Consultants present options to address large affordability gap on Block Island

Weston & Sampson presented a high-level menu of policy and program options aimed at narrowing a steep affordability gap on New Shoreham, telling the Planning Board that land and construction costs make state funding thresholds difficult to meet for local projects.

“My name is Kim Salerno, and I am the principal of Libra Planners,” consultant Kim Salerno said at the start of the meeting when introducing the firm. Weston & Sampson’s Ashley Sweet and Elizabeth Haney described work funded by an MTAP grant and said their review updates survey numbers and offers regulatory and programmatic tools the town could use.

Haney summarized survey results from 2022 (updated through June): almost 50 respondents — roughly 10% of year-round households — and notable indicators of stress: about 40% reported they must relocate seasonally, nearly 30% share housing, and 21% live in employer-provided housing. She said about half of survey respondents prefer homeownership but that roughly half could not afford housing above $300,000; roughly 80% were ‘definitely or maybe’ open to deed‑restricted homeownership.

The consultants presented a project-cost example (the O’Brien development) that they reported had recent public bids of “about, 7.5 or $7,700,000” for hard costs; adding typical soft costs led them to estimate roughly $10,000,000 in total development cost for 16 units — about $630,000–$650,000 per unit — and they contrasted that with a state funder handbook threshold of about $450,000 per unit. Haney framed that difference as a substantial funding gap for advocating state or philanthropic subsidy.

To address the gap, consultants suggested: allowing moderate-density or 'missing‑middle' housing types with performance standards; expanding the town’s ADU toolkit (including exploring title separation or condominiumization of ADUs as a way to separate land cost from unit cost); and programmatic steps such as a community land trust, an ADU support program (preapproved designs, technical assistance, loans or grants), and a housing production plan to refine need estimates and tipping points for ADU uptake.

During questions, housing board members and residents pressed for a concrete unit target; consultants said that target-setting was outside this project's scope but offered to work with the housing board to refine need estimates. Mark McGuire clarified that the O’Brien bids discussed did not include the cost of land (the developer had already acquired the site), making the per-unit gap potentially larger.

Board direction and next steps: consultants asked the Planning Board and Affordable Housing Board to identify the top priorities to study further; the board requested the housing board provide three near-term priorities to guide consultant focus at the next meeting.