Trustees debate rule changes to count ownership units as affordable in 34 State Street plan

Trustees at the Village of Ossining considered revisions to the local affordable‑housing rules aimed at accommodating a mixed ownership and rental project at 34 State Street and at clarifying how the village treats market‑rate developments versus 100% affordable projects.

Valerie, a planning staff member, presented the recommended language changes and said the amendments would let the village ‘‘allow for units to be anywhere within that residential development, as opposed to specifically in the same building,’’ giving developers flexibility to locate affordable homeownership units on the same site plan as market‑rate rental buildings. She said the petition driving the change proposes that the homeownership component — 100 units in the developer’s plan — count toward the project’s affordable component instead of requiring separate rental set‑asides.

The proposal would also allow for ownership units to carry a 30‑year affordability term or to follow a longer term if that is required by the funding source, rather than requiring perpetual affordability in all cases. Valerie described the petition language as ‘‘30 years or the term required by governmental entity providing affordable housing funding.’’

That 30‑year term raised questions from trustees. Trustee Dana warned that replacing perpetual affordability with a time‑limited term ‘‘means in 30 years they’re going to be market rate’’ and asked the board to weigh the long‑term effect on the housing stock. Other trustees, including Mayor Levin, said 30 years is common in state funding programs and that funders frequently set the term in tax‑credit or other subsidy agreements.

Trustees also discussed income bands. The draft would price units at 80% of Westchester County area median income (AMI) but allow buyers with incomes up to 100% AMI to qualify under some program rules; staff said that is driven by Homes and Community Renewal funding parameters. As Valerie explained, that structure ‘‘allows for a little bit of a band so that you could sell that unit up to somebody that’s making up to 100% of Westchester County AMI,’’ while keeping the sales price set at 80% AMI.

Trustees pressed staff on the practical implications: how many local residents could be prioritized in the marketing, how the village will verify that applicants meet income criteria, and what the exact sales prices will be. Counsel and staff said they would ask the developer to provide the marketing plan and a price range and report back on whether the developer intends to reserve up to 30% of units for current Ossining residents, which staff said was an upper bound mentioned in conversations with the funder.

Several trustees weighed tradeoffs between more affordable ownership opportunities (100 units of ownership in the developer’s plan) and the potential loss of a small number of affordable rental units that otherwise might have been required. Trustee Fritsche framed it as a portfolio question: ‘‘I look at the whole village and how much we have — senior affordable, other pieces in the pipeline — and I think it’s a pretty healthy way to look at it.’’ Trustee Dana urged the board to protect rental options for people who cannot buy.

Next steps: staff will ask the developer for (1) the marketing plan showing local‑resident priority and the exact price ranges, and (2) confirmation of how funder time‑period requirements would affect affordability terms. The board directed staff to return with those clarifications and a revised draft of the rules and regulations to reflect the decisions the trustees made at the meeting.

The board did not vote on changes tonight; members agreed on several principles but left outstanding questions (marketing plan details and funding‑term consequences) to be resolved before a final adoption vote.