YORK - The issue of how to address the town's need for affordable housing has long been a bone of contention for the Board of Selectmen and others, but now it will be up to the voters to decide if a proposed plan is the right one.
Following a public hearing at its most recent meeting, the Board of Selectmen voted 3-2 to place the proposed Workforce Affordable Housing Overlay District on the November ballot.
The Aug. 18 meeting was not the first public hearing on the proposal, and before taking comments, Selectman Ted Little shared the results of research undertaken to answer questions posed previously about the ordinance.
The proposal was forward for the board's vote earlier this year by Little and Selectmen Chairman Mike Estes, and while Vice Chairman Dave Marshall and Selectwoman Kinley Gregg questioned that move, Selectwoman Cathy Goodwin joined Estes and Little in support of the proposal.
Proponents have stated the ordinance is not the end-all in the effort to provide workforce-affordable housing but a first step.
Opponents have countered that the plan as proposed is not the right first step.
Speaking at the start of the hearing, Little said studies show workforce housing does not diminish property values, and added it does not result in increased taxes in communities like York that are seeing a decline in school enrollment. He spoke of the plan as an example of "smart growth," which recommends increasing density rather than increasing lot sizes.
Of those who spoke during the public hearing, most said they favor more affordable housing in town, but views were mixed on the ordinance.
Local resident Cliff Estes said that while it has some good points, "this ordinance as proposed is not the answer."
Among his concerns, he said he believes more public input is needed and more attention should be given to potential impact on current homeowners.
Charles Stacy also spoke against the proposal, stating that by making it possible for nonprofit organizations to develop higher-density affordable housing, the ordinance "is discriminating against the people who have paid taxes on their land all their lives."
Local resident Fred Knox stated, "I think the people presented an excellent case that we need it," but asked the board whether there would really be no tax impact to local residents.
Little said state and national studies have indicated that is the case.
Another local resident, Kate Bishop, urged the board to move forward with the plan.
"We can have a lot of discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... The bottom line for me is communities make decisions of whether or not they're going to be a welcoming place," she said, adding there are enormous cultural and economic implications around that decision. "I would hope that we can set aside our own personal feelings about the imperfections... We have the opportunity to do something that is just and righteous and spiritually healthy on the one hand, and is completely compatible with economics... on the other hand."
Ron McAllister, too, spoke in favor of moving forward.
"I think it's morally imperative, I think it's ethically imperative that we approve workforce housing," he said, adding it is also economically necessary.
Jim Gambrill, who worked on the draft ordinance with Estes and Little, said that keeping the town's zoning exactly as it is should not be more important than creating homes for York's workforce. In addition to alleviating the need of working individuals to live far away from town, "burning up the highways, burning up gasoline," he said, the ordinance will also help ensure that "York won't become a 14,000-member retirement community. ... The people of York deserve the chance to vote it up or down."
Prior to the board's vote, Goodwin apologized to residents who have felt intimidated by the process, explaining that the board members feel passionately about issues, and sometimes raise their voices because of that passion, not in an effort to be intimidating.
Marshall then responded to questions raised during the public hearing as to why he is opposed to the ordinance. The town's Comprehensive Plan, he said, calls for orderly growth and development, but "the proposal has minimal regard for architectural design and landscaping... There's no regard for the underlying zoning."
Paramount among his concerns, Marshall said, is the density allowed within the ordinance, where "about three-quarters of an acre can yield 30 units."
Even at lower density, a project proposed for the Town Farm in recent years was met with a public outcry from abutters, Marshall said, adding that proponents of the current plan should recognize and honor that reaction.
"I think we can create affordable housing in our town," Marshall said, while at the same time respecting "the years of historical growth patterns and thoughtful evolutions in our current zoning."
He also voiced concerns that the ordinance provides nonprofit organizations with options that individual property owners do not have, and reiterated his position that Estes should not vote on the ordinance because his company has a heating oil contract for York Housing, which could build additional dwelling units if the ordinance is adopted.
Goodwin disagreed, telling her fellow board members "this has been discussed to death, and I move the question."
Gregg, who had not responded, objected to that move, and the chairman agreed Gregg should have the opportunity to speak.
She then questioned why proponents of the ordinance had not decided to instead move forward with suggestions by Community Development Director Steve Burns, as cited in a prior memorandum about his willingness to work on the issue.
Estes said the board, as a whole, never made such a recommendation, and in terms of moving forward, the decision came because the Planning Board's work is ongoing and that board was not yet ready to present a plan. The goal, he said, is to allow some affordable housing to be built while the planning process continues.
Referencing comments by those who have served on the Board of Selectmen over past decades, he said, "25 years later, we haven't got an ordinance that allows it to happen in the community."
The final vote was Estes, Goodwin and Little in favor, with Gregg and Marshall in opposition, ensuring the ordinance will be included on the local ballot for the Nov. 4 election.
