Albemarle County Planning Commission

October 28, 2003


The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Room # 241, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.Members attending were Rodney Thomas, Vice-Chairman; Pete Craddock; William Rieley, Chairman; William Finley and Jared Loewenstein. Absent was Bill Edgerton.


Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mark Graham, Director of Engineering; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Margaret Doherty, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.


Call to Order And Establish Quorum


Mr. Rieley called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. and established that a quorum was present.


††††††††††† Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public


Mr. Rieley invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting proceeded.


Review of Board of Supervisors Agenda from the Public

Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions of the Board of Supervisors on October 15, 2003 and October 22, 2003.


††††††††††† Presentation of Service Award


Mr. Cilimberg presented a plaque to Mr. Rieley as a service award for his five years of service with the Planning Commission.He thanked Mr. Rieley for his contributions and wished him the best of luck in continuing his service with the County.


Consent Agenda


SUB-02-242: Stillhouse Ridge Rural Preservation Development Preliminary Plat- Request to create a Rural Preservation Development of 10 lots, 9 development lots ranging in size from 2 to 5.3 acres and one preservation tract of 40.1 acres.The plat has been revised to show the changes requested by the Planning Commission at their December 17th hearing. (Tax Map 85, Parcels 29A, 29B, 29C, 29D, 29E, 29F, 29G, 51H, 51J, 51K) (Margaret Doherty)


SDP 03-0741 SAINT JOHNíS BAPTIST CHURCH SITE PLAN WAIVER: Request for a site plan waiver for a 13,923 S.F. expansion of an existing church on 6.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. (Tax Map 66, Parcels 77 & 78) (Yadira Amarante)


Mr. Rieley asked if any Commissioner would like to pull any item off the consent agenda for discussion.There being none, he asked for a motion on the consent agenda.


Mr. Thomas moved to approve the consent agenda as presented.


Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion.


The motion carried by a vote of (5:0).(Edgerton Ė Absent)




Public Hearing Items:


CPA-03-03 Affordable Housing Policy Ė This is a proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include an Affordable Housing Policy as a new section of the Plan and to amend other sections of the Plan to reflect this policy.(David Benish)


Mr. Benish summarized the staff report.


BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a work session on August 19, 2003 to discuss the proposed Affordable Housing Policy.The Commission directed staff to move forward to public hearing on the Policy as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.The Commission also requested that staff hold a focus group discussion opportunity to receive comments and answer questions from the interested parties on the proposed Policy prior to the public hearing.



The initial Affordable Housing Policy, as developed by the Affordable Housing Committee - The committee did hold some focus group discussion opportunities at that point in time, but there has not been one on this final draft.Staff held the focus group discussion on September 19, 2003.There was a total of eight (8) attendees, not including staff and the Chairman of the Housing Committee.They had a good discussion on the policy and the amendments for the Comprehensive Plan. Attachment A is a summary of the comments from that focus group discussion, and responses by staff where appropriate.Most of the comments centered on the overall impact of, and the specific procedures for, applying the recommendation in the Policy that a minimum of 15 percent of all units in a proposed development be provided as affordable units.Many of the comments tended to be oriented to technical aspects of how this recommendation would be applied/implemented in the development review process.Staff recognizes from these comments that systematic processes and procedures will need to be developed and put in place prior to implementing this recommendation (with the review and approval of development proposals).There was also some policy questions about the impact of that.Recommendations were received from the group.If the Policy is adopted with this recommendation, the next step will be for the Housing Office and Planning Department staff to develop these processes/procedures.


To summarize where they are to date, staff has recommended two changes to the language for this Policy in the Land Use Plan Text Amendments since the Commission saw it last.One is in effect, a relatively minor adjustment, but they did add to the Land Use Text an additional sentence to indicate some flexibility in the provision of the 15 percent minimum; but that number was already in the overall policy found on page 2.So that is not new language or any substantive difference from where the policy was before; but it was making the language in the Land Use Text Amendment consistent with what is in the overall policy.The second change was based on State Code requirements that call for affordable housing policies to address the location and geography for where affordable housing should be provided.Staff has provided an amended language to be added to the Policy, which they feel is consistent with our growth management policy.


