Residential Development

Transcription

Town of Somers Comprehensive Master Plan Update
[NOTE TO MPC: As in prior editions, strikeout lines have been used to identify
proposed deletions to the 1994 Master Plan Update text on this topic; underlining has
been used to identify proposed additions to the 1994 Master Plan Update text on this
topic. Modifications to the last distributed version of this subsection (#3) have been
highlighted with shading (yellow if viewed online or printed in color; gray if printed in
B&W). Formatting changes have not been highlighted. This draft should still be
considered a “work-in-progress” because some additional statistical data needs to be
added.]
Background
When the first Somers comprehensive master plan was adopted in 1973, approximately
3,200 houses with a population of 9,900 were spread over the Town’s 20,800 acres.
Virtually all dwelling units were of the single-family detached type. Half were located in
long established communities such as Lake Lincolndale, Shenorock, Amawalk and Lake
Purdy. These areas were and continue to be characterized by small lots along narrow
roads with an average density of four homes per acre. The other half of Somers’ homes
were spread out in newer subdivisions of one- to two-acre lots interspersed among many
large land holdings; a few were located on parcels used for farming and others were
managed as residential estates.
Large tracts of undeveloped land could be found
throughout the Town.
Over the next 20 years, up to the time when the 1994 Comprehensive Master Plan was
adopted, an additional 3,200 homes had been built, increasing the population to 16,600.
The new homes encompassed a wide variety of housing types. Besides subdivisions of
conventional single-family homes on one- to two-acre lots, development included 1,850
attached condominium units surrounded by private open space and recreation facilities,
higher density town houses, cluster lot subdivisions and accessory apartments in existing
homes.
Comprehensive Draft #4: 12/30/05
VI.B-1
Since 1994, an additional 1,292 homes have been built and the population has increased
to approximately 20,934.1 This tremendous amount of growth in Somers has continued
in a manner that is generally consistent with the land use density recommendations of the
1973 and 1994 Plans.
In 1993, about 5,500 acres remained available for development―slightly less than the
total land area occupied by homes in 1993. In 1998, as part of an effort to implement the
recommendations of the 1994 Comprehensive Master Plan, approximately 9,707 acres, or
47 percent of the 20,800 acres of land in Somers, were rezoned. All areas of the Town
subject to this rezoning were previously zoned for residential use, and in almost every
case the effect of the rezoning was to permit a lower density of residential development,
consistent with the 1994 Plan Map recommendations. The following features were all
important factors supporting the rezoning:
•
Severe septic field limitations;
•
Attractive views and open spaces;
•
Significant areas of wetlands;
•
Current use of the property as orchards;
•
Severe development limitations;
•
Rural appearance;
•
Highly variable topography;
•
Numerous sensitive stream corridors; and
•
Wide areas of major woodlands.
The changes in residential zoning designations as a result of the 1998 rezoning actions
are illustrated in Figures VI.B-1, VI.B-2 and VI.B-3.
1
Based upon application of the average household size of 2.69 from the 2000 U.S. Census to the total number of
dwellings in Somers in 2004.
VI.B-2
VI.B-3
VI.B-4
VI.B-5
As of 2004, it was projected that approximately 13,015 acres within the Town’s
residential districts have potential for further subdivision development (vacant lots and
‘underdeveloped’ lots) based on current zoning requirements.
Based upon that
projection, it was determined that Somers has a future development potential of an
estimated 2,244 additional housing units at full-build out under current zoning controls.2
The use of the remaining land resources must be carefully planned to meet the challenges
of the immediate (next 5 years) and longer-term future of the 21st century.
[NOTE TO MPC: The above projection of the Town’s build-out was derived from the
analysis completed as part of a separate study conducted at the Town’s request on
recreation fee requirements (summarized in a previously distributed June 24, 2004
memorandum to the Town Board). That analysis used data on existing and potential
single-family detached dwellings contained in the draft March 2003 Croton Plan,
which was further supplemented with data on other types of housing plus data on
housing in the small area at the northwest corner of the Town that is located outside of
the New York City Watershed. At that time, it was projected that the Planned Hamlet
PH District development in Baldwin Place might have a total of 375 dwelling units
based upon the proposal originally submitted to the Planning Board for review. Since
that time, the Planning Board has received an application for the proposed
development of 152 dwelling units in the PH District in Baldwin Place. In addition,
the prior edition of the proposed Croton Plan has been revised. Based upon a review of
the draft June 2005 Croton Plan, it appears that the projection of single-family
detached dwellings has been increased by 10 units net compared to the figure that
appeared in the earlier edition. Based upon these changes, the above projection of the
Town’s build-out should be reduced to a total of 2,031 dwelling units.]
Housing Development Experience
Residential growth trends in Somers are summarized in Table VI.B-1. Less than one of
2
Based upon analysis conducted as part of evaluation of long-term parkland needs in the Town and the
establishment of an updated fee-in-lieu of parkland reservation requirement. This analysis is summarized in a June
24, 2004 memorandum from Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. to the Town of Somers Town Board. The
assumptions underlying the projection of additional single-family development potential for the land in the New
York City Watershed portion of the Town of Somers are described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the draft June 2004
edition of the Croton Plan prepared by the Westchester County Department of Planning, in consultation with 10
participating local municipalities.
VI.B-6
six homes here in 2004 existed in 1940. Between 1950 and 1970, 75 new homes were
constructed each year on average.
Between 1970 and 1990, the rate increased
significantly to an average of 165 new homes per year. For 1990 through 1993, the rate
of increase fell to 49 new homes annually. Between January 1993 and October 2004, the
