Allie Feinberg’s Post

January 8, 2024 Rockingham County Planning Board Meeting - https://lnkd.in/e5BVJigy AGENDA I.Call to Order II.Invocation III.Adoption of the Agenda IV.Approval of Minutes a.December 11, 2023 V.Convene Board of Adjustment & Review of Procedures for Evidentiary Hearings VI.Matters Before the Board of Adjustment a.Appeal 2023-17 Pettitt: An appeal has been filed regarding the revocation of Zoning Permit ZMISC2309-1.The original permit was approved by Staff September 15, 2023 but was revoked by the Community Development director September 21, 2023, on the advice of the County Attorney. b.Appeal 2023-20 Myers: An appeal has been filed regarding a Determination of the Community Development Director, specifically Code Enforcement Notice of Citation CE23-0296, Development Without Permit. VII.Convene the Planning Board & Review of Procedures for Legislative HearingsVIII.Matters Before the Planning Board a.Rezoning 2024-02 Hall: a zoning map amendment has been requested for the parcel denoted by Rockingham County Tax PIN 798504540014, located 7720 NC Highway 87 in the Wentworth Township. The request is to rezone the specified parcel from Residential Agricultural (RA) and Highway Commercial (HC) to Highway Commercial (HC). b.Text Amendment 2023-22: a citizen request to amend the standards for private roads, specifically to allow existing private roads to serve eight (8) parcels instead of five (5), which is the current ordinance standard. c.Text Amendment 2024-01a: a proposal from Community Development staff to amend the standards for Campgrounds and Recreational Vehicle Parks, clarifying the definitions of each, separating each as a discrete use and adding additional development standards for RV Parks. d.Text Amendment 2024-01b: a proposal from Community Development staff in response to vendor requests to amend, clarify and update the special use permit standards for New Wireless Telecommunications Towers. IX.Other Business: a.New Business: b.Old Business: X.Adjourn ###

Travis County Lifts Moratorium on PID Applications On January 30, 2024, Travis County (“County”) lifted their moratorium on new applications for public improvement districts (“PIDs”) in the County. The moratorium was placed into effect in April 2020 due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and to allow for a revision to the PID policy to better reflect the County’s priorities. Below are some of the revisions to the PID policy: • A PID Petition Fee of $150,000, an increase from $55,000, plus a $50,000 initial deposit into a PID Administration Escrow Account.  • Minimum bond issuance amount of $5 million. • A deposit of 17.5% of the amount of PID bonds issued (“PID Community Development Fee” or “PID Fee”) to the Capital Economic Progress Corporation (“CEDC”), unless the petitioner can demonstrate through financial documentation demonstrating the level of PID Fee the project will support.  • The payment of the PID Fee cannot be paid from PID bond proceeds. • Each PID petition must outline the level of community benefits that the PID will provide that are superior to the current level offered in the community that would be provided without PID financing. • The County will not consider any proposed PID that is wholly located in the corporate limits of a municipality. • At minimum 10% of residential units in a single-family unit development must be affordable (income is at or below 80% of the area median income).  • Restrictive covenants will be imposed on each single-family housing unit to limit the number of units that can be rented or leased. Developers can begin submitting new PID applications on February 1, 2024. For more information, go to Item 12 on the County’s January 31, 2024 Commissioners Agenda and subject specific articles (see below): January 30, 2024 Commissioners Agenda Austin’s Travis County Lifts Moratorium on PIDs (therealdealcom) Travis County lifts moratorium on Public Improvement Districts - Austin Business Journal (bizjournalscom) For more information on how the professionals at Launch may assist in the financing of infrastructure, reduction of costs and the mitigation of risks to enhance project returns; contact Carter Froelich, CPA, or Ryan Mills, at carter@launch-dfa.com, and ryanm@launch-dfa.com respectively. https://lnkd.in/gmPJ_W9Q

Today I became the first city council candidate- as far as I know- to publicly oppose the proposed initiative by Participatory Budgeting Oregon to amend the City Charter to set aside over $15 million annually for a new "Participatory Budgeting" program. First, I oppose budget set asides in the Charter. Second, whether by charter or ordinance I oppose taking $15 million (and growing every year) off the table that could be used to address other needs, including public safety, transportation, affordable housing, and downtown revitalization. #fiscalresponsibility

