Affordable Housing in Chittenden County:
The Necessity of Regional Housing Coordination
Justin Dextradeur, Research Associate. University of Vermont
Community Outreach & Partnership Center (COPC)
Executive Summary:
While Chittenden County constitutes the state’s primary engine for economic growth – with
Burlington regularly topping national lists of livable and desirable cities – disturbing trends in
the region’s housing market have made it difficult for many working families to find decent,
affordable places to live. The study, Out of Reach 2001: America’s Growing Wage-Rent
Disparity, compiled by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, found that across the
Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), full-time employment with an hourly income of
$15.15 is needed just to afford the $788 per month Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom
apartment. This so called ‘Housing Wage’, calculated using HUD’s 2001 FMR values, is over
two times Vermont’s current $6.25 minimum wage. With a large share of new jobs paying well
below this level, many working families are driven into substandard housing or must spend far
more than 30% of their income on housing. Long waiting lists and lingering prejudice against
publicly-subsidized tenants force others to leave their communities, take up residence with their
friends and family, or seek homeless services. Reflecting an increased demand in outlying areas,
last year Vermont’s non-metro areas had the nation’s third largest increase in the Housing Wage
(7.11%), with non-metro Franklin County recording the sixth highest regional increase (25.97%).
The current crisis of housing affordability has two distinct aspects- an absolute shortage of
housing that impacts affordability at all levels and an inadequate distribution of affordable
housing among the region’s municipalities. The absolute shortage of housing is readily apparent,
with vacancy rates hovering around 1% and market studies projecting even greater future
shortfalls. Housing is considered affordable when households with incomes at or below the
county (or MSA) median income pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. For
renters this includes rent plus utilities and for homeowners, it includes mortgage, taxes and
insurance. Currently, two-thirds of all subsidized-rent apartments are located in Burlington and
Winooski, which together comprise only one-third of the county’s population. To improve
access to affordable housing across the region and expand job opportunities for lower-income
residents, new development cannot be allowed to intensify the current pattern. Fortunately, there
is growing support for downtown development, planning grants, density bonuses, and other state
and local policies that promote affordable housing. However, a comprehensive effort to address
both aspects of the affordability crisis requires a strong commitment by each community.
As such, an effective program of regional housing coordination will require voluntary
participation by member communities, with incentives for implementation flowing from joint
policy commitments and reinforced by supportive allocation of state resources. This type of
cooperative self-regulation, known as a regional housing compact, constitutes an agreement
among neighboring towns to meet common housing targets or adopt coordinated zoning
ordinances. The concept has demonstrated measurable success in other states, and has been
endorsed in past Chittenden County Regional Plans. A particularly replicable model can be
found in the Regional Housing Policy adopted by the communities of Connecticut’s Capitol
Region. In addition to presenting data on the distribution of housing costs and summarizing the
existing regulatory framework, this report will outline the need for a coordinated housing policy
in this region and advocate for provisions likely to contribute to its success.
1
The Problem of Affordable Housing in Chittenden County:
Rapid population growth and declining household size has created a severe shortage of housing
in Chittenden County, far outstripping the pace of new residential construction. As this shortage
becomes more acute, low and moderate income residents are having an especially difficult time
obtaining decent housing at an affordable price. Soaring property values in the county’s
suburban and rural towns continue to erode the private market’s supply of affordable housing.
Meanwhile, publicly subsidized affordable housing projects are directed mostly to traditional
urban centers and a handful of older, inner-ring suburbs – concentrating low income families in a
just few neighborhoods. In other New England states, this familiar pattern of economic
exclusion has led to deteriorating cities and sprawling suburbs- while intensifying many
associated social problems.
While this vicious cycle of urban abandonment and economic exclusion may take 20-30 years to
reach disastrous proportions, its destructive social consequences can be felt immediately.
Chittenden County’s current decline in rental conditions could have the same long-term effect as
numerous other triggers of urban flight in other U.S. cities. The terrible irony of this failed
development strategy is realized only years later when the suburbs have run together and
destroyed their original appeal as rural sanctuaries with convenient commutes. Another round of
urban abandonment entails even further outward migration of jobs and upscale housing, creating
another ring of disposable communities. It is well understood that both sprawl and economic
segregation are manifestations of the same land use problem. The following issues have been
identified as key contributors to Chittenden County’s affordable housing crisis:
The Housing Requirements of Economic Growth:
The growth of the regional economy, coupled a predominance of low-density housing
development and justifiable agricultural and environmental constraints on the land supply, has
led to a shortage of housing at every price. As this trend continues, employers will have to
contend with the escalating cost of living faced by prospective workers living in Chittenden
County. This puts an unnecessary damper on our economic expansion while driving many small
businesses and life-long residents from the region. Alternatively, if housing development is
increased at the expense of strong ‘growth center’ planning, the integrity of the landscape and
access to recreational opportunities will be diminished. Since these amenities represent
Chittenden County’s primary competitive advantage, such haphazard development also puts the
entire economy at risk. To contain housing costs while preserving landscape amenities, higher
density mixed-income development must take place in growth centers across the county.
The Growing Jobs/Housing Imbalance:
With the especially rapid growth of low-wage jobs in the larger suburbs, low-income workers
living in urban neighborhoods have less access to both the region’s available jobs and informal
social networks which transmit employment information and opportunities. In the absence of a
comprehensive public transportation system, those who manage to find work outside city centers
are forced to purchase and maintain cars- making their urban housing even less affordable. This
jobs-housing imbalance is just one consequence of the broader pattern of economic exclusion,
which serves to deepen problems of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness. A recent study
of this phenomenon, Spatial Mismatch: The Location of Low-Wage Jobs and Affordable Housing
in Chittenden County, is available upon request from the UVM Community Outreach and
Partnership Center (copc@zoo.uvm.edu).
2
The Over-Concentration of Social Services:
Urban municipalities which play host to a disproportionate share of affordable housing must also
accommodate the demand for associated social services. This existing concentration of service
providers is often used to justify the rejection of affordable housing in more exclusive
communities, but it has been shown to be counterproductive in resolving the root causes of social
problems. The special housing services required by aging Vermonters must also be distributed
across the county so that elderly residents can remain a vital part of their communities.