rate increased again to an average of 109 new homes annually (1,292 new dwellings/11.8
years).
While the homes built before 1970 were all conventional single-family residences, Table
VI.B-2 shows that a high percentage of more recently constructed units have been
attached townhouses (“The Willows,” “Greenbriar”) and low-rise condominiums
(“Heritage Hills of Westchester”). For units constructed between 1980 and 1993, 65
percent of the 2,309 dwellings built were classified as multi-family (which includes
single-family attached condominium) dwellings. For units constructed between 1993 and
2004, ___ percent of the 1,292 dwellings built were classified as multi-family dwellings.
[NOTE TO MPC: Additional data is being obtained from the Town Building
Department to complete the missing entry above as well as those in the below
paragraphs and Table VI.B-2.]
It is noted that data in Tables 1 and 2 are based on issuance of building permits; there is
often a lag between permit issuance and building construction, particularly within
Heritage Hills where significant condominium construction has occurred several years
following the issuance of building permits.
Single-family construction since 1980 has consisted of an average of ___ new homes
each year, excluding the peak years of 1983 and 1984 (106 and 102 homes, respectively).
The new construction has been characterized by more frequent application of nontraditional subdivision design techniques.
Of the ____single-family residences built
since 1980, approximately ____ (___%) are located on lots in clustered subdivisions
instead of on conventional subdivision lots.
VI.B-7
Table VI.B-1
TOWN OF SOMERS
NEW DWELLINGS CONSTRUCTED BY DECADE 1940-2004
Increase
Year
Units
Number
Percentage
1940
1,180
1950
1,434
254
22%
1960
2,243
809
56%
1970
2,947
704
31%
1980
4,517
1,570
53%
1990
6,240
1,723
38%
1993
6,490
250
4%
2000
7,098
608
9%
2004
7,782
684
10%
Source: U. S. Census; Town of Somers Building Department; Town of Somers Assessor’s Office
[NOTE TO MPC: The data originally included above for 2004 was based upon
information obtained through mid-October of that year. Therefore, it does not include
100% of data for that year, or additional data for 2005. So that this table is more
accurate, it is recommended that it be further updated based upon as much additional
data as is available from the Town Building Department.]
VI.B-8
Table VI.B-2
TOWN OF SOMERS
NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1980-1993
Building Permits Issued for New Homes
Single Family Attached
Single-Family Detached
Year
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Total
1980
40
27%
108
73%
148
1981
43
27%
114
73%
157
1982
36
95%
2
5%
38
1983
106
39%
164
61%
270
1984
102
37%
170
63%
272
1985
68
18%
303
82%
371
1986
51
17%
242
83%
293
1987
43
27%
142
77%
185
1988
48
27%
130
73%
178
1989
57
100%
0
-0%
57
1990
46
100%
0
-0%
46
1991
30
94%
2
6%
32
1992
65
84%
12
16%
77
1993
83
87%
12
12%
95
1994
___
___
___
___
___
1995
___
___
___
___
___
1996
___
___
___
___
___
1997
___
___
___
___
___
1998
___
___
___
___
___
1999
___
___
___
___
___
2000
___
___
___
___
___
2001
___
___
___
___
___
2002
___
___
___
___
___
2003
___
___
___
___
___
2004
___
___
___
___
___
Totals
___
___%
___
___%
___
Source: Town of Somers Building Department
VI.B-9
The 1980 U.S. Census reported that the median house value in Somers, based on
estimates by homeowners, was $80,000. Real estate prices rapidly escalated after 1984,
peaked in 1989 and then declined up through 1994.. Since 1994 the U.S. Census reported
that the median house value has again increased rapidly to $539,750 in 2004. Data on
sales of residentially-developed properties from 1997 to 2004 is presented in Table VI.B-3
below:
Table VI.B-3
TOWN OF SOMERS
RESIDENTIAL MEDIAN SALES PRICE ($) 1997-2004
Year
All Zoning Districts
R10 District
R40 District
R80 District
1997
193,060
52,500
275,000
180,000
1998
289,000
182,500
312,000
445,000
1999
329,000
189,000
332,500
532,099
2000
395,000
190,000
380,000
563,170
2001
445,000
255,000
446,348
646,730
2002
490,791
289,000
514,326
725,000
2003
506,858
266,000
530,000
875,000
2004*
539,750*
-
-
-
Sources: Town of Somers Assessor’s Office.
*Market Watch (Fall 2004) based on 70 property transactions (January 2004 – June 2004).
Prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.
[NOTE TO MPC: The figures presented above under the columns entitled “R40
District” and “R80 District” for 1997 are identical to the figures contained in the
FPCA memorandum to the Town Board dated June 24, 2004 on the topic of recreation
fee requirements. We will need to research the original source data again to determine
if the figures were inadvertently transposed since they do appear to be illogical.]
The data obtained from the Town of Somers Tax Assessor’s Office and the office of Julia
B. Fee Real Estate (Market Watch – Fall 2004) confirms that the median sales price for a
single-family house was approximately $540,000 for Somers as a whole based on 70
property transactions between January and June 2004. The percentage of housing units
VI.B-10
with a value of $500,000 and more increased significantly in the Town between 1990 and
2000, from 3 percent to 15 percent of the total housing stock. Since 2000, the median
price home has increased another 37 percent.
[NOTE TO MPC: The Fall 2005 edition of the Julia B. Fee Market Watch indicates
that the median sales price for a house in the Somers Central School District was
$583,000 for the first six months of 2005. This information will be further updated as
necessary prior to submission of the next draft of this subsection.]
In comparison, the median sales price for the same period (January – June, 2004) in
adjacent towns were $890,000 in Bedford, $600,000 in North Salem and $482,000 in
Yorktown.
Because small houses are in short supply, the older homes in the lake communities of
Somers have increased in value. The result is the reverse of the theory of housing
filtration. In of “filtering down” to families of lesser means, the older, smaller houses are
“filtering up” from clerical and blue collar sellers to young executives and professional
buyers. The potential sellers are faced with an unenviable choice between holding tight
or selling and having to leave Somers for a less expensive location.
Some of the most dramatic increases in median house value in Somers have occurred in
the period 1997-2004. For current and future Somers residents, this means that the
household income needed to afford the median value single-family home in 2004
($540,000) based on prevailing mortgage industry lending standards would have been
