Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Change Senior Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town housing director urges Planning Board to support raising senior‑housing density to 12 units/acre
Summary
Eric Shance told the Planning Board a zoning change to allow 12 units per acre for senior affordable housing would align town rules with Suffolk County Health Department guidance, yield a modest number of additional units in theory, and have limited traffic and groundwater impacts; several board members signaled conditional support for a letter to the Town Board.
Eric Shance, the Town’s director of housing, presented a proposed zoning amendment on July 10 that would permit 12 units per acre for senior‑only affordable housing developments, up from the current 8 units per acre. Shance told the Planning Board the Suffolk County Health Department already allows 12 units per acre for senior developments because they typically generate lower sanitary flow; he said aligning the town code with county practice would reduce a regulatory inconsistency.
Shance ran the board through a site‑by‑site, worst‑case analysis showing a theoretical increase of roughly 160 senior units town‑wide if every eligible parcel were developed to the new maximum. He cautioned, however, that most parcels cannot achieve theoretical maximum yields because of lot shape, easements, access, AHO overlay limits and a hard cap of 60 units per site in the code. Using ITE trip‑generation factors and local development experience, Shance argued senior units generally generate fewer vehicle trips than typical apartments and that groundwater risk is mitigated where sewage treatment plants are used.
Shance also proposed draft code language and a method for calculating density on sites that mix senior and non‑senior units so the standard would be administrable. Board members asked whether the proposed change would advantage senior projects over workforce or non‑senior affordable housing and raised concerns about market competition for AHO‑designated parcels. Several members said they supported sending a letter to the Town Board endorsing the amendment while asking the Town Board to guard against unintentionally favoring senior projects over workforce housing.
Shance said AHO designation remains controlled by the Town Board and that any project seeking additional units would still require Planning Board site‑plan and special‑permit review, giving the board review authority over location and project design even if the density cap is raised. The Planning Board directed staff to prepare a recommendation letter to the Town Board reflecting the board’s comments.