An update on the progress of the new/required zoning under the MBTA Communities Act - as of the end of the year, all 12 of the rapid transit communities (Braintree, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Medford, Milton, Newton, Quincy, Revere, and Somerville) either had adopted compliant zoning or had zoning already in place that complied with the legal requirements. But Milton has scheduled a February town election to reconsider - and overturn - the previously adopted compliant zoning. The vote was called as a result of a petition signed by the requisite number of registered voters to trigger a special town election and put the question on the ballot. If you are involved in local politics you know how (comparatively) easy it can be to get a positive vote at town meeting on a Prop 21/2 override where everyone has to sit and listen to both sides of an argument . . . which is then defeated in the ballot portion. It will be interesting to watch this play out, particularly where the State is committed to enforcing the requirements of the Act (as explained in the letter Secretary Augustus sent to Milton (attached).

Last week, Florida legislators passed a bill updating last year’s Live Local Act, including offering some concessions to single-family neighborhoods while ultimately expanding the law’s purview. Originally designed to increase workforce housing development, the Live Local Act’s main provision allowed developers to bypass local zoning restrictions on projects where at least 40 percent of units are priced as workforce of affordable housing. Since the law went into effect in July 2023, some communities have expressed concerns about lack of clarity in the bill. As a result, the 2024 bill was passed to clarify the legislation. “Instead of making a blanket change, [the law] was only enhanced in regards to that point of protecting single-family neighborhoods,” said #BilzinSumberg’s Anthony De Yurre, Esq, LLM, who was involved in developing the bill. Learn more via Commercial Observer: https://bit.ly/48ITp3t

This in-depth New York Times piece on New Jersey affordable housing this week features JAHMA Executive Member Project Freedom. "In 1975, the state Supreme Court court ruled in favor of Ms. Lawrence and the other plaintiffs. It said that Mount Laurel had to change, but the decision went much further, interpreting the state’s constitution to require each of New Jersey’s 564 municipalities to build their fair share of affordable housing. That ruling was the opening salvo in decades of lawsuits and appeals." #JAHMA #AffordableHousing #FairHousing #NewJerseyHousing #ProjectFreedom https://lnkd.in/eDcxxjj4

In a belated reflection on last Saturday's Westborough MA town meeting, I am immensely proud of our community's dedication to both inclusivity and principles of sound governance in financial decision-making. As a member of the town Advisory Finance Committee, marking the end of my first full year, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve alongside dedicated individuals committed to the well-being of our town. During the town meeting, our community collectively deliberated on 43 articles, including annual budgets, capital investments, and bylaws. Notably, we passed 31 articles pertinent to regular town affairs, underscoring our commitment to fiscal responsibility and effective governance. We also faced challenges in the form of 13 articles that had no rightful place on the warrant. Demonstrating our steadfast dedication to our values, we overwhelmingly rejected nine citizens' petitions that espoused racist, homophobic, or misinformation-driven ideologies. Moreover, we demonstrated our support for housing equity within our community by endorsing a modified resolution aimed at voicing our support for the equitable creation of affordable housing throughout our town. Unofficially, this meeting recorded the third-highest voter turnout of any town meeting in the last five years—a testament to our community's resolute stance against offensive and divisive rhetoric. Notably, the rejected petitions garnered minimal support, averaging a mere 6% of voter backing, reaffirming the overwhelming sentiment against such hateful beliefs. I am heartened by the voices of countless citizens who spoke passionately in support of our community's inclusivity and the well-being of all residents. #WestboroughMA #TownMeeting #CommunityEngagement #Inclusivity #GoodGovernance #ProudMember #LocalGovernment #CommunityLeadership #TownManagement #FinancialResponsibility #HousingEquity #CitizenEngagement #CommunityPride #PublicService

SPUR has created the most up-to-date database of local land use ballot measures that impact housing production in California. Many of the 208 measures adopted between 1973 and 2023 curb urban sprawl and protect open space by limiting new development to urbanized areas. But without concurrent incentives to promote infill development of vacant or underutilized land in urbanized areas, many of the measures have the potential to limit the supply of housing overall. Other growth management ballot measures that have passed within city boundaries — such as zoning restrictions, voter approval requirements, height and bulk limits, and infrastructure provisions or parking requirements — have had a direct negative impact on infill housing production. Over the long term, measures that restrict infill housing can undermine housing affordability and have the potential to exacerbate racial segregation. Learn more at https://lnkd.in/gjTFmv57