$173,000.3
The provision of affordable housing opportunities represents a major
challenge at the local, County, State and nationwide levels.
In 1996, based on the recommendations of the 1994 Comprehensive Master Plan, the
Somers Town Board removed a site of approximately 80 acres of land in the Baldwin
3
Based upon a 30-year mortgage with a 10% down payment, 6% interest rate and assuming real estate taxes equal
2.5% of the market value of the house.
VI.B-11
Place hamlet from the General Business “GB” District and placed it into a newly created
Planned Hamlet “PH” District. The requirements of the Planned Hamlet District specify
that multi-family housing must be constructed as part of any plan for development of the
site and that at least 10 percent of the permitted dwelling units must consist of
“affordable dwellings units” as defined in the Town of Somers Zoning Ordinance.4 The
Town also has two Multi-Family Residence Districts―the Multifamily Residence
Baldwin Place “MFR-BP” District and the Multifamily Residence Hamlet “MFR-H”
District―that also contain the same requirement for a minimum of 10 percent affordable
dwelling units. Each of these three zoning districts also provide density incentives for the
provision of “affordable dwelling units” with the aim of providing housing opportunities
specifically designed for the young, the elderly and families earning less than 80 percent
of the County’s median income. Currently, no dwelling units meeting the definition of
“affordable housing units” have been constructed in Somers. However, a needs analysis
undertaken by The Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research at the request of
the Westchester County Board of Legislators, combined with the results of an Affordable
Housing Allocation Plan prepared by the Westchester County Housing Opportunity
Commission identifies a need for 226 affordable housing units in the Town of Somers
through the year 2015 (188 housing units as of 2000 plus an additional 28 housing units
for the period 2000-2015). Under that same Plan, the corresponding need on a Countywide basis was identified as 10,768 affordable housing units.
[NOTE TO MPC: The Town Board’s 2005 adoption of the “Somers Housing Plan,”
which was a condition of the execution of the IMA concerning the acquisition of the
Eagle River Subdivision property by a consortium of entities, will be discussed in
greater detail here in the next edition of this subsection.]
4
“Affordable Dwelling Units” are defined as dwelling units limited in occupancy to households whose annual
income does not exceed 80 percent of the actual Westchester County median income. The pertinent dollar amount is
adjusted by household size.
VI.B-12
Approaches to Residential Development
The Town Board has continued to follow a general Town-wide policy of density
distribution, which is designed to shift development potential away from low density and
environmentally sensitive single-family residential districts into attached or multi-family
units in the Town’s hamlet centers. This approach aims to increase housing diversity and
opportunities for affordable housing, while also reinforcing the Town’s environmental
and open space objectives.
The Master Plan Committee has reviewed the effects of residential development policies
that have been implemented by the Town Board since adoption of the 1973 and 1994
Plans. Experience and changed circumstances justify new or revised Comprehensive
Plan recommendations for designed residential development, conservation subdivisions,
accessory apartments and the pursuit of ‘affordable dwelling units.’
1.
Designed Residential Development. The original Town Plan was drafted at the
same time that the Heritage Development Group was proposing to build a large,
somewhat self-contained residential community that would cover a very large tract
of land and be constructed over several years. The Town Board and Planning
Board embraced the concept and enacted zoning amendments to provide for a
“Designed Residential Development” (DRD)special permit provision on tracts
with a minimum area of 500 acres.
The DRD zoning provisions require
developers to provide extensive capital improvements and recreation facilities as
well as maintain one-third of the gross acreage as natural open space. The Town
Plan embraced the concept for its ability “to establish a more desirable and
complete living environment than is possible through the strict application of
conventional residential zoning.”
In 1972, a special permit was granted for “Heritage Hills of Westchester,”
permitting the construction of up to 3,100 dwellings on 836 acres. The scale of
VI.B-13
this project remains unmatched in Westchester County. The DRD area was later
expanded to 1,109 acres and the maximum permitted density was reduced to
2,956. With the exception of a market slowdown in 1990-1992, the development
has provided a predictable market of approximately 100 new attached,
condominium homes per year with a 1993 price range of $160,000 to $400,000.
Approximately 2,780 of the approved housing units have been built and the final
four approved housing clusters are currently under construction.
[NOTE TO MPC: Data is being obtained to update the market value range of
dwellings in Heritage Hills.]
Although first limited to buyers over 40 years of age with no children, civil rights
decisions on a national level subsequently opened the development to all buyers.
However, the developer continues to target sales to the original market and the
DRD remains primarily an adult community. At the time of the 2000 U.S. Census,
71 percent of the homes within Heritage Hills were occupied by at least one
person age 55 or over. The Census identified 207 residents (less than 1 percent)
under age 19.
A second DRD was approved by the Town in the 1970s but the project―
“Primrose Farms”―failed before construction made major advances.
While the descriptions of the benefits of a DRD identified in the 1973 Plan have
been accurate, it is not likely that another project of the scale envisioned is
possible. The sheer complexity in putting together such a project and the scale of
investment in both facilities and time have proved daunting. Also, as subdivision
activity has accelerated in the past 25 years, the possibility of someone today
assembling a site large enough to support a DRD is extremely unlikely. From the
Town’s perspective, development of the remaining large tracts as new
VI.B-14
communities would detract from the balanced development envisioned by this
Town Plan Update.
[NOTE TO MPC: If desired and notwithstanding the above-described policy
statement, the potential for additional creation of DRD developments in the