Closing the Door on Diversity in the Suburbs:
The regional distribution of housing affordability is exacerbated by the common perception
among residents of affluent suburban communities that their property values and neighborhood
character will suffer with the addition of affordable housing. Once economic diversity has been
lost, this resistance to low-income housing impedes the construction of diverse housing types.
Low-density suburban and rural neighborhoods generally fear the property value impacts of any
higher-density development – especially affordable housing. This widespread preference for
large house lots serves only to accelerate land consumption in outlying areas- intensifying the
region’s housing shortage, traffic congestion, and the cost of public services.
Marginal Housing on the Urban Fringe:
Manufactured housing, which constitutes much of the existing stock of rural affordable housing,
often fails to meet basic safety and health standards and will require substantial re-investment in
order to achieve income diversity. While this existing stock of rural affordable housing fills an
important need, it presents similar accessibility problems as the city center for most low-income
residents- with agricultural workers being one notable exception. While predominantly rural
communities should seek to maintain and expand income diversity, the County’s most pressing
need is for the fast-growing suburbs to create housing opportunities for workers of all incomes.
The Pressure of Students and Second Homes:
Chittenden County’s unique appeal has driven growth in both second home properties and
enrollment at local colleges. The recent economic expansion has led to a surge in income for the
wealthiest segment of our population, increasing the market for vacation or retirement homes in
private rural settings. In addition, the emerging opportunities for telecommuting will allow
higher-income residents of other states to relocate here for all or part of the year. Meanwhile, the
widespread demand for low-quality rental housing by area college students has had a detrimental
effect on urban housing affordability, directly displacing some of the County’s most needy
residents and contributing to a surging homeless population.
The Existing Housing Policy Framework:
Under Vermont’s planning statute, every town is expected to create and approve a
‘comprehensive plan’ (commonly known as a master plan or town plan) to guide their
community’s growth in accordance with required statutory planning purposes- which include
ensuring “the availability of safe and affordable housing for all Vermonters”(Title 24, Ch. 117).
Specifically, each Vermont community is directed to 1) encourage housing that “meets the needs
of a diversity of social and income groups… particularly for those citizens of low and moderate
income”, 2) the housing should be “safe, sanitary, located conveniently to employment and
commercial centers, and coordinated with the provision of necessary public facilities and
utilities”, 3) “Sites for multi-family and manufactured housing should be readily available in
3
locations similar to those generally used for single-family conventional dwellings”, and 4) to
allow “accessory apartments within or attached to single family residences which provide
affordable housing in close proximity to cost-effective care and supervision for relatives or
disabled or elderly persons”(Sec. 4302(c)).
Burlington Municipal Development Plan clearly articulates the purpose of such a town plan: “A
community’s [plan] must be both visionary and strategic. The Master Plan outlines goals and
objectives for the future and is the principle policy guide directing land use policy and decisionmaking. It defines the policies, programs, and specific actions necessary to obtain these
objectives… A Master Plan is prepared every 5 years in accordance with state statute and has
standing in statewide regulatory proceedings including Act 250. All City plans and programs
which affect land use and development, including the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
Regulations, Impact Fees and Capital Improvement Plan, must be in conformance with the
policies and directives found in the Municipal Development Plan.” As such, the town plan is a
robust vehicle for local political action- requiring the subsequent adjustment of many substantive
land use policies.
While most towns recognize their statutory responsibility to provide for a share of the region’s
growth in their comprehensive plans, they have failed to define what their “fair share” is in terms
of discrete targets for affordable housing units. They offer near universal “encouragement” for
affordable housing development, but the quantifiable outcome of such encouragement is rarely
specified and the exclusive provisions of local zoning ordinances remain unchanged. While
State statute requires every town to conduct an inventory and analysis of current housing trends
that “shall consider the probable social and economic consequences of the proposed plan,” the
lack of a clear procedure to ensure compliance has allowed towns to skirt their responsibility to
address the issue in a meaningful way (Sec. 4382(c)). State-mandated Regional Plans often
advocate strongly for affordable housing needs, but their power to influence town policy is
purposefully limited to ensure that planning decisions are kept accountable to local voters.
Nonetheless, the responsibility to gather the necessary data and conduct “studies of the existing
and projected housing needs by amount, type and location for all economic groups within each
town and the region” falls to the regional commission (Sec. 4348a(a)(9)).
The Chittenden County regional plan is an established vehicle for county-wide prioritization of
land use issues and provides a broad vision and some general guidelines for local housing policy.
In the absence of strong consensus among the eighteen member communities, the regional plan
has yet to provide the kind of detailed targets and implementation steps required to address the
distribution of affordable housing. To overcome the limitations of the current framework, an
effective program of regional housing coordination should be based on voluntary participation by
member communities, with incentives for implimentation flowing from local policy
commitments and reinforced by supportive allocation of state resources and incentives.
Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) technically have the authority to reject town plans
which fail to meet the statutory requirements, but for understandable political reasons they rarely
take this confrontational approach. Instead, Chittenden County’s Regional Planning
Commission (CCRPC) should assist the towns of the region in negotiating a common policy
document that lays out measurable affordable housing goals for each town and a toolbox of
suggested implementation steps that could be taken to achieve them. Termed a ‘regional housing
4
compact’, such a document would supplement the regional plan and eventually be incorporated
by reference into each town’s comprehensive plan – carrying some measure of legal weight and
requiring the implementation of new policies under flexible conditions. Vermont’s legal
framework for planning, including Act 250 hearings, could help enforce such a compact only to
the extent that member towns voluntarily adopt additional regulation. Depending on the design
of the compact, its provisions could take effect on a town-by-town basis, or they could only be
triggered when adopted by a certain number of towns.
The Prospect of a Regional Solution
It is important to recognize that in other states regional housing coordination has been mandated
by both state officials and supreme courts, in many cases over the strenuous objection of
impacted municipalities. Additional state support for improved planning and affordable housing
construction will be essential to any effort to improve our current housing crisis here in
Chittenden County. However, a voluntarily fair-share compact among the region’s
municipalities offers some distinct advantages over the more rigid top-down approaches
attempted in other states. Most importantly, it allows towns to design an equitable long-term
policy solution that achieves incremental progress without causing unnecessary divisiveness and
political backlash. The creation of a Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission task
force to study regional housing issues, coupled with renewed efforts to form a regional Council
of Governments, signals a growing focus on this pressing issue.