The purpose of the public hearing is to give them an opportunity to hear public comment, but staff will be happy to answer any questions on the changes that they have suggested or comments from the focus group discussion. Ron White from the Housing Office is here to help answer any questions.


Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Benish.


Mr. Thomas stated that on the 15 percent minimum on the rezoning, etc., how were they going to keep the price of the property down if you require minimum affordable housing.He asked if they were going to build up the density in those areas


Ron White, Chief of Housing, stated that density was one way of doing that. He stated that the Commission would probably agree that within the Neighborhood Model that there may not be much of a way to increase the density given the other principles that are in there. Every project is going to have to be looked at individually.They would hope that the combination of additional density and possibly the use of some alternative unit type such as auxiliary apartments, English basements or granny flats would help. The alternative unit type could only be used if the land allows a rental unit.There are a number of things that they could look at to try to create some affordable housing options, but he did not think that it was a surprise to anyone that it was going to have to be on a development basis. This policy sets out some general guidelines to do that, which was where Mr. Benish mentioned that there is going to have to be some flexibility.


Mr. Benish stated that there are units in the market that are actually being built that would meet the threshold that we call for to be defined as Affordable Housing. Sometimes the question would be to make sure that the units are available to the target market. That was an issue that was raised at the focus group by some of the developers who are actually building units that could be available for a certain price, but then the market demand and who is purchasing those properties might not be what the target population is.Part of our program may be getting the stream of eligible clients into the units that are already being built.


Mr. Finley asked if housing for the elderly was included in the affordable housing policy.

Mr. White stated that it was certainly included.


Mr. Finley asked if that would also be for a $175,000 house.


Mr. White stated that it would depend on whether it was ownership or rental. Obviously, when they are talking about affordable housing, the policy is for all segments of the population and it would be inclusive of rental opportunities as well as home ownership opportunities.The other component that relates to the elderly is the need for services, which is a big-ticket item.When you are talking about the housing side, particularly for assisted living type facilities, this policy does not address anything about services.


Mr. Finley asked if affordable housing was subsidized and if so by whom?


Mr. White stated that it could be subsidized. Rental may be subsidized with the Rental Assistance Section 8 Program, which is a federal subsidy that they get from HUD and utilize in the County.It could be subsidized through grants available to nonprofit organizations through the state or federal government where they can offer down payment or closing cost assistance.The reality is, when you look at the price of houses that are being built now, that there is some level of subsidy that is going to be needed to make any product affordable. When we are talking about $172,000 we are talking about a four person household and a $50,000 annual income.To drop down further for example, a schoolteacher with a $30,000 or $35,000 income in a single income family, could afford less than $140,000.Many variables are in affordability such as interest rates.We are in a good interest rate climate now, but it is increasing.The higher the interest rate then the lower, or the lesser the amount, of mortgage that people will be able to afford. We are dealing with one variable here and that is the supply.There are a number of other market variables that this policy may not touch, but this is a step to at least put in writing what they have been trying to develop over the last couple of years.


Mr. Finley asked in Albemarle County what would the median income be.


Mr. White stated that 100 percent median income is around $63,000 or $64,000, which would be for a family of four.


Mr. Finley asked, to qualify for affordable housing, what is the typical salary range?


Mr. White stated that this Policy states that it would be the policy of Albemarle County to seek assistance and provide assistance to those households at or below 80 percent of the area median income. That is the reason that he had used the $50,000 figure. That was roughly 80 percent of the median income for a family of four.


Mr. Finley stated that there was a lot of people making it on less than that.


Mr. White stated that would include many people.


Mr. Thomas asked what the percentage was for the family of four who was making $40,000 per year.


Mr. White stated that if it were distributed equally, you would probably be talking about 25 to 30 percent of the population.What they see from looking at the census data is that there is an awful lot of people or a great number or a pretty good percentage of the population between the 0 and 30 percent category.We have a good number with the percentage above the 100 percent category, but when you start talking about whether it is equally distributed that 30 to 80 percent is where it is not quite as even.


Mr. Craddock asked him to refresh his memory where the 15 percent came from.