Town could be examined based upon existing parcel size and other relevant
factors in relation to the Town’s existing zoning provisions for this type of
development. Additional direction should be provided on whether this
supplementary analysis should be undertaken.]
Accordingly, the DRD special permit approach to residential development is no
longer a viable zoning tool in Somers.
2.
Conservation Subdivisions. Consistent with the 1994 Comprehensive Master Plan
recommendation, the Town Board adopted a “conservation zoning” law in 2001 to
enable and encourage flexibility in the design of residential subdivisions with the
objective
of
protecting
areas
of
meaningful
ecological,
architectural,
archeological, scenic and historic value, preserving open space and reserving
suitable lands for park and recreation purposes.
The conservation zoning law enables the Planning Board to establish on a case-bycase basis, modifications to lot and building dimension requirements in order to
accomplish one or more of the objectives set forth above.
A key consideration in the Master Plan Committee’s review of residential
development and subdivision practices in the Town has been the application of the
Town’s 2001 Conservation Zoning law.
The findings of the Committee
highlighted that remaining parcels of land within the Town’s R40, R80 and R120
districts capable of subdivision are almost without exception constrained by areas
of steep slopes and/or wetlands and/or other environmental constraints.
The
question of whether the conservation zoning law provides enough flexibility to
VI.B-15
achieve its stated objectives remains.
The law currently provides that any
departure from the minimum dimensional standards applied in conjunction with
the law requires the further authorization by the Town Board. However, this
aspect of the law should be reevaluated as this additional required step takes away
any incentive of the developer to seek further variations from the Town’s
dimensional standards.
As a practical matter, the opportunity to seek this
additional flexibility has not been pursued in actual practice. Subdivision
applications submitted since 1994 are shown in Figure VII.B-___ “Current
Subdivision Developments.” Of the 13 subdivision applications identified, 4 are
conservation subdivisions.
3.
Accessory Apartments. In 1982, the Somers Zoning Ordinance was first amended
to allow for establishment of accessory apartments in existing owner-occupied
single-family homes and accessory buildings. Such apartments are by definition
incidental and subordinate to the principal dwelling. They are the fastest and most
unobtrusive means to produce small rental housing units at moderate cost without
conflicting with recommended development density levels. However, by 1992,
only ten apartments had been officially established. As of 2004, the Town Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) had approved 36 accessory apartments,5 which require
renewed approval by the ZBA every seven years.
During discussions leading up to preparation of the 1994 Plan update, it was
recognized that overly restrictive regulatory conditions are a hindrance to
establishing accessory apartments. Several special conditions were established in
1982 partly out of fear that such apartments could be a threat to the single-family
character of Somers. Such fears have not been realized.
5
Based on the Zoning Board of Appeals records (September 2004)
VI.B-16
In July 1992, the Town Board amended the special permit provisions to eliminate
some restrictions and to permit more opportunities for accessory apartments, as
recommended by the Master Plan update.
Those restrictions that relate to
preservation of neighborhood character were maintained. One change enacted at
that time permitted the establishment of an accessory apartment as part of the
construction of a new single-family home. Such apartments were still required to
meet the criteria on size, appearance and occupancy. A second change made at
that time was intended to ease the application burden by shifting the approval
authority of the special permit from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of
Appeals and by eliminating site plan requirements.
As a result of additional amendments that were enacted in 1995, only pre-1992
residential construction is now eligible for the establishment of accessory
apartment. This Plan recommends that the pre-1992 dwelling unit age limitation
for accessory apartments be reviewed with a view toward relaxing this stipulation
and further encouraging the development of accessory apartments as means of
further diversifying the Town’s housing stock in all neighborhoods.
Multi-Family Housing
Multi-family housing―buildings containing more than one dwelling (not including
single-family attached condominium units)―is a necessary component of a housing
market if a range of housing types is to be available and if there are to be opportunities
for residents unable to afford or maintain traditional single-family homes.
As
summarized in Table VI.B-4, the 2000 U.S. Census found that Somers had the highest
percentage of multi-family housing among it six neighboring municipalities.
1.
1973 Recommendations and Implementation. Multi-family housing has been an
important aspect of the Town’s residential land use policies ever since the 1973
Plan stated, “There is a definite need for some multi-family housing in this area,
VI.B-17
and the policy of Somers toward permitting such housing within its boundaries
should reflect these needs… A limited amount of townhouse and garden apartment
development, at densities of up to 8 dwelling units per acre, should be permitted in
locations adjoining the Baldwin Place, Lincolndale and Somers hamlet business
areas, as designated on the Town Plan Map.”
Table VI.B-4
UNITS IN STRUCTURES IN AREA MUNICIPALITIES 2000
(by percentage of total units)
93
5
Three Or More
Family^
2
New Castle
85
2
13
*
0
Lewisboro
82
2
16
*
0
Carmel
81
4
14
*
*
Bedford
75
5
20
*
*
Yorktown
73
3
24
*
*
SOMERS
66
4
30
*
*
Westchester County
45
9
46
*
*
Municipality
North Salem
Single
Family
Two
Family
Mobile Home
0
Other
0
^Includes 1 unit attached.
*Less than one percent.
Source: U.S. Census.
A detailed planning study of the designated multi-family housing sites and the
anticipated impacts of such development was prepared in August 1979 (revised
September 1981). This report led to the drafting of proposed zoning amendments
to establish Multi-Family Residence “MFR” Zoning Districts. The amendments
were adopted in November 1981. The Willows development to the south of U.S.
Route 202 in the Lincolndale area was constructed under these zoning provisions.