In the short run, a compact’s true power may lie in the measurements of housing opportunity that
could be used to develop local housing targets. By standardizing acceptable measures of
affordable housing distribution and formally linking them to targeted outcomes, a compact
would represent a strong statement of intent. It would help focus local attention and increase
public awareness of the current shortage, fostering an understanding that the provision of diverse
housing is in the interests of each community. Since the basic understandings of a regional
compact are already present in many local comprehensive plans, a politically feasible compact
would require only incremental progress toward distributional equity.
To sustain the production of diverse housing opportunities over the long term, however, the
commitment to regional coordination must become well established in local policy and public
perception. Repeated public opinion surveys indicate that widespread concern and support for an
issue does not ensure that individuals will make positive contributions through their own housing
and voting choices. Consider for example the dramatic gap between attitudes and action on the
related issue of sprawl- where an overwhelming majority of Chittenden County residents desire
both an alternative to sprawl and the very homes which drive the phenomenon (VT Forum on
Sprawl, 2000). While there are encouraging signs that urban sites are becoming more desirable,
the housing market will continue to operate at cross purposes to long-term public welfare until
there is a much larger shift in both residential and regulatory preferences. This is an especially
critical question because sprawl is often fueled by a desire to avoid the perceived civic
disruptions (crime, noise, etc.) that many mistakenly associate with economic diversity.
While a voluntary regional compact appears to be the most politically acceptable path to
achieving income diversity in the course of anticipated growth, it must be accompanied by
5
concrete changes in local land use regulations if current trends are to actually be reversed on the
ground. The establishment of higher-density growth centers and preservation of important open
land is already helping to shift the market in a more sustainable direction. However, the
equitable provision of affordable housing will require the implementation of additional
incentives such as inclusionary zoning with density bonuses, transfer of development rights, and
abatement of various state property taxes – all in a way that remains revenue-neutral to the host
communities. It is important to remember that countless public subsidies contributed to the
exclusivity of growth in the suburbs, and it should not come as a surprise that some combination
of mandates and incentives will be required to redress the inequitable distribution of affordable
housing. However, it would be foolish to think that another unfunded mandate on local
government would increase the chances of widespread adoption.
Clearly, the problem of regional distribution of affordable housing cannot be adequately
addressed without the firm commitment of key member towns. Thus, it is essential that there be
a phase-in period sufficient to maintain local commitment to a fair share compact as the
proportion of lower-income units increases. A successful compact would likely address the issue
of open space conservation in tandem with affordable housing regulation in order to achieve a
broad enough consensus for substantial zoning reforms. It must certainly give communities the
time and resources needed to adequately plan out the future of their finite land base, while
immediately spurring the construction of affordable housing in those municipalities where it is
needed most. The application of community visualization software to present alternative
development patterns would greatly assist in facilitating the necessary public participation.
This being said, a number of gradualist approaches appear to be taking root through the on-going
local planning process. The creation of specific density bonuses for affordable, elderly, and
special needs housing and the waiver of permitting and/or impact fees may be paving the way for
full-fledged inclusionary zoning provisions as suburban towns realize the benefits of balanced
high-density growth, such as reduced traffic congestion and enhanced preservation of open
space. The following section presents a summary and comparison of housing regulations in the
various towns and cities of Chittenden County.
Review of Housing Policies in Chittenden County Towns:
Newly developed comparative tables (see attached) present summaries of the key local policies
impacting the provision of affordable housing: 1) commitments to affordable housing in each
town’s comprehensive plan, 2) implementation of these affordable housing provisions through
zoning regulations and incentives, 3) the specific development standards known as ‘dimensional
requirements’. The purpose of the three tables was to distill local policies related to housing
affordability into a format that enabled direct, point-for-point comparison – while at the same
time preserving the specificity of the source documents and thus the objectivity of the resource.
To that end, the table entries are linked to supporting notes that cite the relevant text of each
source document. The towns of Chittenden County are listed in declining order of population
size in each table and, due to its small size, Buel’s Gore has been excluded from the analysis.
The findings presented in Table 1 are based on document analysis of Chittenden County Town
Plans, with the date of the most recent plan available for review listed alongside each town’s
name. The first key finding is that seven of the eighteen towns in the County do not explicitly
6
recognize the region’s current shortage of affordable housing or its inequitable distribution
among towns in their local plans. In addition, ten municipalities failed to include an appropriate
definition of ‘affordability.’ The standard definitions used by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) include
three basic elements which were used to evaluate the town plans. First, housing is affordable
when households with incomes at or below the county median (or MSA) median income pay no
more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. For renters this includes rent plus utilities
and for homeowners, this includes mortgage, taxes and insurance. Second, the thresholds used to
define various income classes must be based on the regional, not local, median income. Third,
income sub-groups designated as moderate, low, very-low, and extremely-low should be defined
by 100 percent to 81 percent of median income, 80 percent to 51 percent, 50 percent to 31
percent, and 30 percent or below, respectively. A town plan’s definition was deemed appropriate
if it correctly incorporated the first two criteria and used roughly comparable income sub-groups.
When it came to simply recognizing the local responsibility to provide a ‘fair-share’ of the
region’s housing needs, 12 of the 18 towns raised the issue in their plans. However, only
Burlington, Colchester, Essex, and Essex Junction, went the next step to quantify what they
believed to be a ‘fair-share’ for their respective community – often citing the need for a regional
process to derive these local targets. On a positive note, every town in the county cited
affordable housing in a Formal Goal or Objective, and they all contained verbal support of
enhanced zoning bylaws to implement their housing goals. However, only 13 of the 18 used
obligatory language to compel the implementation of zoning reforms intended to assist in the
production of affordable housing. Additionally, 12 of the 18 proposed additional study related to
affordable housing be conducted following the adoption of their plans.
