Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SWA board narrows changes to density-bonus rules, keeps oversight and on‑site incentives
Summary
The Solid Waste Authority board discussed changes to workforce-housing incentives and voted to keep board discretion over density bonuses, retain rent subcategories, maintain TDR purchase requirements, and approve waiver and flex‑reg options with caveats (no impact‑fee waivers; no flex regs for cashed‑out units).
The Solid Waste Authority board spent the first portion of its meeting on a close read of proposed changes to density bonuses and workforce‑housing incentives, ultimately rejecting broad by‑right density increases and approving limited refinements.
Commissioners framed five numbered policy options and, after staff explanation and back‑and‑forth, the board agreed that allowing density greater than 50% "by right" — meaning without rezoning or a comprehensive plan amendment — would remove the board’s discretionary review and was not acceptable. "I'm pretty sure I'm a no on this one," Vice Mayor Woodward said when describing her opposition to the by‑right change. Several other commissioners echoed concerns about community input and predictability for residents.
On the question of rent affordability metrics, staff noted "30% is the rule of thumb for affordability," but did not advance it as a formal recommendation because of implementation questions about who would verify income. Commissioner Weiss said the 30% metric "deserves a much further discussion." The board voted to retain the current rent subcategories rather than eliminate them, citing the potential for sudden rent jumps between broad bands.
The board also rejected a proposal to eliminate the requirement that developers purchase transfer of development rights (TDRs) as part of certain transactions. Staff reminded the board that the TDR purchase requirement stems from prior board direction and that changing it would be a "sea change." Commissioners cited funding constraints for conserving environmentally sensitive lands if the TDR requirement were removed.
Two options won conditional approval: a waiver to allow units delivered through certain nonprofit or funder restrictions to count toward workforce obligations, and flexibility in property development regulations (so‑called "flex regs"). Staff said the waiver is intended to avoid double‑counting where 100% workforce projects have no unrestricted units to sell, and that any language should be limited to those specific circumstances. On flex regs — reductions in setbacks, modest increases in building coverage and potential reductions in required open space — staff explained technical guardrails (for example, a typical 10% reduction for lot dimensions and a required drainage analysis for larger building footprints).
The board’s approvals came with explicit caveats: no impact‑fee waivers and no application of flex regs for projects that "cash out" workforce requirements instead of building on‑site. The county attorney advised the board that the statute requires providing incentives (density, fee reductions, flex regs) but, in the attorney’s reading, offering those options satisfies the statutory obligation even if a developer chooses not to exercise them.
Next steps: staff will draft precise language reflecting the caveats the board requested, and bring refined ordinance or code changes back to the board for consideration. The board did not adopt definitive metric changes to rent affordability at this meeting — the 30% household‑income approach was noted as a best practice but not implemented.