The MFR Districts are “floating zones”―a zoning designation that is mapped only
after the review and approval of a request for the zone by an applicant. The
zoning text sets forth locational and dimensional criteria that an applicant must
VI.B-18
meet to have property classified as an MFR District. The standards are based on
the 1973 Plan and the subsequent planning study.
The 1973 Plan designated approximately 300 acres for such use and estimated the
land would support the construction of 1,500 to 1,700 multi-family units. Based
on the more detailed 1981 study that took into account physical features, the
number of potential units was recomputed and estimated at 1,400 (see Table VI.B5).
2.
New Recommendations. Although the results of earlier surveys conducted by the
Town prior to preparation of the 1994 Comprehensive Master Plan identified
opposition to all housing other than conventional single-family lots, this Plan
affirms the recommendations of the 1973 and 1994 Plans that it is proper and
reasonable for the Town of Somers to provide opportunities for the development
of multi-family housing as well as other housing types.
[NOTE TO MPC: The recently adopted “Somers Housing Plan” will be
discussed in more detail here as well.]
Table VI.B-5
1973 PLAN - RECOMMENDED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Site
Total Area ( Acres)
Net Area ( Acres)
Dwelling Units
Baldwin Place
Windsor Road/Route 6
99
87
524
126
104
621
26
21
124
Lincolndale
22
19
78
Somers
23
21
82
296
252
1,429
Baldwin Place/South
GB District
Other Hamlets
TOTAL
VI.B-19
Table VI.B-6
1993 PLAN - RECOMMENDED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Site
Baldwin Place
Total Area ( Acres)
Net Area ( Acres)
Dwelling Units
26
21
125
Lincolndale
35
29
120
Somers
23
21
85
Whitehall Corners
30
25
100
114
96
430
Other Hamlets
TOTAL
[NOTE TO MPC: Completion of the following table will require more discussion. At
a prior MPC meeting, it was recommended that the viability of Baldwin Place and the
Somers Hamlet (and possibly Whitehall Corners as well) for this type of housing be
recognized. It was also recommended that areas that may be subject to change in the
future be more closely examined, e.g., the IBM and former Pepsi-Cola sites.]
Table VI.B-7
CURRENT PLAN - RECOMMENDED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Site
Total Area ( Acres)
Net Area ( Acres)
Dwelling Units
Baldwin Place
Other Hamlets
Lincolndale
Somers
Whitehall Corners
TOTAL
[NOTE TO MPC: Discussion of “Baldwin Place” was relocated so that it is discussed
first, consistent with the presentation of information in Table VI.B-7.]
BALDWIN PLACE. A sizable portion of the multi-family units recommended for
construction in the Baldwin Place area by the 1973 Plan were directly tied to that
Plan’s call for extensive office and industrial development on the south side of
Route 6 west of the Muscoot River, adjacent to the Town of Yorktown border.
The Plan stated, “The provision of such housing…is considered to be necessary
VI.B-20
and desirable because of the large number of jobs that will be available.” It also
stated, “The construction of multi-family housing in these areas should not occur
independently of the planned office and industrial development…it should be
closely related to the actual establishment of such uses.”
The 1994 Plan eliminated the recommendation for non-residential development
west of the Muscoot River.
Therefore, the recommendation for multi-family
development on the north side of Route 6 west of the Muscoot River, which was
intended to balance the non-residential uses, was also eliminated.
Similarly, the scale of both non-residential and multi-family development in
Baldwin Place itself is reduced. The total number of multi-family homes should
be similar to the number now established in Lincolndale where “The Willows” has
been successfully integrated into the local community.
LINCOLNDALE. In December 1982, the Town Board acted to designate 34 acres
in Lincolndale hamlet as the first MFR District so as to permit the construction of
120 multi-family units in a development known as “The Willows.” The project
was completed in 1987 and fulfills the Plan’s recommendations for Lincolndale.
There have not been any other requests for establishment of an MFR District.
SOMERS. This Plan continues to support ‘mixed-use’ development, including the
construction of smaller, denser and lower cost housing in the Somers hamlet as a
Town planning objective. This housing can be provided in several alternative
forms including residential apartments above retail and commercial uses and is not
limited to the typical townhouse-type or garden apartment development.
The hamlet has an historic precedent for small housing. Adjacent to Bailey Park is
a row of detached, two-story houses dating to the early 19th century. These
VI.B-21
structures suggest a type of denser and more affordable housing that could be
developed on other sites around the hamlet.
Given changing lifestyles, such
housing might fit into the fabric of the hamlet more easily than traditional multifamily developments. There is also the possibility of integrating residential and
commercial uses in individual buildings if limitations expressed by builders and
imposed by building code requirements can be overcome. These new concepts are
discussed in greater detail in the next subsection of this chapter.
The scale of a multi-family development should be considered in context of
overall hamlet development. The Town Board adopted the present B-HP District
zoning regulations in December 2003 after a long period of careful study and
review. These regulations require the inclusion of studio, one-and two-bedroom
apartments on the upper floor of any newly constructed building containing
commercial uses. This approach at providing small scale apartments within the
Somers Hamlet is supported by the recommendations of this Plan.
WHITEHALL CORNERS. The 1994 Plan added another potential location for
multi-family development―Whitehall Corners. After considerable discussion on
the future recommended role for the land at the intersection of Routes 35 and 100,
the Planning Board and Advisory Committee determined there was justification to
identify Whitehall Corners as a hamlet.
Although relatively undeveloped in 1993, this area has the potential to evolve with
a mix of retail/service businesses and the type of smaller, denser and lower cost
housing that is recommended for the other hamlets.
Depending on land
availability and design, this housing could be on either the southwest or northwest
quadrants or both―preferably mixed with some non-residential uses.
VI.B-22