Table 2 presents a more direct comparison of the actual policies enacted in local zoning
ordinances. Currently only Burlington has adopted an inclusionary zoning ordinance, but the
communities of Williston and Charlotte have proposed future adoption of such a policy should
their existing regulations fail to perform adequately. While some communities have utilized
public land or financing on a per-project basis, only Burlington raises funds through a one cent
property tax for an affordable housing trust fund. Similarly, some towns grant preferential
property tax status on affordable housing projects (but have done so sporadically), while
Burlington, Williston and Shelburne provide permit and/or impact fee waivers to perpetually
affordable projects (with such a policy proposed in South Burlington, Essex, Milton, Hinesburg
and Charlotte).
Of the 13 towns which currently utilize a public wastewater treatment facility, two (Shelburne
and Williston) give priority allocation of their limited treatment infrastructure to affordable
housing projects (with Essex, Hinesburg, Richmond, and St. George proposing such preferential
allocation sometime in the future). Taking this incentive one step further, only Shelburne
currently reserves some of its infrastructure capacity to affordable housing units each year (with
similar measures proposed in Williston and Richmond). Last, but certainly not least, the 12
towns with some form of density bonus for affordable or high-density housing are categorized by
the size and eligibility restrictions of their density bonus. Of the twelve, only Colchester and
Burlington provided for a greater than 25% bonus (100-400% and 100-355%, respectively) and
three towns (Winooski, Richmond, and Underhill) had not yet enacted targeted density bonus
provisions. Only two towns (Williston and Jericho) had enacted a Transfer of Development
7
rights ordinance to link a downtown density bonus with the conservation of open space in rural
areas (with Colchester, South Burlington, Milton, and Essex Jct. proposing similar zoning).
The purpose of Table 3 (available upon request) was to organize the current residential design
standards contained within each town’s zoning ordinances into a comparable format. The most
basic of these dimensional requirements is the maximum density (measured in units per acre)
that can be built within each residential zoning district. This maximum net residential density is
reported prior to the application of any density bonuses and has been illustrated in a map of the
maximum housing density for each local zoning district in the county that permits greater than
single-family residential uses. By consistently organizing the zoning data in a table, this linkage
to a geographic information system (GIS) can also be used to create maps of the other
dimensional requirements. The maximum density map, and its significance for housing
affordability, is presented in the following section.
The most fundamental long range goal for Chittenden County towns should be to raise the
maximum zoning densities in their designated growth centers and implement inclusionary
requirements for new construction. More than anything else, the combination of these two
policy changes will enable towns to provide for the efficient use of their remaining land base and
meet their foreseeable housing needs. Should they fail to do so, the current exclusionary patterns
will surely intensify and towns will incur major long-term expenses associated with sprawling
low-density housing development. Robert Burchell and David Listokin of Rutgers University
have determined that even modest increases in density could reduce total capital costs by 25 to
60 percent for roads and 15 to 40 percent for water and sewer lines. Clearly, there are some
areas where geographic and infrastructure considerations conspire to limit a town’s ability to
host additional affordable housing construction in the short-term. While these factors may
prevent towns from immediately reaching the targets of a regional housing compact, they would
provide a reasonable justification for additional assistance and added flexibility through deferred
or alternative compliance mechanisms.
Quantifying Chittenden County’s Affordable Housing Needs
Pending the release of detailed data from the 2000 Census, the most comprehensive study of
affordable housing needs in Chittenden County can be found in Housing in Northwest Vermont:
A Review of Demand and Supply of Housing in the Six County Region, a report prepared by
Economic and Policy Resources, Inc. and Thomas Kavet Consulting for the Vermont Housing
and Conservation Board. While the report’s study area included six northwest Vermont
counties, it was also able to roughly estimate the housing demand and projected shortfall in
Chittenden County. Since “nearly one-half of the projected housing demand and, by implication,
housing need was generated by economic activity and population growth in Chittenden County,
slightly under one-half of the anticipated demand and need for housing will likely occur in
Chittenden County… Since rental units tend to be concentrated in urban areas, it is likely that
Chittenden County – which includes the region’s significant metro area – could be expected to
account for an even greater percentage of the need for renter units than the owner share.”
Among the study’s key findings, the following illustrate the urgency of developing an adequate
policy response within Chittenden County:
8
Overall Demand Growth and Projected Shortfall:
“The northwest region currently has an estimated need for 7,400 additional housing
units, given reports of currently low vacancy rates in the region – especially in the
region’s metro area. This estimated shortage of units indicates that roughly 5,300 units
of owner housing and 2,100 units of renter housing are needed in the region to help
assure a more rational functioning housing market even before the housing requirements
associated with the projected economic and population growth over the next decade…
Even if market construction and the efforts of affordable housing groups are able to
deliver roughly 1,750 units per year to the regional housing inventory over the next
decade, there will be an unmet need or gap of more than 10,000 housing units in the
region by 2010.”
Influence of Services and Trade Job Growth on Affordable Housing Needs:
“The long-term economic forecast also indicates that over half of the region’s new
employment opportunities – or 22,800 jobs – will be created in the service sector, and
another 8,000 jobs will be created in trade – a category of jobs where wages are low and
housing assistance needs tend to be high. Although some of these jobs are high-paying,
the majority of jobs in the Services and Trade are among the lowest-paying in the
regional economy. That means that nearly one in two new jobs to be created in the
region over the next decade will be in job categories where affordable housing needs
tend to be high. Therefore, a key economic performance question for the six county
region for the future is how and where the people who are likely to fill these generally
lower-paying jobs will find affordable housing.”
Demand Growth for Affordable Owner-Occupied Housing:
“More than one half of the projected growth in owner households over the next decade
will occur in income categories which generally require housing assistance. The longterm demand projections indicate that owner households are projected to increase by just
over 17,500 households over the 2000-2010 time-period – a level that is over 10 percent
higher than the growth in the number of owner households during the 1990s. Of the
owner households, roughly 3,500 households are projected to be in the less than 50
percent of median income categories, 2,850 households are projected to be in the 51
percent to 80 percent of median income class, roughly 1,700 more are projected to be in
the 81 percent to 100 percent of median income class, and roughly 1,800 more are
projected to be in the 101 percent to 120 percent of median household income categories
– the categories generally though to include those who require housing assistance.”
