The affordable housing report, in sum

SALISBURY — “Preserving Salisbury’s Vitality: Housing for Tomorrow,†a report by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, is a lengthy document with numerous appendices and all sorts of information. It includes specific recommendations and general suggestions, and urges that a permanent, institutional response to the affordable housing question be created by the town.

But the report states early on that, “By far the greatest obstacle to the creation of affordable housing ... is convincing Salisbury’s citizens of the needs we have identified†(page six).

The report includes (on page seven) six bullet points that “threaten the town’s diversity and volunteer services†(“diversity†in this context referring to workers in a wide range of ages and economic situations).

The six points:

• Salisbury ranks number eight among towns in the state for having the fewest affordable housing options in the state (“just behind the seven continguous communities stretching from Greenwich to Wilton on the ‘Gold Coast’â€).  

•Young adults and young families are leaving town or not moving here.

• There are decreasing public school enrollments, and they are projected to go lower by 2020.

• The town has the oldest median age of any town in the state.

•The town has the second highest percentage of second (or “seasonalâ€) homes in the region.

• And there are aging work forces at town businesses.

What do these elements, taken together, mean for the town? The oft-repeated quip is that Salisbury is becoming a town where the elderly go — to visit their parents.

It means that, for young people and young families, it is increasingly difficult to find an affordable place to live in town.

And it means the pool of volunteers for emergency services (the Lakeville Hose Company and the Salisbury Volunteer Ambulance Service) is dwindling.

The report estimates it would cost $4.5 million yearly for a paid fire department and ambulance squad — about the same as the municipal government portion of the most recent town budget. The authors of the report warn that such a development would increase local taxes by some 36 percent.

Some more dire findings are  on pages 15 and 16. It cites an analysis of the 1990 and 2000 census by Dan McGuinness, executive director of the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments (all six Region One towns plus Roxbury, Warren and Washington). He found that Salisbury has the highest percentage of single-person households (33 percent) and the lowest household size (2.19 people per household) in the Council of Government member towns.

Salisbury also has the lowest percentage of households with at least one member under 18 years of age (27 percent) and the highest percentage of households with at least one member over 65 (33 percent).

McGuinness also found that 25 percent of Salisbury’s homes are for part-timers (second in the area after Cornwall); that 33 percent of Salisbury renters had to pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent in 2000, as opposed to 25 percent in 1990; and, oddly for a town widely perceived as rich, Salisbury had the highest poverty rate (7.8 percent) of the nine COG towns (compared to 4.5 percent for Litchfield County and 7.9 for the state).

On page 19, the report spells out what kind of housing, for what income levels, is required to create the 200 or so units necessary to meet a state requirement that all municipalities have 10 percent of their housing stock in the “affordable†range. (Currently Salisbury has a little over 1 percent).

For middle-income households ($60,000-$90,000) the report anticipates 100 units are necessary; for moderate-income housholds ( $30,000 - $60,000), 66 units; for low-income (less than $30,000), 42 units, for a total of 208.

And the report makes one point several times: looking at waiting lists for affordable housing entities such as Sarum Village, or taking surveys, only gets an investigation so far “because at any point in time all the people who are in town already have roofs over their heads. If they couldn’t find housing ... they have already left the town.â€

The town needs “excess capacity in the types and price levels of housing†for residents to move in and out of as their circumstances change (page 19).

The report contains a list of 21 “Frequently Asked Questions†about affordable housing, and provides answers.

Question 11 is sure to come up if the cause of affordable housing gains momentum: “Will affordable housing reduce land values in its neighborhood?â€

The report says no, quoting Salisbury Assessor Barbara Bigos as saying she and other assessors “would not reduce the assessed value of a property because it was next door to a new or renovated affordable home†(page 23).

The report also cites an example in Washington, where house prices near three affordable housing developments “have appreciated at least as fast as the average for the town since they opened,†according to the Washington Housing Trust (page 23).

The report makes recommendations (beginning on page 38) for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider, divided into Phase One (ready for review and adoption) and Phase Two (items to consider when updating the Plan of Conservation and Development).

In the first category, the report advises a new regulation permitting apartments above commercial buildings; permitting an existing residence to be converted to a multi-family home of up to three units without the present requirement that the minimum lot area be three times the minimum area required in the zone (in other words, converting a single family home into a three-unit building would not require 3 acres of land); modifying the bed and breakfast regulations to allow one accessory apartment; “expanding the options and simplify the procedure†for creating accessory apartments; providing an amnesty period for owners of existing accessory apartments created without zoning permits to obtain approval without penalty; adopting a regulation that allows a landowner to create and transfer to the town or a nonprofit group a rural zone containing less than the minimum lot area so the parcel can be dedicated to affordable housing; and modifying existing regulations for affordable multi-family housing that will “provide additional flexibility†(pages 38-39).

And to keep the ball rolling, the committee recommends that Salisbury create a fund for affordable housing — with $50,000 in seed money and $50,000 per year in the municipal budget — and that it create an Affordable Housing Commission, consisting of five members appointed by the Board of Selectmen, to follow through.

Also in the report: exhaustive discussions of how to pay for affordable housing and the pros and cons of public versus private financing; the original charge from the selectmen to the committee; detailed answers to additional Frequently Asked Questions; and suggestions for additional resources, such as the accessory apartment guide developed by Jocelyn Ayer and available at Town Hall or on the town website.

Selectman Jim Dresser, at the June 17 meeting presenting the report, urged all residents of Salisbury to read at least the first chapter,“The Need for Affordable Housing.â€

And on page 19 is this call to action:

“Providing affordable housing is only partly about improving the situation of current residents. It is also about stemming the tide of departures by individuals and young families, the citizens of tomorrow — high school graduates, workers and volunteers.

As one leader of the Litchfield Housing Trust incisively noted, ‘If you build it, they will stay.’â€

The full report and the first chapter are both available on the town website, salisburyct.us. Copies of the first chapter are available at Town Hall.