Opportunities for non-hamlet multi-family housing also exist within the context of
cluster development, but only with special authorization from the Town Board.
Housing Needs of Seniors
When the 1973 Somers Master Plan established a key planning objective to provide for a
full and diverse range of housing opportunities for Somers residents, the housing
consequences of demographic change were not envisioned. Ever since, Somers has
experienced a continual increase in the number of seniors and in the percentage they
represent of the total population. The Plan must now address how housing options can be
provided for this large and growing age group.
1.
Demographic Change.
The number of elderly Americans has been growing
rapidly.6 In Somers, the number of residents age 65 and over has more than
tripled since 1970 while the total population has less than doubled. Between 1970
and 1980, residents age 65 and over increased 77 percent (from 814 to 1,439),
compared to an overall population rise of 40 percent. As a share of the total
population, this age group increased from 9 percent to 11 percent. Between 1980
and 1990, there was a 72 percent increase (from 1,439 to 2,472), compared to an
overall population increase of 23 percent. Between 1990 and 2000, there was a
further 42 percent increase (from 2,472 to 3,513) and an overall population
increase of 13 percent. The share of the total population comprised of seniors
increased to 19 percent. Meanwhile, the number of people under the age of 20 has
increased by 15 percent over the same period.
The prospect is for a continued maturation of the Town population. On a national
level, the fastest rate of growth of all age groups is in the very old category - those
age 85 and over. The major increase in the numbers of “young old” will occur
6
National data, housing descriptions and quotations in this section are from "Elderly Housing: A Guide to
Appraisal, Market Analysis, Development and Planning", Arthur E. Gimmey and Michael G. Boehm, American
Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Chicago.
VI.B-23
when the ‘baby boom’ generation begins to reach retirement after 2010. The 2000
U.S. Census found the number of Somers residents age 75 and over to have
increased by almost 600 percent since 1970, from 279 to 1,659.
One factor that makes the national trend more marked in Somers is the presence of
Heritage Hills, a large residential development containing approximately 2,800
condominium homes. When construction began in 1973, the sponsor required that
at least one member of each household have a minimum age of 40. Children
younger than 18 were not permitted as full-time residents. Although these age
restrictions at both ends of the spectrum are no longer applicable due to the
sponsor’s election not to qualify with Federal regulations, the basic nature of
Heritage Hills as an age-oriented adult community appears to be well-established.
Many residents of the 2,400 occupied units are ‘empty–nesters’ or surviving
spouses, not necessarily retired. The common facilities and activity programs
remain geared to adult residents.
2.
Senior Housing Alternatives. Heritage Hills is an example of housing at one end
of the range of housing options for seniors―a community of condominium-type
“independent homes” that require less individual upkeep than traditional singlefamily homes. Such communities often have extensive activity programs for an
active adult population but the high cost of the dwelling units and the high cost of
maintenance are substantial barriers to entry.
At the other end of the range are “skilled nursing facilities,” often termed nursing
homes. An example of this in Somers is the 300-bed Somers Manor.
Before the mid-1970s, there were few housing alternatives for seniors between
single-family homes/adult communities and nursing homes. If someone was not
capable of independent living and lacked either family members or paid assistants
VI.B-24
to provide them help in a private residence, a move to a nursing home was seen as
the only realistic housing option. However, many seniors faced with this choice
did not require the level of skilled nursing care provided in nursing homes. Nor
were skilled nursing facilities especially conducive to a productive life when only
limited assistance is required.
As the numbers of seniors desiring intermediate levels of assistance has grown and
the ability of other family members to provide help has decreased, the need and
market for non-nursing home housing alternatives has increased.
Non-profit
organizations, particularly churches, and housing developers have tried to
construct housing that more directly meets these needs.
As with any large
population group, however, the needs of seniors are diverse and change over time,
especially with advancing age as the ability to undertake daily functions declines.
The services offered in the new housing developments can be divided into those
usually associated with hotels, with social work and with hospitals.
Hotel-oriented services take care of routine tasks and normal upkeep such as
housekeeping, meal service, security and grounds maintenance.
Social work
services include transportation activity programming and counseling. Hospitaltype services include health counseling, nutrition programs, in-house health care
and nursing services.
“Congregate housing” is often used for hotel service oriented housing. These
facilities aim to aid a person's sense of independence and to avoid the expenses
that accompany health care functions. The physical structure is much like a hotel
with central halls, lobbies and dining rooms although each unit is a normal
apartment with full kitchen. The apartments may be either sold or rented on a
yearly lease basis, with rent at a rate double to triple standard apartment rents.
VI.B-25
The principal feature or attraction is often dining services; most operations require
inclusion of at least one meal a day in the basic maintenance fee or rent. Social
services such as transportation and activity programming are generally provided.
While there may be an on-site health center, it is usually not staffed by the facility
but instead made available to medical practitioners in the community as part of
making life more convenient for residents. Most congregate housing has been
targeted to upper income seniors.
“Assisted living” adds another category of services to the hotel-type services.
These can be defined as providing direct personal assistance in activities of daily
living. Example services include dressing, personal hygiene, eating and mobility none of which require skilled nursing care. The actual services provided are often
dependent on state regulatory policies. At a congregate housing facility, assisted