Mr. White stated that the 15 percent was the standard that has been used around the nation for various affordable housing programs. He stated that it was mentioned in the work session that the most talked about one was Montgomery County, Maryland, which had about 25 to 26 years of experience doing this.That was a figure that they used. Some of the Housing Committee wanted higher percentages and some wanted it lower at 10 to 12 percent, but the Housing Committee finally concurred that they wanted to put forward the goal of 15 percent.


Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for staff.


Mr. Loewenstein stated that in the objective section they already talked in the Plan about creating and preserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods; and that was one of the things that has been added in our draft.In talking about the mixture of housing types and preservation of this policy there is a discussion in here about the preservation of all the existing affordable housing units in our neighborhood as a way of maintaining that balance. He noted that was sort of a question. When it says encourage the preservation of all existing affordable housing units and development of new housing in a manner consistent with the Countyís growth management policy, etc.What specifically would that be if he were a developer that was looking at that?He stated that if he had a neighborhood that he wanted to redevelop taking the Affordable Housing Policy into account; and he looked at the strategy of the encouragement of all existing affordable housing units, what does that mean exactly? He was interested in part because if they were looking at buildings that were old enough then this abuts with the HP Plan and the Land Use Plan that are in the Comp Plan.He stated that he was trying to get a feel for what that means.


Mr. Benish stated, to answer that specific question, he thought that the language that speaks to the flexibility of interpreting the 15 percent would give us the ability to determine the amount of redevelopment and to maintain a certain percentage for retaining those existing dwelling units in some way.


Mr. Loewenstein stated that in any case they wanted to maintain the balance.


Mr. Benish stated that he thought that the intent here was more in a general approach to have an inventory of affordable housing. They donít want to be encouraging the construction of new housing while they were allowing the elimination of others. The language that you are referring to here was trying to speak very globally.


Mr. Loewenstein stated that he knew that was not part of the amendment language.


Mr. Benish stated that AHIP had a program that rehabilitates homes in our rural areas, which he thought they were very supportive of because it retains that inventory and that was a very specific program that they would want to support.In terms of a new development, he thought that was where they would have to use flexibility and good judgement in the creativity of the development community. They needed to do the right thing and determine whether it was to retain some of it or redevelop it to something better, but overall to maintain the integrity of the mix.He stated that other policies help to kick that in, which are already in the Comp Plan, which will help address that.


Mr. Loewenstein said that the language does point out that it was the mix that they were trying to protect.He stated that in a neighborhood development or redevelopment, that there are other agencies such as AHIP that would be able, under its existing guidelines, to participate in redevelopment if it was involved.


Mr. Benish stated that the potential was there because he was not aware of anything that would preclude that necessarily.


Mr. Rieley stated that the Affordable Housing Policy itself says that the County Housing Committee approved it March 2003 and the format was revised in the summer and it was revised again this month.He presumed that all of those revisions were by the Housing Committee. He asked if that was correct.


Mr. Benish stated that the only revision that the Housing Committee staff has not been involved with is this latest regarding this geography and they have not had a chance to see that.The Housing Policy should encourage the preservation of all affordable housing units. The Housing staff has seen that, but the Housing Committee has not had a chance to see that. That was something that he was made aware of at the end of last month that was an upcoming change that was going to be necessary as part of this Affordable Housing Policy. He pointed out that they went ahead and tried to address it and get it to the Commission for their input, but they will make sure that the Housing Committee sees it as well.


Mr. Loewenstein stated that the last sentence in that particular document says that affordable housing may be provided in the designated rural areas consistent with rural area policy regulations.It seems that AHIP has done a lot of work in those areas.He stated that he just wanted to see what the crossover would be in this case.He noted that it would not go away, because he would be reluctant to see any abandonment of encouragement to preserve existing affordable housing in some areas outside of growth areas as well.There have been some notable successes along those lines and he knew that agencies like AHIP have participated in them.


Mr. Benish pointed out that the Habitat for Humanity has as well.In most of those cases, they have used by-right development potential to the extent that by-right development is available.It is irrelevant whether it is affordable housing to us.They are glad that there is affordable housing being provided.


Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that has occurred in his neighborhood and it was a good thing.


Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for staff.He stated that regarding the summary comments in the first one concerning rural preservation developments, as whether they would be subject to the 15 percent of affordable unit standard - the response was because RPDís over 20 lots require a special use permit, but they can be evaluated relative to that recommendation.As a reminder, he stated, that runs out in July of next year.The ones that require special use permits absolutely run out because that law is no longer allowable because it is unconstitutional or illegal after July 2004.He stated that there should be a mechanism to encourage affordable housing.He asked if there were other questions about this.There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked if there was anybody else who would like to speak on affordable housing.


Ann Mallek, resident of Earlysville, stated that she had heard that the durability of affordable housing staying affordable is an issue brought up by developers recently. She pointed out that she had read something about other places where it was put into the deed restriction that certain income brackets of people are the only ones that could buy this type of a particular property.So she would propose that the staff investigate whether that is doable in Virginia and if that is something that they could use so that affordable housing built in a neighborhood, such as this for example, would remain available to the people who really need them.


Ron Keeney, of Keeney and Company Architects, stated that he would like to remind them that all affordable housing is subsidized. Whether we as individuals in the audience pay taxes to the Federal Government who then turns and gives out grants, so Mr. White gets a grant from the Federal Government.We still subsidize it whether we gave it to the State Government or whether we push developers like this to do it.One way or the other it is all coming out of the individualsí pockets of those that are around. So if you have 100 homes in a community and you ask for 3 percent subsidized housing, then the price of the 97 homes just went up a little bit.If you ask for 15 percent, then the other 85 house prices just went up a little bit.However, one way or the other it is all subsidized by the remainder of the community.So there is no magic pool out there that it comes from, but it is coming out of our pockets, and we all have just so much.To me the solution for subsidized housing is to figure out how to keep the costs of the development and the housing itself down, so that they could therefore afford to spend more, to give more to our fellow people that donít have as much.


Mr. Thomas suggested that possibly the price of land could come down a little bit too.


Mr. Keeney stated that potentially it could.


Jeff Werner stated that he was speaking as a private citizen right now. He stated that he lived in the city and made a choice to live downtown.He pointed out that he found a house for $142,000.He pointed out that he and his wife do not drive a whole lot and in fact drive very little. Some of that money saved goes into being able to live downtown and have a quality of life.He stated that Mr. Benish has a an excellent point and something that they need to think about is to make sure that housing that is put in an affordable bracket gets to the people who need it.A couple of weeks ago he was talking to a realtor in town and he said that anything under $200,000 in the city that he buys it up as investment property. Therefore, these houses are there, but are these people getting them.There is a lot of substandard houses in the County, so maybe in lieu of 7 new houses in a subdivision, maybe someone needs 7 new furnaces in a substandard house or 7 new water heaters. Maybe those things need to be matched up so that we donít just resolve it by building new houses. Sometimes people already have a house that needs assistance. He stated that he was a little concerned that they have a density bonus that has never been used before. As a builder for 12 years, he gets a kick out of arguments from the development community about whether we build sidewalks if the house is unaffordable. Well if you put in streets and trees, the house is unaffordable.If you do a grid street, the house is unaffordable.You canít do smart growth because that would make housing unaffordable. He pointed out that they have already proven in Loundon County unfettered sprawl has not resolved the issue.He stated that they needed to get down to brass tacks here and be serious. He agreed with what was written here and thought that it was fine.It uses language like ďencourageĒ which was great.Again, they already have an ordinance that is not used. When he talked to the director of the realtor association, he did not even know that it was on the books.He had a conversation a few years ago in the DISC meeting when a counter part in the development community said that if he knew anything about construction that he would understand that to take a foot print of a single-family house and make a duplex or a triplex, would make it unaffordable. The grading costs alone would preclude that from being an affordable house. That is the most ridiculous thing that he had every heard. When he told him that he knew a lot about construction, he whispered to him that he knew what the real problem was, that the lenders are very uncomfortable with mixed-income housing.He asked why he would not say that and why does he keep pointing a finger at streets, trees and concrete sidewalks?Why donít they get down to the facts?He stated that it was time to sit down and put the facts on the table and figure out how to do it. It is about subsidy. It is about us being a society and making choices. To sit here and smoke screen this issue is a waste of their time. He hoped that they did not come up with another plan language in another ordinance that just sits on the books for another 20 years and never gets used.


