and philosophical concerns regarding both options which I have not heard expressed thus far.

Whether one is talking about this project, "affordable housing" as a concept, or the affordability of housing in Norwich, one is ultimately talking about regulations and the policy goals they serve. Our zoning and subdivision regulations attempt to shape development in town by limiting the types of uses and density to designated districts. PRD's, as authorized in our zoning and subdivision regulations, do not alter the district-based density restrictions, but rather seek to govern large developments on a site-specific basis to maintain or mimic existing patterns of development consistent with the characteristics of the relevant zoning district.

In other words, our regulations ask a basic question which must be answered at the permitting stage for this project to go forward: "Is this where the town's regulations and Town Plan want this level of density to occur?"

Anyone who has carefully read our regulations will realize there is reason for caution. Our subdivision regulations are complex and highly restrictive of development on a number of surprisingly defined criteria. In addition, our PRD regulations specifically ask the DRB to assess applications against the stated goals of our Town Plan -- goals which, as in this instance, may be contradictory. In the end, I expect political pressure will force the issue, any contrary provisions of our regulations be damned. But the question is still worth asking and I haven't heard it asked.

Is this where the town's regulations and Town Plan want this level of density to occur? From a purely regulatory point of view, the answer is obviously "No." Village residential density belongs in the Village Residential District and efforts to extend that district are simply a reaction to an individual project. Neither our Town Plan nor our land use regulations contemplated village residential development in this area and we might pause to wonder why. Nor does it end there.

Are the developers in this instance aware of the site-specific restrictions they face under a PRD review? Our subdivision regulations establish mandatory requirements regarding consistency with existing settlement patterns; village residential settlement patterns in this instance. Even if we extend the village residential district, are the developers contemplating a village residential development? One fudge may require several more and expediency may usher in a series of unintended consequences.

Is this the direction we want to village to grow? Is this state highway corridor really the best place to extend a village settlement pattern and the streetscape such a pattern requires? This is currently an industrial site, after all, fronting a state highway and backed by a federal interstate highway, topographically isolated from the existing village. If we're willing to waive the existing regulations by amendment to allow this project to proceed to permitting review, are we also willing to waive the specific regulatory provisions which may make this project uneconomical to develop or simply untenable upon regulatory review? It may be worth considering specific amendments to those provisions as well so we can be sure the regulations achieve the right result.

To my eye, both the proposal to extend the village residential district and the idea of boosting the density bonus in the PRD regulations are broad regulatory changes prompted by a desire to accommodate a specific development proposal. That's not a great way to formulate regulations and begs the question what we thought we were doing in our strenuous efforts, as a town, to comprehensively update our Town Plan back in the early 1990's. If our regulations and Town Plan don't contemplate this level of density on this site, then where do they expect it to occur?

The simple answer is in the existing Village Residential District. If one follows the Simpson Development Corporation appeal, the answer is even more precise. Our regulations clearly expect greater than typical residential development to occur in the heart of the Village Residential District, rather than at its edges.

Coincidentally, even as the Agway property has come on the market, a substantial collection of properties at the heart of the village may also be available for development. There has been discussion that both the police and fire facilities need upgrading. Norwich Senior Housing has reached a regulatory threshold regarding it's initial HUD funding-based use restrictions. Today's paper suggests the brick house beside the Grange may also be available to the Town. Why not purchase the Agway property and relocate the Town's emergency services there? The existing fire and police facilities could then be redeveloped as residential housing placing more intensive residential density where our regulations suggest it belongs, nearer existing services and consistent with existing infrastructure. With a bit of ambition, Norwich Senior Housing might also be approached to expand the redevelopment area creating a new cluster which might incorporate the existing senior housing capacity within combined multi-unit and single-family housing.

If one assumes our regulations and Town Plan mean what they say, the question, then, is whether there is the political will to put our money where our regulatory mouth says this type of density should occur.

I also want to express my philosophical unease with the idea of siting an "affordable housing" project on the Agway property. I have worked in the affordable housing industry and seen first-hand the sullen bursts of opposition which occur when specific projects are presented, often coming from surprising constituencies. One of the real problems with "affordable housing" is the fact it often lacks the vested supporters found behind most for-profit development. As in Norwich, much of the support for affordable housing comes from policies, governmental agencies, and theoretical positions which prove malleable in the face of local opposition.

In the event, the path of least resistance often leads to physically segregated projects which concentrate "affordability" outside the existing fabric of the community. The eloquent letter from a Starlake resident in last week's Valley News speaks volumes to the overlooked infrastructure and transportation costs of distended development. There is also a social cost to segregation which we overlook at our peril. The proposed Agway development, while closer to the town's heart than Starlake, still lies a surprising distance away physically, topographically, and psychologically. For those who recommend the project on the basis of increasing the school population, I'd invite you to take your child or grandchild for a walk from Marion Cross to the Agway site one of these evenings. Ask them what they thought of the walk and whether they want to do it again tomorrow.

The alternative to concentrated, segregated "affordable housing" is integrated and dispersed "affordable housing." Unfortunately, these efforts don't achieve as much as quickly as a single big project, but they are more consistent with the way our town works and offer much better opportunities to foster diversity and community. A decision to purchase the Agway property for emergency services and redevelop the existing fire and police property would not sustain the number of units contemplated by the current proposal. The redevelopment option would have a better chance of achieving financial independence if some of the units were market-priced, reducing the total number of new affordable units still further. However, it's really a trade off between goals.

Are we looking to maximize affordable units in the short term or to maintain an economically diverse but integrated community in the long-term? The only reason to prefer the former, in my view, would be if one has no faith the latter will ever get done. I'd like to think it can be achieved and would suggest a few practical steps to get there.

First, add the idea of moving emergency facilities to the Agway parcel and redeveloping the fire/police property as integrated mixed-income housing as a third option in your discussions.

Second, the single best long-term vehicle to promote integrated, dispersed affordability is to promote rental housing in primary and secondary structures on existing properties within both the village and rural districts. A joint study subcommittee charged with reviewing what larger Vermont municipalities allow might be able to formulate specific regulatory language to encourage more rental housing within the existing housing inventory.

Third, address the apparent bar to multi-unit housing in the village district created in the last revision of the subdivision regulations.

Fourth, investigate the possibility of the Town entering an option agreement to acquire the Agway property either way to alleviate the time pressure tail which is waging this dog.

I think it would be a shame to waste Creigh's good work in this instance by failing to act, but I'd encourage the Town to act responsibly with regard to regulatory amendment and consider whether Creigh's efforts might be leveraged to set Norwich towards a more realistic and sustainable approach to housing affordability over the long-term.