living home-care type services may be available on an as needed basis - with an
appropriate increase in rental charge - through a contractual or staff arrangement.
A certain percentage of the total apartments in a congregate housing development
may have special facilities for persons not fully capable of independent living,
often located in a separate wing of the complex.
“Life care” facilities offer a third type of senior housing program that combines
the full range of options at one site - independent living, hotel services, assisted
living services and skilled nursing care. These are also known as “continuum of
care” or “continuing care retirement” centers. Such comprehensive facilities have
been permitted in New York State only since January 1991, though over 600 exist
throughout the United States. The authors of Elderly Housing term these facilities
“a blend of real estate and medical insurance.” Usually residents are required to
pay a large entrance fee plus a monthly maintenance fee in exchange for assurance
that they can live in the facility permanently and receive health care when needed,
often at the same location. Some newer facilities offer the health care services on
VI.B-26
a fee-for-service basis or through contract with nearby hospitals and nursing
homes.
[NOTE TO MPC: Based upon prior MPC discussions, additional information
will be provided to describe “independent living” units. The Wynwood Oaks
project visited by some Town of Somers representatives will also be mentioned.]
3.
Plan Recommendations. With Heritage Hills and Somers Manor, Somers is well
represented by the two traditional ends of the range of senior housing options.
However, the Town offers no housing choice for seniors between these two ends
except to the extent that accessory apartments become far more prevalent.
Experience of new congregate housing developments for seniors has found that
the primary market area for residents is the surrounding community. Operators
report that people express a preference to remain in the same area where they or
younger family members currently live. As much as 80 percent of all congregate
housing residents move to those types of developments from within a ten-mile
radius. Even seniors who move far from home often return; one study found that
three out of ten elderly residents of northern states who move to Florida, return to
their home state before they die.
Somers has a substantial and growing senior (65+) population segment that will be
facing the need to evaluate alternatives to independent living.
Therefore,
consistent with the objective of this Plan to provide diverse housing options,
Somers should permit opportunities for the development of congregate housing
and other similar solutions on sites that relate to provision of necessary services,
including an adequate water supply, with a view to providing housing for the
elderly in a quantity that relates to the characteristics of Somers' population.
As congregate housing “apartments” are comparable to multi-family dwelling
units, the density of such developments should be similar to that permitted in the
VI.B-27
established multi-family (MFR-H) zoning district with the senior housing density
incentive.
Implementation must consider cost, the most critical element. Most congregate
housing and life care facilities developed by for-profit organizations (and even
many developed by non-profit groups) are oriented to the wealthier segments of
the elderly population. So as to expand the range of housing options for all
Somers' residents, regulations should require that a minimum percentage of units
in such developments meet the Town’s moderate income definitions as discussed
in this Plan.
With a mandatory inclusion provision, the maximum density
allowance can include the incentive density that is permitted as an option in the
MFR-H district.
Traditional Neighborhood Design
[NOTE TO MPC: A full discussion of this type of development will be included in the
next draft of this subsection. Because the concept of “TND” spans multiple land uses,
not just housing, it is recommended that the overall concept be discussed broadly the
first time it is mentioned in this document, and then more specifically as needed in
individual subsections. In this subsection, there would be an emphasis on housingrelated components. In other chapters of the proposed Comprehensive Master Plan
Update, this same topic would be discussed with a different emphasis.]
Cost of Housing
This Plan affirms the policy of the 1973 and 1994 Plans that Somers should provide
opportunities for housing across a range of cost, type and character. Since adoption of
the 1973 Plan, the Town government has taken several steps to implement this policy
including providing for accessory apartments, establishing multi-family residence zoning
districts, requiring that at least 10 percent of permitted multi-family dwelling units satisfy
the cost criteria for “affordable dwelling units” and establishing incentive bonus densities
for the construction of additional price-restricted units beyond the minimum number
required.
VI.B-28
However, even with these efforts, survey work performed in 1991 by the Affordable
Housing Sub-Committee of the Master Plan Advisory Committee found that the average
school district or town government employee, absent a second wage earner, is hard
pressed to find housing in Somers. Since that time, and despite the current zoning
incentives, no affordable housing units have as yet been constructed in the Town.
Based on an analysis of collected data and in recognition of recent trends in the housing
market, this Plan recommends that the Town take additional steps to encourage
development of affordable housing, targeting households whose annual gross household
income does not exceed 80 percent of the actual Westchester County median income, i.e.,
$50,900 ($63,582 * 0.08)7.
[NOTE TO MPC: Additional reference to the recently adopted “Somers Housing
Plan” will be inserted here as well as in the list below.]
In consideration of the Committee’s work and Master Plan objectives, this Plan
recommends the following steps be taken:
•
Continue to permit accessory apartments in all residential zoning districts
(as discussed above).
●
Expand current incentive density provisions in the MFR Multi-Family
Residence District regulations and limit the grant of bonus density to
projects that include low/moderate income dwelling units, senior citizen
dwelling units or rental units.
7
Source: Census 2000.
VI.B-29
•
Amend current percentage increase density bonus for low/moderate units so
as to remove the reduction in size of bonus when a high number of units are
