 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Land Use Department Plan of Development In Bethel, housing is by far the most prevalent land use. Most land has been developed for housing, and virtually all the remaining vacant and underutilized land will have housing constructed on it. Thus, the character of the town is shaped not only by discrete, localized land uses, such as the downtown and the businesses along Route 6, but by the overall impression created by the residential areas, made up of thousands of homes and their yards. The population analysis showed that Bethel is still gaining population, but at an ever-slower rate. This rate of increase is linked to - even controlled by - the housing supply. Since there is not significant out-flux of households leaving Bethel, the market must supply new housing for newcomers and in-place Bethelites who wish to move into another home. Absent significant zoning changes, new housing will conform to the existing patterns and the basic character of the town will remain. However, within the larger pattern of people and their homes, there are small changes which may and will happen. These include changes in density, such as conservation developments to preserve open space, changes in architectural style, such as a truer New England aesthetic, and changes in household types, such as non-nuclear and low-income families. According to the 1990 census, there are 6,399 housing units in the town. This covers all units, from houses to tents. This represents an increase of nearly 138% since 1960, and an increase of 18% just since 1980. (By comparison, the population grew only 10% in those same ten years, but household number grew 19%, virtually matching the increase in housing stock.) Within the ten-town region, Bethel ranks fifth in housing stock increase since 1960, Brookfield first and Bridgewater last. The town's housing stock is nearly three-quarters single family (4,741 units), with 1,268 two-to-nine unit structures, 271 apartment structures (ten units or more), and 119 units such as boats, tents, vans or mobile homes. About 26% of Bethel's housing stock (1,658 units) is thus multi-family, predominantly two-family structures. At the time of the census, 6,175 of the total 6,399 units were occupied. Of the occupied dwellings, 4,630 (75%) were owner-occupied and 1,545 units (25%) renter-occupied. The census reported a combined vacancy rate for both owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing of 3.5%. Based on phone calls with local realtors, it appears that the rental vacancy rate is probably lower, with great unsatisfied demand for rentals. Most rentals are advertised by word of mouth or in the newspaper. Realtors generally see the higher end of rentals; one reported 22 phone calls in one day for a rental and another four offers on a two-bedroom townhouse. Houses, condos, and apartments for rent are snapped up as soon as they come on the market. Federal vacancy guidelines state that a minimum acceptable vacancy rate for homeowner units is 2.5% and 5% for rental units. These rates allow the market to satisfy supply and demand: sufficient housing units are available at prices within a range affordable to local households. According to the 1992 Bethel Housing Partnership report to the state's Housing Partnership Plan (here referred to as the Partnership plan), the actual vacancy rates in Bethel were 3.05% for homeowner units and 2.2% for rentals. The homeowner vacancy rate is above the target rate and would indicate a functioning market. However, the rental vacancy rate is well below the target, indicating a situation where there are not sufficient rentals to satisfy demand and keep prices down. At the time of the 1990 census, only 69 units (1.1%) were vacant. This tight market is verified by the conversations with local realtors. The median gross rent (includes rent and an estimate of monthly fuel and utility costs if paid by renter) as reported in the 1990 census was $762. The largest proportion of renters (21.3%) pay between $750-$999. In the region, this is one of the lowest median rents, lying between New Fairfield, Redding, and Sherman, where the median is over $1,000, and Danbury's $693. However, the rise in Bethel has been striking: the 1990 median rent is 140% higher than the 1980 median rent. As a percent of income, over 50% of the renters in Bethel pay more than 25% of their income in rent. Based on conversations with realtors, sample rents include $800 to $1,000 for a two-bedroom condo, and $500 for a one-bedroom in the downtown area. One of the factors limiting the supply of rental apartments is the history of condo conversions; condominiums now number 10% of Bethel's housing stock. This is the same proportion as the region. Housing prices in 1990 had a median of $171,000 (this included single family houses, condominiums, and two- and three-family homes). Single family homes had a median sales price of $207,700, an increase of 149% over 1980. This sales price has continued to increase over the past six years according to local realtors. Sample prices (when asked for "an average") included condominiums selling in a range of $80,000 to one-half million, $180,000 to $200,000 for a three-bedroom raised ranch on one-half acre in Chimney Heights or a Cape Cod on one-quarter acre "in town, " and $215,000 to $230,000 for a four-bedroom house. A development in Chimney Heights is reportedly getting $150,000 for a one-acre unimproved lot and then $325,000 for a 2,000 square foot new house. According to the census, 40% of Bethel homeowners pay more than 25% of their household income in monthly housing costs. The change in housing prices over the past fifteen years is apparent from a comparison with the 1984 Plan of Development. The plan reported a 1980 average value for condominiums of $65,700 and an average for all other owner-occupied homes of $84,400. Average monthly rent was $277, with 61% of all apartments renting for between $200 and $399. Figure 10a: Housing Types Figure 10b: Housing Types 4.4 Households and Housing Use The pattern of housing use is changing