To the Editor:

I’m always learning. I do a little research, think I understand, then realize I missed something important and I have to rearrange my thinking. I need all the facts to get the big picture.

I remember town meeting in 2023, when the town moderator presented his citizens’ petition warrant article creating Hull’s inclusionary housing unit bylaw. It hasn’t been used yet, but when the next large private housing project is built, 10% of the housing units have to be affordable.

The town moderator made six amendments to his own warrant article right off the bat. The first and most important amendment – to replace “Affordable Housing Committee” with “town manager” – was substituted by a motion to replace “Affordable Housing Committee” with “select board or select board designee.” That motion passed by a vote of 186-22, confirmed by the 2023 Annual Town Report and video of the town meeting on HullTV. But the inclusionary housing unit bylaw on the books today doesn’t include amendments one or six (both of which passed). Oddly, the bylaw does incorporate amendments two through five, which also passed.

This means that when the first (and only) private housing project with about 18 units gets under way, members of the Affordable Housing Committee, themselves, will verify the income eligibility of applicants for the two affordable units by scrutinizing the applicants’ tax returns. Those volunteer committee members will handle all the legal and financial real estate business and administrative tasks associated with affordable dwelling units created under the inclusionary zoning bylaw.

I’m not sure what should happen, legally, when a town meeting vote isn’t acted on, but we should amend the inclusionary housing unit bylaw at town meeting in May by voting “yes” on Article 33.

Other parts of the inclusionary housing unit bylaw aren’t consistent with federal and state fair-housing regulations and guidelines. The bylaw gives first preference (for affordable housing units created by inclusionary zoning) to people who’ve lived and worked in Hull for at least five years and to people who formerly lived in Hull for at least five years. The Executive Office of Housing & Livable Communities says, “Durational requirements related to local preferences, that is, how long an applicant has lived in or worked in the residency preference area, are not permitted in any case.” Fair-housing advocates understand that such a preference system may encourage favoritism and discrimination against minority groups and “outsiders.”

I wonder what version of the inclusionary housing unit bylaw was reviewed and approved without comment by the AG’s office. There’s a disclaimer in the bylaw (“unless otherwise prohibited by a federal or state agency under a financing or other subsidy program,”) so maybe the AG’s office knows the preferences described in the bylaw can’t be applied.

Apparently, it’s possible to design and implement a fair system that includes a local preference for affordable housing units created through local inclusionary zoning. But that system is supposed to be developed by a deliberative public body in open meetings and approved by a select board before inclusion in a zoning bylaw. Since the Affordable Housing Committee is the appropriate body to advise the select board on housing-related policy, I hope it’ll add this business to its agenda. In the meantime, the inclusionary housing unit bylaw should be amended because the preference language looks pretty problematic.

When I realized that inclusionary zoning bylaws normally apply in zoning districts that permit multi-family housing, since so much of Hull is zoned single-family (about 90%), I decided to research how many vacant private parcels are large enough for apartments and condos with 10 or more units. (Smaller developments don’t require any affordable dwelling units under the current bylaw.) I ignored the new MBTA multi-family overlay districts because the affordable unit requirement overrides local inclusionary zoning.
That’s how I discovered that the only developable private parcel in Hull large enough for a 10-plus unit housing project is at Cadish and Nantasket (near XYZ). I know which vacant private parcels are large enough (half an acre) for four-plus unit condos or apartments. And I know which private parcels are large enough for a big housing complex if redeveloped at some point down the road. Any way you look at it, there just aren’t that many properties that Hull’s inclusionary zoning bylaw, as it is, will ever impact.

Then I noticed that language in the inclusionary housing unit bylaw (two lines of text) suggests that the bylaw applies in all zoning districts, including single-family districts. The bylaw states, “The provisions of the bylaw is (sic) designed to: Increase the supply of affordable rental and ownership housing in the Town of Hull across all zoning districts.” How would an inclusionary zoning bylaw (that only applies to multi-family housing with 10-plus units) expand housing in districts that don’t allow multi-family developments? Accessory dwelling units (small units added to private homes) are allowed in single-family districts, but ADUs have nothing to do with inclusionary zoning.
When we voted for the inclusionary bylaw in 2023, did we vote to allow multi-family development in all zoning districts? I don’t think so, but I don’t understand why that language was included. The bylaw should be amended for the sake of clarity.

The inclusionary housing unit bylaw insures that the two affordable units created by the development at Cadish and Nantasket (the only developable private parcel in Hull large enough for 10-plus units) won’t go to low-income households. The bylaw says that if a housing project creates one or two affordable units, those units must go to moderate-income households (individuals making between $91,400 and $137,100 or couples making between $156,720 and $176,280 per year). The bylaw states that if a housing development produces three affordable units (and there are no vacant private parcels in Hull large enough for a condo or apartment complex with 30-plus units), only one will go to a low-income household. If Hull had any vacant private parcels large enough for 40-plus unit condos or apartments, only 25% of the units would go to low-income households. Effectively, Hull’s bylaw doesn’t serve anyone with low-income.

But even worse, the bylaw, itself, incorrectly defines “moderate” income. Federal and state government agencies define “affordable” for “low” income households as less than 80% area median income (AMI) – individuals making less than $91,400 per year or couples making less than $156,720 per year. A lot of us are surprised the government considers so much money “low-income.” But Hull’s inclusionary housing unit bylaw states that 50% to 80% of Boston AMI is a “moderate” income level. It’s rational – $57,125 to $91,400 seems like moderate income for an individual – but it’s legally and technically incorrect.

It’s important to keep in mind that housing units created for moderate-income households (more than 80% AMI) don’t count as subsidized housing inventory. Hull’s inclusionary housing unit bylaw will add zero affordable housing units to Hull’s tiny 1.66% affordable housing inventory. At the moment, Hull needs 418 additional affordable housing units to avoid Chapter 40B projects, but the inclusionary housing unit bylaw, as it is, will produce none.

The inclusionary housing unit bylaw needs to be amended. Vote “yes” on Article 33 at annual town meeting in May.

Lisa French

Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.

Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.