Bob Hauser, a builder in the area, asked that the Commission be cautious in their actions. He stated that he was a free market person and he championed the free market. Therefore, he was against this type of legislation.His perspective is from someone trying to build homes for 21 years in the community, and certainly, he has built over 1,000 homes. He thought that he had some real life experience to share with them. If they were here talking about this 15 years ago, he would tell them that he would compete against a gated-community, with a golf course and clubhouse, with 4,000 lots that are selling for $4,000. That community was Lake Monticello, and it ate him up when he tried to produce affordable housing.The notion that Albemarle County has an issue is one that he holds near and dear. He tried to provide those homes, but you canít ignore the regional aspect of the market. The reason people have not taken advantage of an affordable housing ordinance is that product is not what the market wants and is prepared to jump into Fluvanna or Louisa or Madison or Goochland or Greene to get it. No amount of legislation in Albemarle is going to change where the market goes. It is like water. It is going to seek its own level. He cautioned them to force him as a developer to produce a product that apparently is not good enough to sell to one group, but that he had to find a separate group that may or may not want it.Now his perspective on government is that maybe it doesnít belong in this business. He stated that he comes to work everyday to try to meet a market. He has tough competitors to keep him honest and keep his profit margin in line and he really does wonder if that is something that the government feels that they are equipped to deal with.The Montgomery County example he appreciates, but that has no bearing here because they were situated between two major markets of Washington and Baltimore. Charlottesville, as a city, has a number of homes that are well within an affordable price range.Again, the market was going to be very difficult for him as a builder to try to produce in Albemarle County and compete. When that customer in Fluvanna may just lower his price until he gets that customer, that wants 2 acres.He pointed out that he had not studied the ordinance and therefore would rely on the Planning Commissionís expertise. He asked them to be deliberate, thorough, and challenge staff to make sure that this was something that will actually accomplish their goal. He asked if they just picked the 15 percent out of the air.He stated that it was difficult for him to understand because he would not figure out the market from week to week and was not sure how they could arrive at a number for however many years.


John Stack, a resident of Earlysville, stated that they have his sentiment about what they were talking about because he happens to be on a task force that is studying affordable housing. They have spent several weeks trying to identify the issues.He felt that affordable housing was beyond the scope of the local government.He stated that they were on a slippery slope because next time it might be 20 percent.He asked that they make sure that they know how much it is going to cost the public before they implement the policy and suggested that it be put in the Daily Progress.(See the attached statement from John Stack dated 1/27/03 on affordable housing.)


Dave Phillips, CEO of the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors, stated that as John mentioned they were studying affordable housing in great detail with a task force. There were many people on the task force that included some people from the Piedmont Housing Alliance on down to lenders. He stated that they thought that there was more that could be done on affordable housing. He stated that Albemarle County has little-no affordable housing for the people.He provided information to the Commission on the local market and suggested that they provide for a lot of flexibility and speed to provide fast track approval. (See the attached Price Range Statistics Report submitted by Mr. Phillips.)


Josh Goldsmithe stated that he served on the Housing Committee and also was a local developer and a builder. He stated that he had been involved in this process and had been serving on the Housing Committee since August and he saw the Comp Plan Amendment sent forward. He stated that he attended the Focus Group meeting.He stated that this process was incomplete at this point.He would hope this goes to a work session, however, the application was incomplete because the Housing Group never saw the comments that came from the Focus Group. Although, he might not agree with this 15 percent moving forward he accepted the fact that it probably will. In order for it to be successful, he thought that many the details that the Focus Group brought up should be discussed.It would be very well to bring the Focus Group and some of the people that are going to be providing this housing back to the table to implement those details before this Comp Plan Amendment is moved forward.