in Bethel as in the region and the country. Owner-occupied households are larger than renter households, and yet these figures are dropping with each census. In 1990, the average owner household had 3.05 persons, a decrease from the 1980 3.3 persons. Renter households were 2.22 persons, also a decrease from 1980 when it was 2.3 persons. The numbers of one-person households, households with no children, single parent households, and unmarried couple households are rising. Between 1970 and 1980, the number of one-person Bethel households climbed 81%, and one-person and two-person households accounted for almost 42% of all housing unit occupancy in 1980. In 1990, single person households alone were 20% of all Bethel households, and single parent households were 12%. As mentioned above, the numbers of households in Bethel are growing with each census and the nature of these households is becoming more complicated. Increasingly, Bethel's housing stock must serve not only the traditional nuclear family of two parents and (fewer numbers of ) children, but must be adequate for the full range of Bethel household types. 4.5 Need for Lower Cost Housing Satisfying the Need for Lower Cost Housing: Bethel's Role The type of housing built in Bethel and the rising cost of these homes may affect the future demographic characteristics of the community. Housing affordability is most frequently examined in terms of the percentage of a household's income that must be spent on housing costs. Typically a unit is considered affordable where monthly costs are no greater than 30% of the household's gross monthly income. The number of households spending more than 30% is a key indicator of the lack of housing affordability in an area. For purposes of low-cost housing development, the Connecticut legislature has defined affordable housing need: persons or households qualify for affordable (i.e., subsidized) housing if their annual income is less than or equal to 80% of the area or state median income, whichever is lower. Bethel's median household income in 1990 was $53,761, and the state's was $41,721. Thus, using 80% of the state annual median income (AMI), Bethel households earning $33,377 or less qualify for affordable housing. The 1990 census found that 27% of the town's population earned $34,999 or less. In summary, around one-quarter of Bethel's population qualifies for affordable housing using the state formula. The next section below discusses how this finding can have an impact on Bethel, based on recent state affordable housing legislation. As the price of new construction increases, young couples who grew up in Bethel and would like to raise their families here, and elderly on fixed incomes who can no longer maintain a large home but want to remain in the town, may be priced out of Bethel. They will need to look elsewhere for housing. Also, as new construction prices increase, it becomes increasingly difficult for one wage earner families to purchase homes in Bethel. Two earner households of modest means will begin to have difficulty affording the type of large, single family, detached housing that comprises the majority of new homes. If most households consist of two wage earners, services that rely on volunteers, such as the fire department and emergency squad, may be affected since these households will no longer have the time to volunteer. Bethel can respond to these issues in a number of ways. The first, of course, is to do nothing: Bethel could rely on the region to provide lower cost housing for its households of modest means. However, within the Housatonic Valley planning region, there are only two other municipalities with lower median housing sales prices (Danbury and New Milford). There are not many better housing options within the region for Bethel households of modest means. Bethel needs to provide within its boundaries housing whose type and cost matches the income levels of its residents. Thus, the second response is to undertake a variety of measures which encourage the production of both lower cost housing and housing which is directly subsidized. Ownership housing types which are not necessarily subsidized but which can offer lower down payment and monthly carrying costs include two-family houses, townhouses, and small lot houses. Rental units include apartments in multi-family buildings and accessory units. These units can be encouraged through changes in the zoning code. These actions can be directly undertaken by the Planning and Zoning Commission. These actions have a long-term, incremental effect on the production of housing stock without involving the Planning and Zoning Commission in housing finance, subsidies, buyer or tenant selection, or other aspects of housing development better left to non-profit and for-profit housing providers. Housing can also be made affordable to moderate income households through a variety of subsidy programs. (Such subsidized, below-market-rate housing is now what is generally meant by the term affordable housing.) These programs are offered through local, state, and federal vehicles, and usually assist first time home buyers and elderly. Some of these programs are 1) below market rate mortgage programs through the Connecticut Housing Finance Agency (CHFA), 2) HUD Section 202 funding for elderly housing projects, 3) grants and low-interest loans from the state to local non-profit housing organizations, 4) tax abatements or reductions for elderly homeowners, 5) land contribution by a municipality to facilitate housing construction (funded through the town's capital budget), 6) housing site development grants from the state to homeowners for moderate income housing, and 7) state down payment assistance programs, providing low interest loans for down payments. In Bethel, there are (as of 1994) 249 assisted dwelling units, utilizing some of these programs: 36 family units, 124 elderly units, and 89 CHFA mortgage assistance units. Bethel has already two entities in place which either produce such subsidized housing or could do so to produce housing in the future: the Housing Authority