The Community Housing Plan needs assessment estimates that all year-round renters here experience outsized cost burdens that appear to be driving away younger residents.
Kathryn Eiseman, a partner at the Melville-based planning firm Nelson Pope Vorhis (NPV), is working with the Community Housing Fund Advisory Board (CH-FAB) and reported to the Town Board at Tuesday’s work session.
[Editor’s note: Eiseman also apologized for “regrettable language” in a former NPV agreement with Southampton — jump to the bottom of the post to read more.]
Under the Peconic Bay Region Community Housing Fund Act, the Town Board has established a Community Housing Fund and appointed CH-FAB as an independent board to create a Community Housing Plan to guide the use of the fund revenues.
As the Town does not have a planning department, the Town Board allocated money to CH-FAB to hire NPV to assist with developing the plan. They’ve been working on the plan since the spring and Eiseman met with CH-FAB last week to review public input and other data gathered to date. They also reviewed initial recommendations, which CH-FAB will develop further and present to the Town Board.
Under the proposed timeline, the Town Board aims to adopt the Community Housing Plan following a public hearing at its business meeting on October 11 at 6 PM.
In a separate initiative, the Town Board is asking voters whether to fund Community Housing through a 0.5 percent real estate transfer tax. The question will be on the general election ballot; early voting starts October 29. While there are other sources of revenue for the Community Housing Fund, a real estate transfer tax (in addition to the 2 percent transfer tax for open space) provides a way for newcomers to support the preservation of the Island’s character.
Needs assessment
Taylor Garner, a planner with NPV, outlined a needs assessment that will serve as “a database foundation for Community Housing.”
“It’s always a challenge to put an exact number on the housing units that are needed in a community,” Garner said while sharing slides with the Town Board.
“That’s for a few different reasons,” she said. “One is the people who had a need for Community Housing, or housing for these income levels, may have already left the Island as we saw from our survey results. And those people that have already left, there’s really no way to get a count on how many of them there are and how many units would have supported their need.”
Often, communities use their housing registries to set a goal, but here on Shelter Island the list may be shorter than what’s actually needed as “a result of people just knowing there’s not much inventory available.”
Town Attorney Stephen F. Kiely suggested that CH-FAB advertise the registry, to get an up-to-date count. But Councilman Jim Colligan said there is little faith in the registry, as the Town has made no meaningful progress toward producing housing units.
The Town’s Comprehensive Plan — undergoing an update — indicates a need for 20 to 40 units, Garner said.
Other data points to consider are demographics, housing stock, and income trends, Garner said, noting that NPV referred to US Census data from 2000, and American Community Survey (ACS) estimates for 2010 and 2020.
Demographics
The data indicate that the “under 20” population significantly declined, from 19.5 percent in the 2000 Census to 8 percent in the 2020 ACS estimate. The largest population gain was in the over 60 cohort, from 33.6 percent to over 45 percent.
For the “20 to 34 population,” growth from 10.1 percent to 14.8 percent was estimated over the same time, but Garner said most of the growth was among the 20 to 24 population. There was a decline in the 35 to 60 cohort from 36.8 percent to 31.9 percent.
Housing stock/cost
Regarding housing tenure, over the same 20-year period ACS estimated a significant drop in the percentage of people renting year-round, from 7 percent in 2000 to 3 percent in 2020, Garner said. The figure for year-round owner-occupied remained steady at around 37 percent, as did seasonal home occupancy, around 56 percent.
Garner said trends in housing costs as a percent of income — the cost burden — also indicate stress on the year-round rental market.
“The metric we’re using here is looking at who is spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing; that’s a typical planning standard for housing being affordable for the homeowner or renter,” she said.
In 2000, 19 percent of renters reported spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing; by 2010, the ACS estimate jumped to 70 percent, and by 2020 to 100 percent.
Homeowners appear to have fared better over time. In 2000, 22 percent reported spending more than 30 of their income on owner costs; by 2010 the estimate jumped to 38 percent, but by 2020 the estimate was down to 13 percent.
Garner noted the cost burden was “fairly even” in 2000, with just 3 percent points separating renters and owners. But the gap widened in the 2010 estimate to 32 points, and by the 2020 estimate, nearly tripled again to 87 points.
| Data year | Renters over 30 percent | Homeowners over 30 percent | Gap |
| 2000 Census | 19 | 22 | 3 |
| 2010 ACS estimate | 70 | 38 | 32 |
| 2020 ACS estimate | 100 | 13 | 87 |
Income
Income data for Shelter Island is spread over two areas — census-designated places (CDP) — Shelter Island and Shelter Island Heights. Here’s a chart Garner shared showing the data for median household income (in 2020 only combined results are available):
| Year | Shelter Island | SI Heights | Combined |
| 2000 Census | $43,625 | $65,446 | – |
| 2010 ACS estimate | $61,438 | $75,724 | – |
| 2020 ACS estimate | – | – | $114,082 |
“The trends are pretty clear of how it’s been increasing quite significantly over time,” Garner said. “There are a few different reasons for that. It could be partially related to wealthier residents moving into the community as well as residents who are below the median income and struggling to find housing may be moving out and their incomes are dropping out of the analysis.”
Public input
At two open houses on July 15 and August 6, CH-FAB presented participants with a packet of materials and several information stations each manned by a CH-FAB member or knowledgeable volunteer.
“There were poster boards of information and opportunities to ask questions and provide feedback,” NPV’s Eiseman said.
CH-FAB also posted the information along with a survey on the Town website to gather input; paper copies were available at Town Hall. Information was disseminated through the Town’s social media pages, in newspaper ads, flyers, and on the Town’s electronic sign.
In all, 159 individuals took part in the survey online or provided paper feedback that NPV tallied. The majority (more than 80 percent) self-identified as “interested citizen” rather than “business owner/employer” or “individual seeking housing.”
