GEORGETOWN — Sussex County is addressing an affordable-rental initiative several years in the making structured to meet workforce housing needs with bonus incentives for developers.
Join our family of readers for as little as $14.99 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Already a member? Log in to continue. Otherwise, follow the link below to join.
Please log in to continue |
GEORGETOWN — Sussex County is addressing an affordable-rental initiative several years in the making structured to meet workforce housing needs with bonus incentives for developers.
At Tuesday’s meeting, County Councilman John Rieley introduced an ordinance proposal that would amend several parts of county code regarding affordably priced rental units and the Sussex County Rental Program.
The proposal is tied to the county’s comprehensive development plan, adopted in 2018, and a 2019 housing report by the planning firm LSA. The report offered recommendations for zoning modifications and removal of residential barriers.
There are several objectives, county officials say.
“One of the housing visions for this element was to ensure the provision of decent, … affordable and safe housing opportunities to improve communities and quality of life for residents of Sussex County,” said Vince Robertson, assistant county attorney.
Sussex’s community development director, Brandy Nauman, explained further.
“We’re designating it as workforce housing, but it does only address … multifamily rental housing. It does not address homeownership,” she said.
The initiative recognizes that most of the housing, particularly on the east side of the county, is new and often unaffordable to low-income families, seasonal employees, entry-level workers and recent college graduates.
It also points out that the shortage of affordable housing remains a very real problem for low- to moderate-income households in Sussex County, including many with full-time, year-round jobs, Mr. Robertson said.
Councilman Rieley’s proposal will be open to debate at to-be-announced public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and County Council.
“This is just the introduction, so the end product may look different than what was proposed,” Ms. Nauman said.
As currently laid out, participation in SCRP would require that 30% of units be part of it.
And as an incentive, developers would be permitted up to 12 units per acre, by right. Mr. Robertson emphasized that if it is “by right,” it would not require a change of zone or conditional use.
“It would be 12 units by right, as long as units are conducive with the design criteria that we specified,” said Ms. Nauman, noting that this would involve an administrative-review process versus a potentially long public hearing undertaking.
“It really does streamline things quite a bit, and I think that is an incentive in itself to developers. But there are going to be developers that do not want to have any kind of set-aside workforce units,” she added. “If that is the case, then they just continue utilizing the procedures that are in place now.”
Councilman Rieley added, “The things I like about it is it (is) market-driven. It allows the market to respond. It gets government out of the way, which is going to help the market respond, and it also provides some incentives. I think that makes it sustainable.”
In addition to 30% of SCRP units, the proposed ordinance requires that a site must be within a town center, a developing area or a coastal area and must be within a half-mile of an existing or proposed DART bus route.
The county is proposing that income ranges for SCRP be 30%-80% of area median income. For example, if approved as proposed, for a family of two, the minimum would be $18,030 in income, with a maximum of $48,100.
Based on those figures and using 50% of AMI, Ms. Nauman said the rental rates for set-aside SCRP units would be $590 for one bedroom, $705 for two bedrooms and $815 for three. That is what is offered at Coastal Tide Apartments, the only active project in SCRP, she said.
“I feel like we’re chipping away at this problem,” said Councilman Rieley. “I think it will also have other benefits, such as reducing the amount of traffic or at least mitigating some of the traffic, that is on the road from people driving from Seaford to Lewes to work. And hopefully, even cut down on sprawl and the other issues we talk about a lot.
“I know there will be a lot of questions, and … who knows what the final form will take? It’s a milestone, and we’re working on it.”