Minutes 12-09-21 AHAC CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
State Housing Initiatives Partnership program (SH|P)
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAQ
Housing Incentives Workshop#2
�
December 9, 2O21, 9:OOarn
Zoom Meeting
In attendance: Christina Ronoe|us, Kevin Fischer, Ketunah]oseph, Ronnie Hoggins, Sari Vastke,
Kerry Clinton, Stephanie Hayden-4deyenoo, Davey Morris
Staff in attendance: RJ Ramirez, Community Involvement Manager and Michael Rumpf,
Planning and Zoning, Mara Frederiksen, Finance Director, Catherine Cherry, City Clerk's Office,
Adam Temple, Development Director, Chris Mitchell, Community Improvement, Corinne Elliott,
Deputy Finance Director
LWelcome and Introduction
RJ Ramirez, Community Improvement Manager, confirmed meeting attendance as members
logged on to Zoom. The Board members and City staff introduced themselves.
||' Discussion ofIncentives and Recommendations
Michael Chaney,Technical Advisor, Florida Housing Coalition introduced himself and noted heis
there to review the final six (6) incentives and to review the report that the committee has been
asked toproduce.
Mr. Chaney provided background on the Florida Housing Coalition. They are a non-profit
organization who work directly with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
Mr. Chaney reviewed the concept ofregulatory reform. He shared the AHAC isdesigned to help
the local government consider how its local policies, rules, and regulations affect the cost of
housing development and in turn, housing affordability, and how the local government can
improve its policies toencourage affordable housing.
Mr. Chaney asked City staff ifthere isadate set for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Ramirez responded no date has been set but he will send a meeting invite to the Committee
members after the report isdrafted.
Mr. Chaney reviewed the remaining (6) incentive strategies:
1' All Allowable Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing
a. All allowable fee waivers provided for the development or construction of
affordable housing
1
b. Fees to consider for waiver or reduction:
i. Impact fees
ii. Permitting fees
iii. Inspection fees
iv. Site plan review
v. Rezoning or other hearing fees
vi. Engineering fees
c. Creative Fee Options
i. Fee Deferment— must be repaid at some point
ii. Fee Waiver
1. F.S. 163.31801 — local governments can waive impact fees for
affordable housing without using any revenues to offset the impact
iii. Fee Modification—adjust for smaller or lower cost units
1. Impact fees collected on square footage basis facilitate small unit
development
2. Fees collected on a per unit basis are regressive and
disproportionately harm smaller units
iv. Alternative sources for payment for fees
Mr. Chaney shared fee flexibility examples from Polk County, Collier County, Orange County, and
Daytona Beach.
Mr. Chaney asked the staff to share information on fee waivers within the City.
Mr. Rumpf said the only official fee exemption in the City is the Art in Public Places fee. All other
fees apply. The City has not budgeted to cover fee waivers. He stated they are waiting on the
County's Affordable Housing Plan and are awaiting the results of the Housing Needs Analysis with
recommendations.
Chair Joseph expressed her dissatisfaction with the high fees and stated assistance is needed.
She shared that approximately $17,000-$24,000 in fees were paid for a single-family affordable
home that she was involved in building. She recognized the current higher cost of construction.
She suggested the City can look at the fees on a line-by-line basis and consider partial or full fee
waiver.
Mr. Chaney asked the Committee for any recommendations on this incentive.
Mr. Rumpf said the City is in the process of developing a Traffic Impact fee system and looking at
revised fees for small lot development.
Discussion ensued about the fees collected for the County and which fees that are retained by
the City which could be looked at for partial or full waiver.
2
Dr. Hayden-Adeyemo recommended fees should be reduced by not waived completely. She
asked if there can be a sliding scale based on the valuation of the property.
Mr. Temple said the fees are complicated and highly regulated by the State.
Vice-Chair Fischer asked about deferred fees and any benefits.
ChairJoseph said one benefit would be having capital accessible to pay those deferred fees once
the house is sold.
Mr. Temple noted he would be interested in seeing how other municipalities are addressing this
issue.
Mr. Chaney responded the AHAC Guidebook is a resource to learn more about what other
municipalities are doing across the State.
Mr. Ramirez confirmed the Committee recommendation is to develop a sliding scale for
affordable housing fees or to look at partial waivers.
2. Flexibility in Density
a. The allowance of flexibility in densities for affordable housing
b. Building more housing on a given plot of land
c. Increase density offers more economic value
d. Consider the length of time that units must main affordability
e. Offer density bonus in targeted area(s) or for any selected parcel of land
f. Bonuses work best where developers cannot get as much land as they need
g. Predictable standards may attract more private sector development
Mr. Chaney reviewed an example of one (1) estate lot vs. five (5) inclusionary lots on % acre.
He reviewed Boynton Beach's current density bonus incentive strategy and potential
recommendation for language changes.
Mr. Chaney asked City staff to comment on the City's current density bonus incentive strategy.
Mr. Rumpf discussed the workforce housing ordinance and incentive strategy. He does not
believe it includes floor area rations (FAR) currently. He noted there are projects in the pipeline
that have expressed interested in utilizing the City's density bonus.
Discussion ensued about payment in lieu of and the City's density bonus program.
Chair Joseph stated there are real problems within the City about affordable housing. She noted
the density bonus incentives cannot only be for workforce housing.
3
Mr. Ramirez confirmed the Committee recommendation the density bonus should be part of the
affordable housing process and not just for workforce housing.
Vice-Chair Fischer asked if a mandatory program has ever been considered.
Mr. Rumpf answered they considered it during the time they were drafting the ordinance.