Demand Growth for Affordable Rental Housing:
9
“Nearly three-fourths of the projected regional growth in renter households over the next
decade will occur in income categories which generally require housing assistance.
Renter households are projected to increase by roughly 5,600 households over the 20002010 time frame – a level that is more than 80 percent greater than the renter household
growth rate during the 1990s. Of the renter households, roughly 1,700 households – or
nearly 1/3rd of the household increase – are projected to be in the less than 31 percent of
median income class. Roughly 925 more are projected to be in the 31 percent to 50
percent of median income class, meaning that over 50 percent of the 5,225 renter
household increase over the next ten years are projected to be in the less than 50 percent
of the regional median household income categories. Over 1,000 more are projected to
be in the 51 percent to 80 percent of median income class. As a result, over 70 percent of
the projected increase in renter households, or roughly 3,670 households over the next
ten years, is expected to be in the less than 80 percent of median income categories.
These are the income categories generally expected to require housing assistance.”
Accounting for roughly half of the anticipated growth over the entire six-county region,
Chittenden County’s projected housing unit deficit is expected to grow from the current 2,000 to
over 3,300 in 2005 and just under 5,000 in 2010. However, this total shortfall of supply cannot
be reliably apportioned among the various income classes, “primarily because it is difficult to
systematically capture the currently living arrangements by housing unit value class or rent level
category of households in various income classes which have choices. Clearly, not every
household in the region chooses to rent in the category which corresponds to its highest level of
affordability… This dynamic has significant implications for such an affordability analysis in
income classes other than the very-low classes. It suggest that higher-income households – who
have relatively more choices – may in fact be competing with and rationing out lower income
households who have relatively fewer choices for lower cost housing options… As households
age they also tend to accumulate wealth and may in fact be significantly less inclined to move.
This important aspect of housing market dynamics across the rest of the income class categories
would likely not be adequately captured by data analysis employed here.”
While not ideal, these estimates of the current and future county-wide affordable housing needs
represent an important benchmark that suggests the need for a regional allocation framework.
For instance, a town’s proportional share by population could be calculated simply by
multiplying their percentage of county population by the total number of affordable units needed
in the county. However, such an estimate would only represent a long-range goal of affordable
housing distributed equitably across all communities. The implementation targets of a fair-share
compact would need to be refined using other demographic and geographically-based variables
which influence the feasibility of housing construction. Potential approaches would be to index
the fair-share targets to growth in low-paying service sector jobs or to a town’s total housing
growth in order to arrive at more meaningful goals. Such implementation provisions would
ensure that realistic annual housing targets are used to steadily bring the region toward its longterm goals at a manageable pace. While a successful compact must be sufficiently flexible to
encourage local participation, it should still be based upon intellectually honest attempts to
quantify each town’s fair-share.
Quantifying the Affordability of Market-Rate Housing:
10
Given the difficult political reality of addressing the regional distribution of growth, it is
especially important to obtain objective information which can facilitate constructive negotiation
and mutual understanding among towns. In order to supplement existing data on the number and
location of publicly-subsidized affordable ownership and rental housing, this report used local
property tax assessment data to estimate the cost of market-rate owner occupied housing in each
of the county’s towns. Following the tax year ending in April 2000, each available tax
assessment database was exported in full and archived with the Regional Planning Commission
and the University of Vermont, marking the first time this information was consolidated over the
entire region. In most Chittenden County towns, this assessment database was overwritten each
year as new information was entered. In such cases, retrospective analysis of housing cost and
development patterns is constrained by the availability of sporadic and incomplete data exports.
Similarly, the inconsistent recording of detailed housing information, such as the number, type,
and configuration of housing units on each tax parcel, limits the specificity of regional analyses.
Given these limitations, local property tax assessment databases still represent the most suitable
data for comparing the affordability of the entire stock of housing. Figure 1 presents the median
assessed value of owner-occupied properties in each Chittenden County town (with unlanded
mobile homes broken out), along with the corresponding data from the 2000 Census. The
underlying data, along with owner-occupied unit counts for both landed and unlanded homes is
given in Appendix II. Maximum residential density under current zoning is presented in Map 1
for each of the County’s residential districts. The variation in the affordability of local housing
stocks evident in Figure 1 is due to the interaction of existing housing stocks, market
preferences, infrastructure availability and development costs associated with zoning and the
approval process.
While the available data helps create a baseline for future land use studies, much improvement to
local assessment methods is needed to clarify the link between local regulations and regional
housing affordability. Recognizing the importance of detailed and comparable housing data to
the development of any regional compact, a county-wide effort to back-up and export local
assessment data should be conducted annually by the Regional Planning Commission. In the
future, local assessment data must be better referenced to digital parcel mapping to enable
analysis at the level of zoning districts and neighborhoods through a Geographic Information
System. This data linkage also promises to help in the visualization of regional housing patterns
and build support for coordinated local policies that counter the prevailing trends of
socioeconomic exclusion.
By conducting future analyses at the zoning district level, the relationship between local
regulations and housing prices can be made far more accessible and visually compelling. With
more widespread study of local housing capacity, the amount of land required to accommodate
projected levels of growth and the corresponding need for public services could also be evaluated
under comprehensive regional planning scenarios. Developing this important land use planning
capability will, however, require improved coordination between local planners and tax assessors
– hopefully progressing towards a dynamic linkage of up-to-date property assessment data and
digital parcel mapping.
11
Figure 1: Median Home Value/Price in Chittenden County
Median Equalized Assessed Value
Census 2000 Median Home Price
$250,000
$225,000
$200,000
$175,000
$150,000
$125,000
$100,000
$75,000
$50,000
$25,000
$0
n
to
n
ng r
rli ste gto
Bu che rlin
l Bu
Co t h
u
So ex
s
Es n t.
ilto Jc
M ex i
s k
Es oos e
in rn
W lbu
e n
Sh sto
illi
W icho rg
r u
Je esb d
n n
Hi mo
ch tte
Ri rlo l
a il
Ch erh
d rd
Un tfo n
es gto
W tin
n
Hu on ge
lt r
Bo Geo
.
