Nederland’s Planning Commission met on Thursday, October 19, 2023, at 6 p.m. for a work session to discuss potential changes to Town code concerning which alternative and “affordable” housing types, from triplexes to tiny homes, should be allowed use by right, or be subject to a special review use (SRU) process; and in what zones, via the Use Group Table.

The Town of Nederland and third-party consulting firm Bohannan Huston Inc. (BHI) conducted a Housing Needs Assessment as a prerequisite for the Housing Planning Program Grant in order to be eligible for the Housing Development Incentive Grant Program. Completion of the program provides Nederland with access to funding for “affordable” housing projects.

BHI and the Housing Needs Assessment’s references to “affordable” housing were determined by the Planning Commission to mean housing for those earning the Area Median Income (AMI). Commissioner Michael Dye has specified that “affordable” should only be used to describe subsidized housing.

In addition to the completion of the Housing Needs Assessment, the other prerequisite to complete the grant program is making significant changes to Town zoning code regarding AMI or alternative housing. The Town has until January, 2024, to complete this prerequisite.

On September 27, the Commission discussed four potential code changes suggested from the results of the Housing Needs Assessment. Commissioners agreed on two of those changes: allowing for the development of ADUs before the primary structure is built; and giving Town staff the power to initiate an administrative variance for up to a 15% deviation for all yard and bulk requirements.

Discussions went long on the other two suggested code changes: developing a new Use Group Table listing in which zones alternative housing is permitted use by right, completely prohibited, or must go through an SRU process with the Planning Commission; and allowing for up to a 50% yard and bulk variance for deed-restricted AMI housing.

At the end of that September meeting it was determined that Commissioners would require a scheduled work session in order to give such considerations the adequate amount of analysis and discussion.

The Planning Commission, along with Board of Trustees (BOT) liaison to the Commission Mayor Pro Tem Tom Mahowald and Trustee Nichole Sterling, were present for the work session, which was led by Town Administrator Miranda Fisher and Community Planner Britt DeMinck.

Fisher intended to spend the majority of the two-hour work session to focus on how the Use Group Table, which is dictated by Chapter 16 of Nederland Municipal Code (NMC), could be properly amended to include new housing types, and how to promote those housing types across several different zoning classifications.

According to the results of the Housing Needs Assessment, the town is short 110 housing units, roughly 60 rental units and 50 owned.

Commissioners briefly discussed focusing on housing priced for those earning 80% AMI (roughly a two-person income of $72,000 a year), instead of 100% AMI ($100,400), which is the current baseline for housing development considerations.

During previous discussions, representatives of BHI warned that constructing housing for 80% AMI earners is not practical for developers due to demand and the cost of materials.

The Commission agreed to remove restrictions from mixed-use housing, which currently specifies that at least 30% of the property be structured for commercial use. They also decided that mixed-use should only be allowed in the “downtown corridor,” meaning 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Streets, East Street, and Snyder Street; and should require an SRU in High Density Residential (HDR) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts.

The discussion moved to duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, which are defined as one building containing two, three, and four single-family units. These building types are differentiated from multi-family units, which are restricted use by right in all zones, but permitted via SRU in most. Fisher recommended separating plexes from multi-family units to present more specific language to potential developers.

Commissioner Roger Cornell wished to omit language on duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, and instead allow only for multiple accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within the main structure on the property. ADUs differ from plexes in that typically the property owner resides in a main structure, and that those property owners are not required to equip ADUs with full kitchenettes or separated utilities.

“I think we need to be very, very careful of even discussing it,” Cornell said in regards to allowing plexes in Mountain Residential (MR) zoning, stating that he felt it was unfair to residents who have “worked their whole lives” to buy a home in the Big Springs subdivision to ask them to live next to a triplex or fourplex.

Commissioners and Trustee Sterling discussed that, without proper code language, unsanctioned “hostels” might be able to operate out of Big Springs properties.

“I promise you that’s already happening,” commented Commissioner Jim Reis, a resident of Big Springs. He explained that a hostel was being run in his neighborhood. “The owner lives in Seattle and there’s anywhere from 8 to 10 people staying there at different times throughout the year,” Reis continued.

“Formalizing this and saying ‘yes, we’re going to make it allowable for you to divide your housing units and put in an actual kitchenette instead of just a hot plate and a microwave to meet code,’ I think would be a great way to increase the housing units available within town,” Reis said.

Duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes were allowed use by right in all zones except Central Business District (CBD), General Commercial (GC), and Industrial. They were permitted via SRU in Public zones.

Fisher and the Commission agreed to narrow the listing of alternative housing from tiny homes, micro homes, and small homes to only tiny homes. Tiny home villages were defined as three or more dwelling units, with a permanent foundation, ranging from 100 to 800 square feet each, that still adhere to yard and bulk and setback requirements. Tiny homes are expected to be available to rent and to own.

A member of the public questioned the difference between a tiny home village and a trailer park, to which Fisher reiterated that tiny homes must meet yard and bulk requirements, unlike a trailer park. The question was then asked as to the difference between a tiny home village and a triplex, to which Fisher answered that plexes, by definition, have shared walls.

The conversation then became centered on whether a tiny home village in Big Springs is prohibited in any way from becoming like a trailer lot.

“It’s a slippery slope to a slum,” Cornell responded to that concern.

Though Fisher specified that tiny homes, by definition, are stationary structures with a foundation and are not “mobile in nature,” Cornell was against the prospect of tiny home villages being allowed use by right in MR and instead wanted to permit only ADUs, which, unlike tiny homes, do not create housing to own, but rather only to rent.

Tiny home villages were permitted by SRU in all zones except CBD, GC, and Industrial.

Commissioners agreed to permit apartment complexes by SRU in all zones, including GC. No restrictions were lifted on mobile homes, despite there being statewide initiatives for them as a result of their affordability. Mobile homes are not allowed use by right in any zone and only permitted by SRU in HDR.

Courtyard apartments and townhomes were removed completely from the Use Group Table. ADUs were allowed use by right in all zones except CBD, GC, Industrial, and Public. Nursing homes and retirement homes were allowed via SRU across all zones except CBD, GC, Industrial, and Public.

After the Commission concluded their discussion on the Use Group Table, they began discussing the fourth suggested code change, which involved allowing for up to a 50% yard and bulk variance, minus height and 15% lot coverage, for deed restricted AMI housing.

Fisher recommended that the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) would preside over decisions regarding variance requests, that they would be required to meet for a hearing within 30 days of the request, and at no charge to the property owner.

The defined criteria for the BZA to follow states “that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property; and that the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief.”

Members of the public present during the work session felt that the language was too vague and therefore leaving such authority to the BZA gave the organization too much power.

Fisher offered Commissioners additional considerations for when the BZA assesses how a development might affect the character of a neighborhood, including the physical aspect and infrastructure capacity of the neighborhood; the impact on the parks, recreation, and open space uses within; and future development opportunities in the neighborhood.

While the aim of the work session, in conjunction with the aim of the Housing Needs Assessment, was to ease restrictions on alternative and AMI housing, some Commissioners felt that concessions should be made for certain zoning districts, while other zones should shoulder the compromises that need to made if Nederland is to create 110 housing units.

Sterling voiced her approval of the Town taking great strides to ease restrictions, including allowing SRU for all housing types across all zoning districts. She also approved requiring developers to either provide a percentage of subsidized or attainable housing in their proposed developments or to pay a fee towards a housing fund.

The Planning Commission will continue their discussion of these changes to NMC, as well as vote on ADUs and administrative variance ordinances, during their meeting on Wednesday, October 25, which will be covered in the November 2 edition of The Mountain-Ear.