Mr. Chaney suggested the recommendation should be considered outside the eleven (11)
strategies and the term would be "inclusionary housing."
Dr. Hayden-Adeyemo suggested using the term "generational housing/units" instead of
"inclusionary housing."
Dr. Hayden-Adeyemo asked if property on MLK Jr. Boulevard, east of Seacrest, changed to
commercial zoning.
Mr. Rumpf responded no and that it is still residential.
Discussion ensued about the Wells Landing project.
Based on Mr. Chaney's suggestion, Chair Joseph recommended removing the ongoing process
sentence in the City's density bonus strategy.
3. Reservation of Infrastructure
a. The reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very-low-income
persons, low-income persons, and moderate-income persons
b. Some parts of Florida so not have enough water,sewer capacity, or transportation
concurrency for all potential development
i. A developer may build a house and find difficulty connecting to water and
sewer hook ups
Mr. Chaney asked City staff if they have discussed this strategy.
Mr. Rumpf shared he does not recall this ever being discussed as a strategy for affordable
housing.
Mr. Ramirez confirmed he reached out to City staff to provide information in Utilities.
Mr. Temple stated he and Mr. Ramirez will reach out the new Utility Director following the
meeting.
Dr. Hayden-Adeyemo believes the City does need to have a reservation of infrastructure. She
suggested walkways for areas and communities that do not have access to public transportation.
4
Discussion ensued about water and sewer replacement efforts and flooding challenges within
the City.
Dr. Hayden-Adeyemo suggested there are certain communities that are excluded from flooding
mitigation. She asked Mr. Ramirez when the Committee would be able to receive additional
information regarding utility plans before the report is due.
Mr. Ramirez noted their timeline for the report is tight so he will distribute the copy of the plan
as soon as possible.
Mr. Chaney stated the 2021 report is due by December 31, but the Committee will continue to
meet to create the 2022 report.
Dr. Hayden-Adeyemo expressed dissatisfaction and noted they cannot make appropriate
recommendations without important information, data, and timelines.
4. The Allowance of Affordable Accessory Residential Units
a. An Accessary Dwelling Unit (ADU) is an ancillary or secondary living unit, that has
a separate kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area, existing within the same
structure, or on the same lot, as the primary dwelling (Ex. Granny flats, mother-
in-law suites, backyard apartments, accessory apartments, garage apartments)
b. The Florida Legislature recognizes ADUs as a tool to help local communities
address deficits in the supply of affordable rental housing for very-low, low, or
moderate-income residents
c. A smart growth tool for infill development to provide an affordable rental option
and provide the homeowner with additional income
Mr. Chaney reviewed the Land Use Codes and ADUs:
• ADUs should be allowed in all single-family zoning districts as of right
• Local governments should enact ADU ordinances to allow accessory dwelling units to be
rented free on the market
• Local governments should design various structural requirements(setbacks, parking,etc.)
to facilitate ADU development
• May not need to regulate ADUs for affordability — they are NOAH (naturally occurring
affordable housing)
• The goal is to allow the most possible lots/homeowners to construct lawful ADUs
Mr. Rumpf said an ordinance is moving forward to the City Commission in the beginning of
January.
Dr. Hayden-Adeyemo noted she can see the benefits of ADUs but also expressed trepidation
about regulating them.
Chair Joseph supports this strategy if the ADUs are built to Code.
5
S. Reduction of Parking and Setback Requirements
a. The reduction of parking and setback requirements for affordable housing
b. Some housing may benefit from a reduction in the required number of parking
spaces required by the land use code
c. Lower development costs (for parking) and ensure that more buildable land is
available for housing development
Mr. Chaney shared the Boynton Beach Policy regarding parking.
Vice-Chair Fischer asked if a reduced setback or parking is put in place and the project is not in
perpetuity, are those reductions grandfathered in.
Mr. Rumpf responded yes and noted the conditions would be created later and it would be a
non-conforming circumstance.
Dr. Hayden-Adeyemo expressed concern about enough space for two-car spacing, setbacks, and
sidewalk.
Discussion ensued about non-conforming lots.
S. The Allowance of Flexible Lot Configurations
a. The allowance of flexible lot configurations, including zero-lot-line configurations
for affordable housing
b. Zero-lot-line is two neighboring houses back-to-back, with a common wall
between
c. Allow smaller setbacks to offer more freedom arranging a single home or multiple
units on a lot
d. Ideal tool for facilitating "missing middle" housing types and infill development
Vice-Chair Fischer noted new development needs to conform with the design, capability, and
character of the existing neighborhood.
Discussion ensued about zero-lot-line within the City.
Chair Joseph recommended City officials consider allowing for new development and
configurations while also maintaining the "fabric" and character of neighborhoods.
Mr. Ramirez thanked Mr. Chaney and the Committee members. He noted he will share a draft of
the report to the Committee for their review, feedback, and recommendations.
III. Public Audience
None.
6
IV. Next Meeting
Mr. Chaney stated there are no more meetings and the next one will be the Public Hearing to
review the AHAC Report, which needs to be scheduled. He noted if the final report is not
submitted by December 31, Boynton Beach will be out of compliance with SHIP and the City will
not receive any additional funding during that time.
Mr. Ramirez noted the Public Hearing meeting will occur in person.
Chair Joseph recommended scheduling the Public Hearing now to force a Committee deadline to
provide feedback.
Vice-Chair Fischer noted all comments and recommendations should be sent directly to City staff
and not to each other, to ensure they follow the Sunshine Law.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Chair Joseph at 11:38 a.m.
[Minutes prepared by T. Baclawski, Prototype, Inc.]
7