St
Map 1:
Chittenden County, Vermont
Maximum Residential Density
By Zoning District
40 - 60 UNITS PER ACRE
20 - 25 UNITS PER ACRE
5 - 10 UNITS PER ACRE
2 - 4.4 UNITS PER ACRE
1.1 AC/UNIT - 1 UNIT/AC
3 - 2 ACRES PER UNIT
6 - 5 ACRES PER UNIT
25 - 10 ACRES PER UNIT
NO SPECIFIED DENSITY
RESOURCE PROTECTION DISTRICTS
N
W
E
S
Maximum Residential
Density by Zoning District
12
Regional Housing Policy in Other States:
California municipalities are required by State planning law to accommodate their respective
"fair share" of regional housing growth, and must not use their general plans and zoning
ordinances to overtly discourage housing production. California also has a state law that
specifically requires towns to provide 25% density bonuses to housing developments that meet
public goals such as downtown revitalization, affordable or low income housing, infill, or transitoriented development (VT Forum on Sprawl, 2001). While such density-based incentives can go
a long way to making certain projects financially feasible, some jurisdictions continue to use
discretionary review procedures and aggressive growth management techniques to intentionally
limit affordable housing construction. The prioritization of state- and regionally-allocated
funding for infrastructure and housing assistance are also used to influence such local decisions,
but are unlikely to have a strong impact on affordable housing provision if the targeted
communities are not already heavily reliant on these funds. Where communities have willingly
adopted their own affirmative zoning reforms, however, these mechanisms have worked in
tandem with local regulation to stimulate significant housing production.
Regional Councils of Governments — over 450 of them across the nation — are multi-purpose,
multi-jurisdictional, public organizations that are frequently responsible for both coordinating
and influencing local housing policy. Typically created to address important regional issues or
administer federal and state programs, regional councils bring together representatives of local
government to foster cooperation, planning and service delivery. They have a variety of names,
ranging from councils of governments to planning commissions to development districts, and
their responsibilities and activities are equally as diverse. The National Association of Regional
Councils (NARC) is the membership organization dedicated to fostering such regional capacity
and can provide referral services to share the experience of more established groups
(http://www.narc.org/about.html). In recent years, a growing number of metropolitan areas have
turned to regional frameworks to address worsening problems associated with the segregation of
income and affordable housing. Discussions to create a council of governments in Chittenden
County are on-going, but would likely center around coordination of public and emergency
services and could take years to implement.
In the region surrounding Hartford, Connecticut, incremental progress toward housing diversity
has been fostered through the adoption of a Regional Housing Policy by member towns of the
Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG). This universal policy statement required the
approval of a two-thirds majority of member towns by select board vote or through town
meeting, which it achieved easily in 1997 with only three abstentions and one formal rejection
out of a total of 29 member towns. The widespread acceptance of this fair share compact was
due to its reliance on dialogue among the various local government officials, consensus building,
monitoring and flexibility in implementation. The clarity of purpose expressed in its guiding
principles, coupled with concrete strategies and a wide range of implementation options makes
this policy particularly transferable, if not especially binding. The full text of the CRCOG
Regional Housing Policy is presented in Appendix I. While the specific challenges addressed by
this model differ substantially from those faced by Chittenden County, its flexibility and
incremental implementation suggest the viability of its basic format and method of adoption.
13
A quite different fair share approach arose under the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Mt. Laurel
decisions. Essentially a forceful rejection of local exclusionary zoning, these cases upheld suits
filed by the NAACP on behalf of low-income minority residents who were victimized by
growing income segregation. Despite its significant success in compelling affordable housing
construction in formerly exclusive communities, there have been great difficulties in
implementation of this system. The litigious nature of the supervised local approval process has
resulted in extensive delays and bitter struggles which do little to bring the affected communities
together around the common goal of income diversity.
There are yet other fair share models based on market incentives and state and regional
preferential funding schemes coupled with a range of housing allocation targets. Signed early in
2000 by then Massachusetts Governor, Paul Cellucci, Executive Order 418 is one of the best
examples of such a coordinated system of housing incentives designed to balance economic
development, transportation, infrastructure improvements and open space preservation. The
executive order has two distinct components, a housing certification process and community
development planning grants. Communities which are certified as having enhanced their stock
of affordable housing each year are given priority when applying for various state programs
administered by the Transportation and Construction, Environmental Affairs, Economic
Development, and Housing and Community Development Departments. Technical assistance
grants of up to $30,000 are also made available to assist towns in developing their Community
Development Plans, which must “include how the community will develop housing that is
affordable to families and individuals across a broad range of income.”(DHCD, 2000)
Supportive National and Local Studies:
While always controversial in practice, the need for proactive affordable housing policies is
widely recognized by both academic and professional planning organizations. The official
position of the professional planning community, as expressed in the American Planning
Association Policy Guide, is strongly supportive of the goals and policy recommendations of a
regional fair-share housing compact. In it, the APA encourages states and localities to
“inventory existing public and assisted housing stocks” and “after considering their affordable
housing needs and market conditions, develop action plans for the targeting of policy, regulatory,
and financial initiatives addressing this issue in their jurisdictions.” Among the strategies it
endorses, the following could be advanced through a regional housing compact:

Property tax deferral or abatement for units serving low-income households.

Inclusionary zoning requirements mandating the production of affordable housing as
part of market rate development.

Encouragement of alternative living units such as accessory apartments, ‘granny
flats’, and single room occupancy apartments.

Commitment of local or state financial resources or other resources (such as publicly
controlled sites) to foster the production or retention of affordable housing
opportunities.”
14

Encouragement of public/private partnerships and the leveraging of public resources
with funding and resources from the private sector.

Examining subdivision design standards, zoning ordinances, and other regulatory or
development controls for potential barriers to the production of assisted housing, and
where indicated, develop specific design standards and regulations to encourage
development of assisted housing, without compromising essential health and safety
requirements.
