Jericho planning panel backs small-house PUD concept, seeks clarity on affordability and site rules

The Jericho Planning Commission on July 7 reviewed a package of recommendations to authorize a ‘small house’ planned-unit development (PUD) aimed at enabling clustered, smaller homes in rural and low-density residential districts while preserving contiguous open space.

Town planner Chris, introduced by the chair as the lead staff on the project, told the commission the working group met three times and that the proposal is intended "to create affordable small and missing-middle housing while maintaining open space for agriculture, forestry, conservation and other rural uses." He said the draft includes a development area of roughly 0.6–2 acres, a cap of 4–8 buildings per PUD, minimum individual lot sizes of 6,000 square feet, and a maximum of 1,500 square feet of habitable space per house.

Why it matters: The change would create a limited path for higher density on large rural parcels while explicitly aiming to prevent fragmentation of agricultural and forest land. Chris said the rules would allow one small-house PUD per originating parcel during a five-year period to limit rapid repeated conversions on large properties.

Commissioners focused on three main issues: site layout, affordability and eligibility. Chris presented three site-layout options — a farmstead near the road, an edge-field layout and an ‘out-of-sight’ layout — and recommended a hierarchy of preferences to preserve contiguous open space. Several commissioners warned the out-of-sight option could fragment forest blocks and suggested staff instead articulate design objectives (minimize fragmentation, concentrate development, preserve working lands) that the Development Review Board would apply during review.

On affordability, the draft currently proposes that at least 50% of units be designated affordable using Jericho’s local definition (noted in the meeting as 100% of area median income). Some members said 100% AMI is a high threshold compared with statewide practice (often 80% AMI) and program definitions that sometimes count 120% AMI; several commissioners warned that a strict perpetual-affordability requirement could deter owner-builders or mission-driven projects and recommended exploring incentives or a "naturally affordable" approach tied to smaller unit sizes instead of a rigid requirement.

Chris also reported on a parcels analysis: limiting eligibility to paved roads yields about 101 qualifying parcels, while including gravel roads raises that number to 157 — roughly one-third of the additional opportunities would be on gravel roads. The planner said he excluded permanently protected lands from the count and will refine maps and data.

Public comment: Wayne Elvis, who identified himself as a member of the Conservation and Cemetery Commissions, urged favoring small condos or for-sale units over large rental apartment blocks for the Riverside Village development, saying owner-occupied small units help teachers and nurses build equity. "The best choice would be along with these houses, you build these little condos," he said during public comment.

Next steps: Staff will circulate redline edits before the commission’s July 21 meeting, hold an open house on August 4 (in lieu of that meeting), post the redline publicly and hold a public hearing in the commission’s September cycle (with an additional Saturday open house proposed the weekend before the hearing). Commissioners asked staff to return with clearer eligibility language, a refined approach to the third layout option or a principles-based alternative, and a recommendation on affordability metrics and mechanisms.

Procedural note: The commission approved the minutes of June 16 by voice vote during the meeting. The commission adjourned after agreeing to continue work on the draft.