Land use, housing studied at special town meeting

SALISBURY — At a special town meeting Nov. 9, Salisbury voters approved three ordinances establishing an affordable housing commission and providing funds to run it, and defeated an ordinance giving the Planning and Zoning Commission the power to levy fines for zoning violations.

On the establishment of the new housing commission, Selectman Jim Dresser, who represented the Board of Selectmen on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, said that as a result of suggestions made during an informational meeting the number of members for the new commission would be seven rather than five, and that the selectmen would appoint the chairman and vice chairman for the first year. The commission would elect its own leadership after that.

Meeting moderator Len Stewart kicked off the discussion by expressing his concern that the ordinance establishing the commission does not define what exactly is meant by “low and moderate income� and doesn’t define “affordable housing.� He also wondered if public funds would wind up with private developers.

He urged the new commission to develop guidelines for reviewing expenditures, especially before using public funds to assist private entities.

He also wondered if the commission would have to hire someone to write grant applications, and if so how much that would cost now and in the future.

Dresser replied that the definitions of both what constitutes affordable housing and who such housing is for vary significantly, depending on whether or not state or federal agencies are involved, and added that the June 2010 Affordable Housing Advisory Committee report defines several categories of affordable housing and potential consumers of such housing.

He also said that the new commission has no spending authority; it may make recommendations to the selectmen, and if the cost is over $20,000 then the matter must go to the Board of Finance and to town meeting.

“There are plenty of checks and balances,� he said.

As to the question of public versus private, he said, “I just don’t think that’s a useful distinction,� and gave an example of an environmental study, needed as part of the preliminary work on some form of affordable housing, that cost $5,000.

“That money would go to a private contractor� to conduct the study.

If a situation arose where there was a question about whether the commission (and by extension the town) should actually put money into construction, the question would have to be approved by town meeting.

Dresser also said the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee report recommended the new commission have part-time help; the selectmen included a $25,000 line in the current budget for that purpose.

The discussion continued, getting more technical, and First Selectman Curtis Rand jumped in. “Let’s not lose sight of the goal: to keep Salisbury diverse, and keep pushing back against the financial presssures hitting young people and working people. We could talk about the semantics all day.�

Jon Higgins from Planning and Zoning said, “I’ll echo that. It seems we’re talking about everything except what the vote is about.

“The Planning and Zoning Commission supports it. This should be simple.�

George Massey said he had faith that the selectmen and the new commission would spend town money appropriately.

“And if they don’t they won’t get any funding next year.�

Kathy Lauretano disagreed, saying residents are “already under a big burden� with major projects such as the new firehouse and transfer station.

“I question whether we need  another layerâ€� of entities devoted to affordable housing, especially when Salisbury has three private organizations working on it already: Habitat for Humanity, the Salisbury Housing Committee (Sarum Village and Faith House) and the Salisbury Housing Trust (most recent example, the duplex on Indian Cave Road).

Mark Gomez sided with Lauretano, saying, “I take issue with  ‘let’s get it done and work out the details later.’â€�

Carl Williams, speaking for the Housing Trust, said, “We look forward to any help we can get,� and Geoff Rossano, a member of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, said, “I think there’s a real danger of trying to write regulations before the commission is established� and compared it to setting up a planning and zoning commission and writing a zoning code at the same time.

“It seems to me we’re tying ourselves in knots before we get started.�

Eventually a vote was taken by paper ballot, and  the ordinance establishing a town affordable housing commission passed by a vote of 60 to 19.

Affordable housing fund

The second of the three related ordinances, one establishing an affordable housing fund, passed 62 to 28 without a lot of fuss.

But the third ordinance, which transferred $50,000 from the town’s land capital fund to the affordable housing fund was the focus of more debate.

Rand explained that the land capital fund has about $288,000 in it — $140,000 is set aside as a financial backstop for the Salisbury Winter Sports Association’s project of rebuilding the ski jump in time for this winter’s Junior Olympics.

Rand said the fund has been used for a variety of things, most recently renovating the upstairs portion of the new firehouse building for commercial rental.

Williams added that the Board of Finance had unanimously approved the transfer.

Lauretano asked what exactly the money would be used for, and wondered if, as an alternative, the land capital fund could be used to acquire land for affordable housing.

Rand and Dresser both replied that the use of the money would most likely be to assist developers of any stripe with things such as engineering studies and other start-up costs.

“Anyone can come to the commission and request money,� said Dresser, adding it will be up to the commission to evaluate the requests and make recommendations to the selectmen.

And in response to a question about whether the $50,000 for the commission would become a regular line item in the town’s budget, Williams said it would be subjct to the same review as any other line item.

The third of the housing-related ordinances passed by a vote of 59 to 22.

Planning and Zoning fines

Finally, the town meeting considered an ordinance giving the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) the power to fine those found to be in violation of zoning regulations. P&Z Chairman Cristin Rich said fines were seen by the commission “as a last resort, but currently we don’t have anything to push enforcement.�

She said any fining would have to be done during a public meeting and said the practice was common in other parts of the state, although not in the immediate area.

Higgins said the commission’s concept is “simple.�

“Here are our regulations, you have X amount of days to comply, or there’s some kind of penalty.�

Massey asked if the commission had the discretion to assess fines lower than the stated $150 per day, or to suspend the fines if a person was making a good faith effort to comply.

Rich replied in the affirmative.

Mike Flint voiced several concerns, among them who would enforce the fines and conduct hearings.

He warned that the entire thing could wind up causing more legal problems than it solves, and said, “Planning and Zoning should follow the Poland Report and get the holes out of zoning� before it starts fining people.

(The Poland Report refers to a December 2009 study of Salisbury’s land use regulations and procedures by consultant Donald Poland, a lengthy and dense document that identifies several deficiencies in the town’s land use system.)

Questions were pointed, asking how often cases came up in the past that might have been resolved by the threat of fines. Rich said she only knew of one, and Higgins said the commission was not asking for the fining authority based on history but on trying to avoid sticky and costly legal situations in the future.

In the end the P&Z representatives did not persuade enough voters, and the ordinance failed, 42 to 38.