Neil Williamson stated that he was with the Free Enterprise Forum in Albemarle County.The Housing Committee has worked long and hard on this proposal and some of the questions that were raised by the Focus Group were answered.He stated that he still had some questions and did not have the answers. He was hopeful that the Planning Commission in their deliberations and work sessions could answer these.Question one, was why there was a lack of Affordable Housing in Albemarle County? He stated that they were really looking at land and regulations. The question for the County was, if Affordable Housing is important, would the County consider expanding the growth area to include more land in the development areas?Is the County willing to waive the resident proffers that they have been receiving over the past few rezonings?Such a waiver could lower the cost of a home by anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000.Would the community be willing to accept these trade-offs if it provided more affordable housing?These are not easy questions and there are no easy answers. The costs of regulation are significantly higher in Albemarle County.After this public hearing, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Subdivision Ordinance.You will be discussing new ways to increase the cost of development by mandating streetscapes throughout the development areas.First they will talk about how the government can mandate affordable housing and then discuss how the government can mandate making housing less affordable. One idea that has come up is could the County develop an affordability impact statement on any regulation that they propose.It seems like a reasonable thing to say okay, this is what is going to happen.Affordable housing is important and this regulation is important and here is the impact that it is going to have.The big question too has been raised. How is affordable housing going to stay affordable? He stated that there were many unanswered questions regarding this policy.He asked that the Commission take this into account before approving this policy.He asked how much tax money the County was willing to give to provide affordable housing.He stated that based on their research any affordable housing plan must include significant density bonuses that work and increase application processing speed.When presented valuable incentives to get the government out of the way, the market will provide for different levels of need.


Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission.He stated that the Commission did not necessarily have to take any action tonight because they basically wanted to hear public comment tonight. He suggested that the Commission have a discussion on these matters and schedule another meeting to deal with this.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that the question was, if there was anything in particular that the Commission would like to see addressed before they take this up again. He pointed out that staff was looking for some guidance.


Mr. Rieley stated that they have heard many good comments tonight. He pointed out that he felt comfortable sending this ahead with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.He asked if the Commission would like to forward this on to the Board for a possible hearing date on December 3rd.


Mr. Thomas stated that they needed to find a solution to this problem. He stated that he had a problem with the 15 percent.


Mr. Finley stated that he had problems because he felt that more jobs should be created so that people could afford to purchase their homes from their own income. He suggested that the County bring more jobs to the area.


Mr. White stated that the Housing Committee would meet on November 12th and this information can be provided to them.He pointed out that he could provide the Committee with whatever information that the Commission desired.He stated that if there was a work session with the Board they would have some of the members of the committee participate in it.He pointed out that there were some state regulations that had to be incorporated into the policy and that he would make sure the committee was aware of them.


Mr. Benish stated that staff would make sure that this information gets to the Housing Committee and that their comments will get to the Board of Supervisors.


Mr. Loewenstein stated that if there was any question about the 15 percent that it would come up then, but he was not sure it is would.He stated that there was no reason why it couldnít. He stated that he realized that the Housing Committee and the focus group have discussed the point.


Mr. Benish stated that staff would be forwarding whatever action the Planning Commission takes tonight to the Housing Committee so that they are aware of it.It might be useful if they have the minutes from this meeting.


Mr. Rieley asked that the Housing Committee have the record of the minutes so that Mr. Finleyís concerns and others would all make it before them.


Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that explicating how that was arrived at would be a helpful thing.


Mr. Benish stated that staff could certainly make an effort to do that.


Mr. Rieley asked with those caveats, would someone like to frame a motion?


Mr. Loewenstein moved for approval of CPA-03-03 with the proviso that the language in this draft will be looked at again by the Housing Committee and discussed hopefully in a work session by the Board of Supervisors.He asked for input from staff on how to word the motion.


Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission would want to make sure that the Board receives input from the Housing Committee based on what the language is here, what comments were made in the Focus Groupís discussion and review of the Planning Commissionís minutes of this meeting.He stated that staff would more than likely schedule a work session with the Board after they have had a chance for the Housing Committee to see that information.


Mr. Loewenstein moved to recommend approval of CPA-03-03, Affordable Housing Policy under the conditions just expressed by Mr. Cilimberg.


Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.


Mr. Rieley stated that the minutes of this meeting will reflect all of the discussion among all of the

Commissioners and it will go to the Housing Committee.


The motion passed by a vote of (4:1). (Finley Ė No) (Edgerton Ė Absent)


Return to executive summary