Source: The Supply of Public and Subsidized Housing. Official Policy Guide Ratified by the APA Board of
Directors. Charleston, South Carolina, October 5, 1991 http://www.planning.org/govt/house.htm
In its 2000 study, Moving Beyond Sprawl: The Challenge for Metropolitan Atlanta, the
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy is unambiguous in its call for
new policies to combat regional polarization: “Working in concert, regional leaders should
balance the local housing market through zoning changes, subsidies, school reforms, and tax
incentives so that all families both middle class and low-income have more choice about
where they live and how to be closer to jobs… At the same time, the region needs to stimulate
the production and preservation of affordable housing for working families in suburban
communities.”
Closer to home, the March, 1990 Report of the Essex/Essex Junction Affordable Housing Task
Force also came to the same conclusion: “Affordable housing does not occur by itself. If it did
there would be no need for this report… First it is critical that there be some strong local vehicle
in the community with the express purpose of facilitating the construction of new affordable
housing. Secondly, new affordable housing will only be created through cooperative efforts on
the part of the municipalities and the developers and the builders who create the housing. The
second is unlikely to occur without the first.” In terms of a policy response, the report
recommended “that municipal plans and regulations be drafted to include strong emphasis on the
need to continuously provide affordable housing, and support the necessary zoning provisions to
encourage such housing. The availability of housing at prices commensurate with incomes is an
important component of the vitality and well being of our community and region. It is imperative
that the Essex Community actively work to ensure such housing opportunities are made
available.” Furthermore: “If any greater public involvement is required, if a special density
increase is granted, or if a special sewer allocation is provided, assurances for long term
affordability must be required.”
Additional Implementation Issues:
Local government efforts to remedy the under-provision of affordable housing may also be
bolstered by the unprecedented and growing level of public support for land use planning
practices that typify ‘smart growth’. While the growing media attention and general awareness
of housing issues make a regional compact more likely, its success will require sustained public
support for higher-density development and affordable housing in each member town. Such
support will be essential in empowering the non-profit development sector to construct higherdensity housing in the growth centers where it is most desperately needed. However, successful
15
implementation will also depend on the ability of advocates to portray affordable housing and
income diversity as necessary public goods which must be required of private developers as well.
While it is difficult to gauge the private housing market’s response to policies seeking a more
even disbursal of affordable housing, the enhanced ability to construct higher-density housing
would undoubtedly create many more opportunities for private housing development than
currently exist. Without increased density in designated growth centers, the current market will
certainly fail to meet the region’s projected demand, while consuming open space in Chittenden
County’s suburban and rural towns. In the long term, strategic behavior by developers and
community-minded consumers will likely expand the private market for profitable high-density
downtown construction, enabling the inclusion of affordable, market-rate housing. While such
long-range shifts in market behavior would undoubtedly help resolve Chittenden County’s
affordable housing problems, the scope of the current housing shortage and the entrenchment of
distributional inequity demands direct public and non-profit involvement.
The municipalities of Chittenden County have a long way to go in defining their collective rights
and responsibilities, but as members of the same economically-dependent region it ultimately
behooves us all to ensure that affordable housing is not unreasonably segregated in urban areas.
In light of the obvious short-term conflict of interests, there will undoubtedly be periodic
landowner resistance and a strong possibility of legal challenges. However, the notion of
property rights continues to evolve from a near-absolute right of individuals held against the land
into a set of ownership expectations who’s realization must not come at the expense of shared
public interests in that land. The pending Vermont Supreme Court case of Taft Corners
Associates versus the Town of Williston will set important precedent on the authority of
municipalities to adopt land use regulations which ensure that growth maximizes public benefits
as well as developers’ profits. Since it will establish the limits of enforceability for zoning
amendments following parcel subdivision, this decision could have a substantial impact on a
town’s ability to achieve mixed-use and mixed-income development of their growth centers.
Possible Fair-Share Compact Provisions:
Inherent to any regional fair-share housing compact is official recognition of the goal of social
and economic diversity within each town. Also the universality of certain basic definitions is
established through the document. The following is a sample of the specific provisions which
can be formalized by a compact:
General Purposes
The towns of Chittenden County must consider the needs of the region in planning for future
housing. A fair-share housing compact should incorporate a system of measurements and policy
recommendations which further the following basic objectives:

Further the goals of growth management, economic diversity, and natural
resource protection stated in the local and regional plans;
16

Help low-income families throughout the region obtain decent, affordable housing
in areas where there are no existing concentrations of poverty, while increasing
the diversity of all neighborhoods;

Assist municipalities in providing their fair-share of the region’s affordable
housing with targeted assistance for transportation infrastructure, wastewater
treatment, school construction and conservation of open space and natural areas.
Annual Monitoring
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission should develop annual estimates of
regional housing supply and demand at each major income class. Member towns of the regional
compact would then attempt to provide for their share of the region’s housing needs on the basis
of these annual estimates. The Regional Planning Commission should also suggest a basic
methodology, but with provisions for local adjustments on the basis of the following limiting
factors: 1) physical limitations to high density housing (e.g. soil quality, sewer service, etc.), 2)
availability and growth of low-income jobs, 3) local poverty, unemployment and homelessness
rates.
Member towns may choose to consider implementing the following general guidelines or
alternative compliance measures. Compliance with such criteria would be evaluated annually,
with failure to meet repeated annual targets or enact alternative measures resulting in a shift in
state funding preferences and regional scrutiny of local policies.

If a town’s stock of existing affordable housing is greater than or equal to its proportional
share based on population, it satisfies the requirements of this compact.

If, in a given year, a town authorizes the construction of more than its proportional share
by population of the total number of affordable housing units approved in the county, it
satisfies the annual requirements of this compact.

If a town commits substantial public resources (land, financing, or tax abatement) to an
affordable housing project, resulting in the approval of at least (some negotiated number
of) permanently affordable units, it satisfies the requirements of this compact. If the
town’s assistance is valued at over (some negotiated amount), then the compact’s
requirements are satisfied for an additional (negotiated number of) years.

If a town lacks sufficient municipal wastewater treatment capacity to serve its designated
growth center(s), it may satisfy the requirements of the compact by reserving a portion of
future treatment capacity for affordable housing and implementing the necessary zoning
to ensure its eventual construction. This portion should be sufficient to provide for the
development of the Town’s proportional share by population of the region’s total
affordable housing development over the year(s) in which this criterion is used to satisfy
the compact’s requirements.
