Chilmark Housing Committee
Meeting Minutes
Monday, June 1, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Approved
Present: Bill Randol, acting chair, Tim Lasker, Jim Feiner, Roland Kluver, Sheila Muldaur, and Todd Christy, Administrative Assistant
Absent: Andy Goldman, chair
Call To Order:
Mr. Randol, acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Meeting Minutes:
Review of Minutes from May 18, 2009 Minutes. Approved as amended.
Business:
-Ms. Muldaur asked about the DCRHA’s opinion of CHC members rotating per meeting. Mr. Vigneault was agreeable to the committee rotating members at meetings, but this does make it difficult for the DCRHA to run as a business without Chilmark’s voting member. He suggested the CHC should continue to pursue having a member appointed to the DCRHA.
- Meeting Andy Goldman, chair and Allen Healy and Suzy Zell had on May 29, 2009.
Allen and Suzy met with Mr. Goldman, at their request, to go over the proposed Healy Deed Rider for better understanding of the documents language. There were no substantive changes made to the Deed Rider.
-Atkinson Deed Rider:
At the request of the Atkinson heirs, they would like the Deed Rider to allow their children to inherit the property as long as they qualify as Eligible Purchasers. The Implementation Guidelines require that the children have a residency requirement, which will be waived for this purpose. Added language:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, at the time Grantees determine to sell or otherwise transfer the premises, and Grantors are still possessed of the premises from which the Homesite Housing Dwelling has been transferred, then, in that event, 1. a descendant of either Grantor who, qualified pursuant to Implementation Guidelines For Homesite Zoning Bylaw, Part IV, Section 9, A –F, as an Eligible Purchaser shall have a right of first refusal, and if such right not be exercised, then, 2. Grantors shall have the right to designate an Eligible Purchaser from a list of Eligible Purchasers submitted by the Chilmark Housing Committee to said Grantors.
No other substantive changes were made.
Both proposed Deed Riders have been sent to town counsel for review, and then must go to Selectmen for approval.
New Business:
MLR Update and Timeline:
The committee had been asked to discuss several questions. The first being:
How many and when Homesite Lots should be awarded?
The committee presented a myriad of ideas concerning how to conduct a lottery that would provide all applicants a fair shake at the 6 Homesite Lots available at MLR. The discussion included choosing all the lots at once with each applicant getting the Lot in the order of Lottery pick. Committee will hold quick lottery to see the order of applicants drawing in lottery.
Other options that were discussed included:
-Pick a person and a lot at the same time?
-Pick all applicants for each lot, removing the person chosen for the subsequent lots each time?
-Pick everyone and the first picked gets lot 1, in order of being picked?
-Six people picked get six lots, Seventh person picked goes as backup to any opening in any lot?
-10 people all at once for one lot? Then 9 people for second lot. All people for every lot.
-Second person on lot 1 could be first person lot 2?
-One hat all names. Lot # 1 is Mr. smith. Lot # 2 is Ms. Smith. So, the next person for each lot is back up for the previous.
The committee had a brief discussion concerning the integration of the rental units and Homesite lots. These Homesite lots are 1.0+ acre lots and should provide barrier for all dwellings. The committee debated over the desirability of each lot and agreed that each lot may appeal to different applicants and there may be no real preferred lot within the housing project.
How many? Ms. Muldaur asked the question of how many lots to award at a time and the committee thought that demand should dictate the lottery process. High Meadow only had qualified 6 Applicants and how many applicants do we foresee taking part in this MLR process. Mr. Feiner and Mr. Lasker both expressed uncertainty over demand on Homesite lots. Mr. Feiner asked Mr. Lasker the possible advantages of developing parcels over time? Mr. Lasker described he hope that we have qualified people, from whatever town on the island, to fill these homesite lots. His suggestion to the committee was to push with advertising and the public information process so that this lottery is very visible. Construction all at once?
Mr. Kluver said that with the rental units probably being done by a single contractor, their construction would most likely take place all at once. Homesite lot construction could take place over a year and during the same period as the Duplex units, may cause serious road maintenance issues along MLR.
Staggering the awarding of lots? The committee discussed the possibility of staggering the lottery process and how it may have a positive effect on community, allowing for more age diversity of Chilmark population, who may not be eligible now, but would be in 4-6 years.
The committee would like to assess the demand first through the application process. We advertise applications for MLR which will be available to pick up at town hall. The CHC then assesses from the demand and decides how to move forward with the lottery process. Lottery Preference points should be discussed in the cover letter for applicants. Should we schedule a time to meet the applicants and take a walk around the proposed Homesite lots with the applicants? Each lot is cleared for access to allow the well rig and trucks. The committee felt it might be able to supply each applicant with a map and a small sign identifying each Homesite lot.
Mr. Randol asked for a consensus on staggering the lottery? The committee thought it best to assess the demand and then decide based on that demand.
-Make available Homesite applications
-Assess demand
-Proceed to decide how many and when to hold lottery.
Lease payments?
Ms. Muldaur expressed concern at the cost to applicants with lesser means and what about taxes on top of the $40k. The $40k was originally established to cover development costs to the property, such as utilities, water, septic perk tests and access.
Should rentals prices vary to provide for 80% or 100% AMI. Mr. Feiner suggested that as the home sales market has dropped, the chance to have more year round rentals available may be in the future. A question was asked if CPA funds could be used to subsidize rentals? Our own money to offset our own rent?
Mr. Randol related that FinCom has not spoken about the debt payment of MLR and how rentals/ ground leases will fund development.
DCRHA has rent prices for various family levels that are set. Will there be flexibility on rent pricing structure or are we set by DCRHA numbers?
The committee discussed the timeline of waiting, considering posting and time periods between postings; could Admin provide a rough timeline of waiting periods per posting? August 15th as a lottery date was proposed as a time that could include the summer residents, creating a great PR situation.
Committee asked admin to have by next meeting:
-Timeline for postings
-Application for review
-Advertisements for review
-Postings
-DCRHA rental structure/ 2009 Income % chart
Need to include Tim Lasker on DCRHA meeting list.
The committee discussed briefly the construction bidding process for the rental units and the hope was that there would be more than one response, as was the case before.
With no other new business to discuss, Mr. Randol closed the meeting at 5:30pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Todd Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| 