designated as affordable.
•
Consider making inclusion of affordable housing mandatory across
multiple residential districts in the Town, not just as part of projects located
MFR district.
•
Establish a special permit provision to apply to conservation subdivision
developments whereby the lot count of a conventional single-family
subdivision layout may be converted to a density unit count. The density
units could then be reconfigured into more dwelling units if they have
fewer bedrooms; there would be no increase in total number of bedrooms.
The only requirement for this special permit should be that a minimum
percentage of the proposed units must be sold or rented and resold and rerented at restricted lower prices pegged to the affordable housing
definitions of the Zoning Ordinance. The review of the special permit
application must ensure that all environmental aspects are considered.
•
Establish zoning provisions to encourage the application of ‘traditional
neighborhood design’ principles, and apply such provisions to sites in the
Baldwin Place and Somers hamlets.
Recommended Development Pattern
The 1998 Town-wide residential rezoning initiative involved the rezoning of
approximately 47 percent of the land in Somers. In almost every situation, the Zoning
Map amendments involved rezoning to require a lower density of development. The
rezonings were undertaken, in large part, to bring the Town’s zoning policies into
conformance with the residential density recommendations of the Comprehensive Town
VI.B-30
Plan map adopted by the Planning Board in 1994 and involved the establishment of a
new R120 zoning district. The R120 District requires 120,000 square feet (2.75 acres) of
lot area per dwelling unit, and when combined with the environmentally sensitive land
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance effectively increases the minimum lot size to three to
four acres in most cases, consistent with the “Rural Density” recommendations of the
1994 Town Plan.
Future development in the Town requires continued planning efforts to achieve a balance
between the often competing objectives of providing a greater variety of housing types
and opportunities, preserving the Town’s natural environment, encouraging open space
preservation and improving the Town’s tax base. In order to achieve these goals, this
Plan recommends that the Town continue to pursue a development policy that clusters or
redistributes development on a Town-wide basis into hamlet centers and away from the
Town’s more environmentally sensitive rural areas, which do not have requisite
infrastructure.
This Town Plan and the Plan Map establish five recommended residential development
density ranges. These ranges are based on average gross density, inclusive of areas
devoted to road and utilities.
The categories are land use recommendations, not
recommendations for specific zoning district designations.
Rural Density
1 housing unit per 3 to 4 acres
Low Density
1 housing unit per 2 acres
Suburban Density
1 housing unit per acre
Moderately High Density
2 to 4 housing units per acre
Multi-Family Density
VI.B-31
Descriptions of the five categories follow:
•
Rural Density
1 housing unit per 3 to 4 acres
“Rural Density” lands are those areas that for reasons of physical development
limitations, land conservation use or separation from Town business areas and
hamlets are to remain of rural character. The visual appearance and physical
impacts of suburban sprawl are to be studiously avoided. This character can best
be assured with an average density of one house per three to four acres and
through thoughtful use of cluster development techniques.
•
Low Density
1 housing unit per 2 acres
“Low Density” lands provide a transition from the more rural sections of Somers
to more densely developed areas. They may also be characterized by moderate to
severe development limitations. Development lots must be capable of supporting
on-site individual water and septic systems.
Cluster development should be
considered when it will advance open space and housing objectives.
●
Suburban Density
1 housing unit per acre
“Suburban Density” lands are areas with an established suburban character. This
category includes large areas of existing development. New development at this
density range is suitable on land with no severe development limitations and with
the provision of central sewer and water systems.
●
Moderately High Density
“Moderately High Density” lands primarily recognize existing development. The
Heritage Hills designed residential development is within this density category.
Any new development would require connection to central water and sewer
systems.
VI.B-32
Multi-Family Density
●
“Multi-Family Density” lands are suitable where the criteria for such sites as
specified in this Plan Update are met. Areas shown on the Town Plan Map are
conceptual. Central water and sewer systems must be provided.
This Plan recommends that decisions concerning future residential development be based
on the consideration of the following:
• Relationship to hamlet and business centers;
• Physical and environmental characteristics and the land’s ability to support
development;
• The road system’s ability to support additional development;
• Availability of community facilities and water and sewer systems;
• The existing character of residential development in the area;
• The preservation of important cultural, historical, and archaeological features
within neighborhoods; and
•
The objective of diversifying the Town’s housing stock and, in particular,
providing for the current and future needs of ‘Seniors’ and ‘Workforce’ groups
with income restrictions.
[NOTE TO MPC: If there are other issues associated with “Residential Development,”
such as but not limited to residential building bulk and design issues, that the
Committee believes should be addressed as well in this subsection, those additional
topics should be identified. It is noted that further Committee discussion and decisionmaking is required to finalize policy recommendations on this topic.]
J:\DOCS2\200\Somers\Master Plan Update 2003\MPU Report - Interim Working Draft for Town Board Distribution\VI.B - Residential
Development - Draft #4.doc
VI.B-33

Residential Development

Transcription

Similar documents

A cross-cultural comparison of private residential

McNaughton`s Garden Center

POOTATUCK LAND COMPANY SHEET 6

Postcard - Where Entrepreneurship and Business Opportunties

17th CAPE TOWN Jazz-fest-2016-JHB

The W o rld`s Largest Fo od Fig ht

STEVEN SATER Music by DUNCAN SHEIK

Reston Town Center Milestones of the Development

KIDZTOWN NEWS_AUGUST 14th

Open living room