Before delving into details, Wiseman noted that many respondents expressed concern:
- or lack of understanding about the role of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as the land preservation tool relates to Community Housing; Eiseman said the use of TDR will not be included in the plan but is being separately investigated by the Town*
- about the protection of natural resources, particularly drinking water; Eiseman said any development must conform to the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and will protective of environmental resources
- regarding transparency in future decisions and concerns about the Town as developer or landlord; Eiseman said the plan recommends a transparent process and could be run through another agency specializing in housing management
* The consulting firm hired to assist the Town in investigating a TDR program has concluded that a lack of public water supply means the land-use planning tool cannot effectively be implemented here.
Findings
[Editor’s note: CH-FAB used a non-probability sampling method to gather public input. This type of survey relies on what’s known as convenience sampling, which focuses on gaining information from people who are “convenient” to the researchers — i.e. they’re available and willing to participate. It’s a method best used to get a quick sense of opinions. Importantly, the results cannot be interpreted as representative of what Shelter Islanders, in general, think about these topics. The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, likewise, employed this method last year when conducting a survey to suss out what issues were important to Islanders. Due to the methodology, its findings also cannot be relied upon to make generalizations about Islanders’ collective opinions.]
The majority of participants indicated they knew someone who moved off Shelter island specifically because of a lack of housing options, and 70 percent said they know someone who commutes to the Island for full-time, year-round work.
Most indicated a belief that Community Housing is needed by younger people and families (64.9 percent and 60.1 percent, respectively); 28.4 percent indicated a belief that seniors are in need of housing.
Majorities indicated a “good fit” for Shelter Island are these aspects of Community Housing:
- Housing counseling services provided by a not-for-profit (61 percent)
- First-time homebuyer assistance programs (56 percent)
- Rehabilitation of existing buildings (78 percent)
- Construction of housing for rent through private/public partnership (59 percent)
- Soft costs (planning, engineering, design) associated with creating community housing (73 percent)
- Purchase land to be developed for Community Housing (70 percent)
Majorities selected strongly agree, or agree when asked whether Community Housing here should include a variety of types:
| Type | Agree/ Strongly Agree | Neutral | Disagree/ Strongly Disagree |
| Senior Communities | 59 | 21 | 20 |
| Apartments above stores/offices | 75 | 10 | 15 |
| Manor house apartments | 55 | 20 | 25 |
| Two-family homes | 61 | 10 | 29 |
| Cottage communities/pocket neighborhoods | 63 | 14 | 23 |
| Accessory dwelling units | 63 | 17 | 20 |
| Single-family homes | 61 | 9 | 30 |
Initial recommendations
Eiseman said she expects the final report to recommend rental housing in:
- Apartments over stores
- Accessory dwelling units
- Senior developments
- Cottage communities
- Manor houses
While there is limited potential to develop apartments over stores, “where that potential does exist there might be an opportunity,” Eiseman said.
In response to a question from Councilwoman BJ Ianfolla, Eiseman said the housing types are generalizations. While CH-FAB included illustrations of various conceptual designs in their presentations, they were for representational purposes and the Community Housing Plan will not specify designs.
“The plan can include goals for looking at the context and making sure that whatever is developed is respectful of its neighbors,” Eiseman said. Other general goals might include incorporating sustainable design or low-impact water use.
She said the survey indicated support among respondents for Community Housing distributed throughout the Town, and that in comments, respondents indicated housing should be located where there is infrastructure, shopping, or community services nearby.
The findings also indicate these priorities for the Community Housing fund:
- Construction of housing for rent
- Use of funds to support ADU development via:
- Housing counseling services
- Planning/design services to support additional ADUs
- Other costs associated with ADUs for Community Housing
- For conversion of accessory structures into ADUs
- Purchase of land
- Rehabilitation of existing buildings for rent
- Planning, engineering, and design costs
- Housing counseling services
To implement its Community Housing Plan, Eiseman said the final report will recommend the town work with an organization or housing partnership to manage units, oversee lotteries, keep lists of eligible individuals, and maintain and manage any properties.
The Town may want to consider developing a Community Land Trust, with suggestions forthcoming in the final report.
The report will further recommend that the Community Housing Board, and, as applicable, the Planning Board, review development proposals prior to being submitted to the Town Board. The Town approval process should include opportunities for public hearings, and clear standards should be established to “ensure that Community Housing units remain affordable in perpetuity.”
In keeping with Community Housing Fund requirements, Eiseman said all housing revenues received by the Town should be returned to the fund, and CH-FAB should review the Community Housing Plan every five years.
Potential modifications to Town Code may be required to ensure ADUs aren’t leased for short-term rentals, she said. Also, the Town may want to revisit prohibitions against year-round accessory apartments in the Near Shore overlay, where only transient rentals are now allowed.
CH-FAB is expected to work on additional recommendations, prior to a Town Board presentation scheduled for September 13. A draft of the plan will be shared with the Suffolk County Planning Commission.
NPV in the news
At the end of her presentation and to allay concerns about her firm, Eiseman addressed what she described as “negative attention that NPV has received in the press.”
As reported in the Southampton Press, NPV included what Eiseman called “regrettable language” in a contract that NPV had with the Town of Southampton to oversee a Hampton Bays revitalization project. The agreement, which has been suspended, said the firm would “neutralize” opponents, painting them as “tradition NIMBYs,” according to reports.
“That language was [from] sub-consultants of ours that we’ve worked with previously and unfortunately it wasn’t vetter before it ended up in the contract,” Eiseman told the Shelter Island Town Board. “It’s very contrary to who we are as a firm.”
“We’re very sorry that happened,” Eiseman said. “And we’re going to work to regain the trust of our clients.”
