Category: inclusionary zoning

More stick than carrot in Chapel Hill

I missed this when it happened, but last June, Chapel Hill adopted an ordinance requiring new development to include a small percentage of “affordable” units. Here’s what was reported in the Triangle Land Use Newsletter from the law firm K&L Gates:

“On June 21, 2010, the Town of Chapel Hill replaced its affordable housing “expectation” [which applied only for rezonings] with an ordinance requiring that nearly all development that includes a residential component set aside a part of the development for affordable housing. The new ordinance takes effect on March 1, 2011.

“The new ordinance is a type of ‘inclusionary zoning’ ordinance, and applies to any new development, renovation, reconstruction, or change in use that results in five or more new dwelling units. The ordinance requires developers to set aside 10 to 15% of the new homes for affordable housing. In return, developers will be offered a bonus to allowed density or floor area for providing the required units and a waiver of some development fees.”

The newsletter notes that a recent N.C. Court of Appeals ruling on Union County’s adequate public facilities ordinance leaves the issue of a mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance “unsettled.”

Why bother with inclusionary zoning? Advocates, such as Charlotte’s Mixed-Income Housing Coalition, say it helps spread affordable housing throughout the community, instead of having it all clustered in some parts of town. Or, more to the point, it means the few affluent neighborhoods that don’t have any affordable housing would get a few units.

Opponents say it just raises the cost of all the other housing units. But Davidson officials report that it seems to have worked well there. (Back when developers were building housing, that is.)

No ‘Age of Aquarius’ at planning department

Best line in the agenda for tonight’s City Council zoning meeting, which is a rezoning meeting and the agenda is put together by the city’s planning department. Under item No. 6, regarding zoning petition 2oo9-067:
“The Zoning Committee voted 4-1 to recommend DENIAL of this petition. The following outstanding issues have been addressed: (and then a long list of things such as setbacks, parking counts and buffers)
“14. Astrological Services has been deleted as a permitted use”

Update: I asked Tammie Keplinger of the planning department. Her reply:
“The Zoning Administrator has indicated that astrological services are office uses. It doesn’t need to be specifically listed on the site plan because it would be an allowed use in the O-1(CD) district.”

No word yet about fortune tellers or palm readers, but one could assume they, too, are office uses.

I’ll be at the meeting, “Tweeting” at @marynewsom. Here’s link to the agenda.

Got vacancies? Try artists

It’s a continuing problem in Charlotte: Neighborhood gentrification (e.g. NoDa), combined with relentless and wasteful demolition of old buildings shrinks the spaces for artists, even while the city’s arts community is trying to grow. And while the role of the arts in redeveloping ailing neighborhoods gets much lip service, the city and its major NGOs (non-governmental organizations, for the non-wonks reading) haven’t succeeded in doing much to help provide housing.

Here’s a piece about a program run through the Boston Redevelopment Authority, that uses the affordable-housing requirement for large projects (and note that it’s a REQUIREMENT) as well other city-offered incentives. (Interesting factoid: The BRA director is John Palmieri, who from 2002 to 2004 was the City of Charlotte’s director of economic development.)

Note this line in the linked-to piece above: “Boston already requires that at least 15 percent of units in large new residential buildings be priced based on income limits.”

Hmmm. The recently released “Housing Charlotte 2007 Implementation Committee” had a subcommittee to look at that kind of idea, called “inclusionary zoning,” but the name of the subcommittee was “Incentive-Based Inclusionary Housing Policies.” A mole on the committee tells me anytime anyone mentioned anything about “mandatory” they were reprimanded and told the recommendation would be for only “incentive-based” techniques (i.e. voluntary).