17
Potential State Incentives to Assist Implementation:
The most effective role for the State would probably be one of firm encouragement – leaving the
actual policy development and implementation to the towns while helping the regional planning
commission administer various incentives and targeted assistance. Clear and consistent state
incentives to implement regional housing goals would help ensure that more affordable housing
units actually get approved where they are most needed. Such an approach maintains the
benefits of local participation and control while still addressing the regional disparities through
such incentives as:
 Requirements for infrastructure assistance and prioritization of state-funded transit
improvements;
 Priority allocation of wastewater treatment permits and/or funding; and
 State property tax, land transfer tax or land gains tax abatement for permanently
affordable properties.
 Enabling the transition to a system of land value taxation through initial property tax
exemptions for structures providing high-density affordable housing.
The creation of property tax stabilization agreements for below-market housing would represent
an expansion of existing current-use programs for below-market agricultural and forestland and
would go a long way to encourage both the construction and maintenance of affordable housing.
However, additional state assistance would be required to encourage adoption and keep such tax
abatement revenue-neutral to participating towns.
Ensuring Incremental Progress:
Each year the regional planning commission would have to evaluate the fair share calculations of
each member town, certify progress toward their annual targets or alternative compliance
measures, and impose whatever sanctions are authorized for serious and sustained noncompliance. The advantages of these proposed compact guidelines is the flexibility for member
towns to begin meeting their responsibility at the moderate and low income levels, while
beginning to develop the level of social services required to host very-low income families
without causing neighborhood disruption.
Given enough time and population growth, income diversity could be maintained solely through
local inclusionary zoning policies. Such ordinances require a small amount of permanently
affordable housing be included as part of any major housing development – the cost of which is
typically offset by a density bonus equal or greater to the subsidized component. While the
general intent of inclusionary zoning requirements is fairly simple, the details of implementation
– especially the length of restriction periods – can greatly influence their long term success.
However, the effectiveness of any new inclusionary zoning ordinance is completely dependent
on the total amount and individual size of new developments which would full under such a law.
Thus, early adoption is critical to achieving diversity in Chittenden County’s rural and suburban
towns by piggybacking on new market construction. Such reforms will only become more
difficult to make if towns enact residential phasing policies to limit their annual rate of
development without taking steps to promote density and affordability.
18
Since many member towns will not immediately be able to raise their production of affordable
housing to meet fair-share targets, a regional compact would have to provide alternative
mechanisms for compliance – such as payment into a local affordable housing trust fund or
adoption of local zoning reform. Ideally, inclusionary zoning, density bonuses or other
regulatory incentives for affordable housing would be enacted to compensate for repeatedly
missed targets under a regional compact. Minimum standards for such alternative compliance
mechanisms would have to be negotiated as part of the compact’s adoption or reauthorization.
Sustained disregard for fair-share goals could be penalized with disincentives such as regional
rejection of local plans and postponement of additional wastewater treatment capacity.
However, the designation of model ordinances and the means to incentivize their adoption
should represent the primary way to ensure implementation of a voluntary fair-share compact.
Voluntary participation and flexible, incremental implementation – reinforced by supportive
allocation of infrastructure and planning assistance – offers the best chance to foster the genuine
cooperation needed to meet the challenges of a decentralizing regional economy.
Conclusion:
While there is near universal recognition that development must be considered in light of
functional economic and ecological systems, sprawling growth patterns threaten to increase both
the consumption of open space and the per-capita cost of public services. Alternatively, more
compact and mixed-income development could accommodate the same growth while minimizing
both environmental impacts and the social consequences of a segregated housing market.
Recognizing that it is no longer possible to restrict development in rural areas without also
raising the density of construction in designated areas, the towns of Chittenden County have
struggled over the years to adopt “growth center” zoning. Unfortunately, much less attention has
been paid to the distribution of housing types and income levels among the individual
municipalities. Already, a spatial mismatch between the location of low-income jobs and
housing is imposing a disproportionate burden on the urban municipalities where Chittenden
County’s low-income population is concentrated. If future development continues to follow this
trend, the resulting concentrations of poverty and wealth will only intensify regional polarization,
thus driving new development further away from urban centers and reinforcing sprawl over the
long term.
This report recognizes both Chittenden County’s particular need for regional coordination on the
issue of affordable housing and the potential difficulty of forging meaningful cooperation among
its many towns. Luckily, there is not only a profound ethical justification for economic diversity
versus segregation in our communities, but also a clear rational for expanded housing
opportunities on economic development grounds. There is a strong and growing consensus
among the urban research and professional planning disciplines that effective regional
coordination of local land use policy is key to achieving both of these goals in the face of rapid
growth and development. While a variety of approaches have been taken in other states to
achieve an equitable distribution of regional housing growth, their experiences to date suggest
that a voluntary housing compact offers a number of particularly compelling advantages over
alternative policies.
19
For one, it preserves local control over specific development and project review standards while
still holding towns accountable for their responsibilities to the region as an interdependent whole.
Second, it reinforces the State’s role of incentive-based encouragement for local and regional
planning through supportive distribution of planning and development aid and targeted
infrastructure investments. Third, it avoids the pitfalls of local obstructionism and the politics of
fear and division which have plagued court-mandated fair-share policies. Finally, it is designed
to work with the existing regulatory institutions – applying a corrective pressure to the
established practice of local zoning without dictating specific changes. By taking a flexible,
performance-based approach it guarantees consistent monitoring of local progress toward
regional goals as well as enabling innovation and responsiveness to local needs. While a fair
share housing compact’s advantages over its possible alternatives are important to convey to
residents and local leaders, it is equally important to stress a voluntary compact’s flexibility in
implementation and compliance. Accountable and incremental changes in local zoning policies
– guided by a voluntary regional compact – represents the best chance for a smooth, negotiated
process of regional housing allocation. Without meaningful efforts to coordinate growth, the
intensification our housing shortage will eventually bring even harder choices and less palatable
solutions.
20