Alachua County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Alachua County Growth Management Department
111 S.W. 1st Street, Room 6
Gainesville, FL 32601
Meeting Minutes
Members present: Darlene Pifalo; Don Davis; Gail Monahan; John Brunner; Juanita Biles; Michael Conroy; Patricia Lee; Robert Stroh; Shaun Wasdo; Tim Flanagan.
Others present: Chris Dawson, Development Services Planner with Alachua County Growth Management Department; Elizabeth Nicks (for Carl Salafrio); Mark Ludlow, services provider to the committee.
The meeting began at 5:05 P.M.
Approve Agenda & Chair’s Comments
Shaun Wasdo (Chair) noted that the current meeting would be a forum for the committee to continue bringing about positive change through affordable housing incentives recommendations.
Old Business
The minutes of the Tuesday, September 23, 2008 joint City/County AHAC meeting and Wednesday, September 24, 2008 regular AHAC meeting were approved.
Follow-up on Issues from Wednesday, September 24, 2008 Meeting
Chris Dawson answered questions raised by members during the September 24 AHAC meeting concerning Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), modification of landscaping requirements, and transfer of development rights programs. After noting that the County’s land development regulations did not allow ADUs until the most recent Comprehensive Plan revision, Mr. Dawson explained that the rationale for allowing ADUs only on existing homesteaded lots was most likely to prevent the construction of numerous multifamily dwellings in single-family neighborhoods. The County Comprehensive Plan allows ADUs in Estate, Low-, and Medium-density residential areas on homesteaded lots; such ADUs, on homesteaded lots in existing developments, do not count as additional density. For nonhomesteaded lots in new developments, ADUs are not exempted from gross densities; they contribute to the total density allowed for each lot or parcel. Few, if any, ADUs have been built in Alachua County on either homesteaded lots or on nonhomesteaded lots.
Mr. Dawson discussed modification of landscaping requirements, remarking that streets that are safe for all modes of transportation and that are also attractive are the goals for revisions to the County’s Corridor Design Manual. Increased minimum tree spacing and the timing of tree placement in the rights-of-way are possible revisions. Currently, right-of-way trees are planted when infrastructure and roads are built. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend that trees not be required to be in place until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Such a change in the timing of tree placement will keep trees from getting in the way of construction and will allow homeowners to keep trees alive. Mr. Dawson then described the Planned Development-Transfer of Development Rights (PD-TDR) and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs implemented by the County’s land development regulations. The two programs enable, with some differences, the transfer of the rights to build housing units (density) between parcels. An application of the County’s two TDR programs is their use for satisfying open space requirements of commercial developments. Statewide and in Alachua County, transfer of development rights programs are not heavily utilized; within Alachua County, allowable densities are not yet fully realized.
Affordable Housing Incentives and Issues Recommendations
Relating to a motion made at the September 24, 2008 meeting, a motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend that any loss in permit fee revenue resulting in the recommended reduced permit fee amount for green building be compensated for with General Revenue funds. Before the committee began further discussion of affordable housing issues, Mr. Ludlow stated that he had applied for the position of Housing Programs Coordinator with the County. With that disclosure, the committee returned to the subject of ADUs; a motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend that new construction not be penalized with density requirements when ADUs are proposed. The motion’s intent is that ADUs on nonhomesteaded lots in new developments not count towards gross density limits. The committee then considered the issue of locally-owned public lands and how best to obtain tax delinquent or foreclosed property for use as affordable housing. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend that for properties of a certain category for which taxes are owed to the County that the County do not issue or sell tax certificates but hold the certificates and seek clear title so that the tax certificates may be sold and the property designated solely for affordable housing. Achieving clear title will be accomplished with the help of the County Attorney’s office. A motion was also made, seconded, and passed to recommend that impact fees not be assessed for homes that are torn down and replaced with an equivalent-sized home, if the home will be a homesteaded property.
The discussion turned to the issue of improved communication and advertising for Alachua County’s affordable housing and impact fee programs. Following up on members’ suggestions from earlier meetings, Mark Ludlow indicated that information on upcoming changes in the County’s SHIP program may be placed in the Builder’s Association and GACAR newsletters and that brochures may be placed at the Alachua County Housing Authority. Regarding the issue of improved coordination between the City of Gainesville’s and Alachua County’s SHIP programs, a motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend that the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, and Neighborhood Housing Development Corporation accept each other’s Homebuyer Education Certificates so that there is seamless coordination among entities qualifying affordable housing applicants for participation in the SHIP program and to discuss the recommendation at the next joint City/County AHAC meeting.
The committee briefly considered the possibility of raising the County’s SHIP program qualifying upper income limit to 140% of AMI for essential services personnel; Mr. Ludlow noted that there were conflicting interpretations of the statute as to whether or not the County could raise the limit to 140%. The motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend that if it is legal to do so, the County should raise the SHIP program qualifying upper income limit to 140% for essential services personnel. A motion was also made, seconded, and passed to recommend that contingent upon lender approval of a loan that is within the SHIP program criteria for loan ratios, the lower qualifying SHIP program income limits for applicants should be waived. Finally, a motion was made, seconded, and passed to recommend that houses considered for purchase with the use of SHIP funds be pre-certified according to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) inspection criteria. The intent of the motion is to, as much as possible, hinder the sale of housing that is extremely dilapidated and will require substantial amounts of rehabilitation within several years of purchase.
New Business
No announcements were made concerning new business.
The meeting ended at 6:50 P.M.