and the Bethel Housing Partnership. Groups based outside Bethel, such as the Diocese of Bridgeport, could be invited to produce housing in the town. Private, for-profit developers are also capable of constructing subsidized housing, especially if there are incentives attached. These incentives are described further on. These recommendations do not require direct action by the Planning and Zoning Commission, other than amending the zoning, site plan, and subdivision texts to allow incentives for below-market-rate housing. The State's Role and Developer-Initiated Appeals Procedure Housing Before moving to a discussion of affordable housing recommendations, it is important to understand the more active role that the state of Connecticut has chosen for itself in resolving the issue of housing and income match. First, Connecticut requires its municipalities to examine their need for affordable housing. Second, the mandated municipal comprehensive plans must have an affordable housing component. Third, municipalities are now authorized to set up programs in which developers provide affordable housing for moderate income households in exchange for a density bonus. Fourth, a developer may seek a court appeal if a municipality rejects a mixed-income housing development proposal with 25% of all units made affordable. The burden of proof lies with the municipality to show that 10% or more of its total housing units are affordable. Using the state's definition of affordable housing, units may be counted towards this ten percent if they are public housing, rent subsidized housing, state funded mortgages, or deed restricted property. If the municipality cannot prove this, the developer has the right to build. This is called appeals process or appeals procedure housing. This possibility of developer initiated action is real for Bethel. While the town's quantity of affordable housing is second only to Danbury, it falls short of the ten percent mandate by about 406 units. (See Table 6.) The recommendations which follow will produce housing that qualifies under the state law, and housing which does not, but which would relieve some of the price pressure on the Bethel housing market. This would make it more likely that households could pay for shelter costs using no more than 30% of their income.
Bethel Housing Partnership Plan Bethel has had two studies demonstrating that there is unsatisfied housing need: both the 1984 Plan of Development and the 1992 Housing Partnership Plan discuss how the market is not providing housing choice and affordable purchase price or monthly rent to certain populations within town. These groups are primarily low and moderate income elderly and families, with some need expressed by the mentally ill, mentally retarded, and the mobility disabled. At the time of the 1984 plan, Bethel had 140 subsidized units for the elderly and needed 90 more. There were two subsidized housing projects for low and moderate income elderly, Augustana Homes (Bishop Curtis) and Reynolds Ridge. These have been joined by 44 units of congregate housing on the Bishop Curtis site and 40 units of independent living units at Reynolds Ridge. The current waiting list is 50 single persons and five couples. There are no plans to build additional subsidized housing. The one subsidized non-elderly housing resource in Bethel is Phineas Park, built in 1985. This project has 28 moderate cost rentals, built with Farmers Home Administration funding. The 1984 plan discussed the lack of low cost rentals and affordable homeowner dwellings. Then, as now, the rental market was under supplied with a median rent higher than could be afforded by town households living at or near poverty. Where home purchase became difficult for some families, these responded by overcrowding into units or doubling up, sharing a housing unit with non-relatives. Subsequent to this plan, the 1992 Housing Partnership plan found much the same situation. This plan reported that while "the median family income in Bethel rose by 106.5% between 1980 and 1990, the cost of housing rose between 69% and 148.7%....[O]nce a need primarily of families at the lowest end of the income scale, adequate and affordable housing is now a concern of moderate and middle income families and elderly persons as well." The 1990 median family income was $59,517; the Partnership plan reported that one-quarter of the town's population had incomes below 80% of the median and 36% of all family households were below the median. The Housing Partnership Plan recommended that 54 single-family homeowner units and 69 rental units be built or rehabilitated to increase the local housing stock to the level where the federal vacancy targets could be realized. About 226 housing units would be needed to satisfy the housing needs of local residents who are mobility disabled or have self-care limitations, five to eight units are needed for the mentally retarded who are able to live independently with some assistance, and between eight and twelve units are needed for the mentally ill, for a total of about 246 units. These latter three categories could be satisfied with rental housing. In summary, there is a need for:
Recommendations: There are a number of realistic recommendations which would meet these goals. Generally these are actions that can be undertaken by municipal governments to augment housing supply, without in most cases requiring actual public sector funding. While some of the recommendations can only be implemented by the town's Board of Selectmen or by a non-profit community development agency, others fall within the scope of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission cannot affect the housing demand part of the equation, as they cannot control the purchase or renting power of local households. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission can play a role in increasing Bethel's supply of lower cost housing. Such housing would include rental apartments and accessory buildings, and for-purchase homes within new housing developments.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
