Housing Assessment Plan May 2011 FinalCITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT and
STRATEGIC HOUSING PLAN
Mayor Mary Clare Higgins
Prepared by the Northampton Housing Partnership
Gordon Shaw, Chair
Lynne Wallace, Vice Chair
Martha Ackelsberg
Jen Dieringer
Margaret Murray
Richard Abuza
Betsy Siersma
Karen Sunnarborg, Consultant
With technical support from Peg Keller, Housing and Community Development Senior Planner,
Teri Anderson, Director of the Community and Economic Development Office
and Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning and Development
May 2011
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
ii
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT and
STRATEGIC HOUSING PLAN
Table of Contents
Page
1. Executive Summary 1
1.1 Background and Purpose 1
1.2 Summary of Demographic and Housing Trends 1
1.3 Priority Housing Needs 4
1.4 Summary of Housing Strategies 6
1.5 Housing Goals 8
1.4 Conclusion 9
2. Introduction 10
2.1 Intro to the City of Northampton 10
2.2 Definition of Affordable Housing 11
3. Housing Characteristics and Needs 14
3.1 Demographic Profile 14
3.1.1 Population and Types of Households 15
3.1.2 Race and Immigrant Information 17
3.1.3 Age Distribution 18
3.1.4 Income 21
3.1.5 Poverty Status 24
3.1.6 Employment 25
3.1.7 Education 26
3.1.8 Disability Status 26
3.1.9 Residency in 1995 27
3.2 Housing Profile 28
3.2.1 Types of Structures and Units 30
3.2.2 Age of Housing Stock 32
3.2.3 More Recent and Projected Growth 32
3.2.4 Housing Market Conditions 34
3.2.5 Affordability of Existing Housing 44
3.2.6 SHI and Housing for the Homeless 50
3.3 Priority Housing Needs 61
3.3.1 Homelessness Prevention 61
3.3.2 Shelters and Rapid Re-housing 61
3.3.3 Producing and Preserving Affordable Housing 63
4. Challenges to Development 70
5. Housing Strategies 79
5.1 Organizational Strategies 80
5.2 Regulatory Strategies 87
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
iii
5.3 New Housing Production Strategies 97
5.4 Promote Affordability/Sustainability of Existing Housing 108
5.5 Help Preserve Affordable Market Units 116
5.6 Continue Active Support for Local/Regional Efforts to
End Homelessness 118
6. Affordable Housing Production Goals 125
Appendices
Appendix 1: Demographic and Housing Data for
CDBG-Eligible Census Blocks and Map 131
Appendix 2: Local and Regional Organizations/Resources 135
Appendix 3: Glossary of Housing Terms 144
Appendix 4: Summary of Housing Regulations and
Resources 149
Appendix 5: Future Land Use Map 175
Appendix 6: Summary of Housing Strategies 177
Appendix 7: Acknowledgements 181
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
1
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT and STRATEGIC HOUSING PLAN
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Background and Purpose
Northampton has embarked on a number of important planning efforts during the past several years,
most recently the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan (SNCP), completed in January 2008.
This Plan indicated that the guiding principle related to affordable housing was to “support a wide
variety of housing types that increase rental and homeownership units to create and preserve a range of
affordability and choice in housing options”. The SNCP also included specific strategies for meeting these
objectives.
In the fall of 2008, the Northampton Housing Partnership received funding from the Northampton
Community Preservation Committee for the purpose of commissioning the preparation of a
comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Plan for Northampton that would
build upon the broad housing principles and strategies set forth in SNCP. Such an Assessment and
Strategic Plan are necessary in order to give the City the operational tools it needs to make the vision
contained in SNCP a reality.
The first component of this effort is the Housing Needs Assessment. This Assessment represents an
opportunity for the City of Northampton to fully examine the relationship between changing
demographics within the City and the specific impacts of those changes relative to housing, the
dynamics in market conditions in particular. Only by understanding these changing demographics and
housing conditions can the City determine the current and future housing needs of its citizenry.
The Housing Needs Assessment ultimately serves as the context for the Strategic Housing Plan that
details housing production goals and strategies for Northampton to meet the identified needs.
Ultimately, the intent is that the Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Plan provide
guidance to the City as it renders decisions on any number of policy issues regarding housing in the City
such as where to allocate resources for the production of new affordable and workforce housing, how to
revise its existing zoning code as it relates to building new housing, and how to engage housing
developers and other housing service providers in partnerships that will work to fill the identified needs.
1.2 Summary of Significant Demographic and Housing Trends
· Northampton’s population growth has remained relatively flat since the middle of the 20th
Century, from 29,063 residents in 1950 to 28,549 residents in 2010, based on census data and as
presented in Figure 1-1. The City’s Office of Planning and Development projects that the City’s
population should continue to be relatively stable over the next 20 years.
· Despite fairly flat overall population growth, the number of households in Northampton has
been increasing. The number of households increased by 16% from 10,277 in 1980 to 11,880 in
2000, while the average household size decreased from 2.45 person to 2.14 persons. This
increase in households is correlated to the growing number of smaller, non-family households1,
1 Includes individuals and unrelated household members. This census definition actually does not include many of the
city’s families that are headed by same sex couples.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
2
from 3,980 in 1980 to 6,002 in 2000, comprising about 50% of all households in Northampton.
Projections indicate that the number of households will continue to increase.
Figure 1-1
Population Change 1950 to 2009
29,063
30,008
29,664
29,286 29,289
28,978
28,549
27,500
28,000
28,500
29,000
29,500
30,000
30,500
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Number of Residents
Northampton’s population is aging. The numbers of children have declined, and while there is a
substantial population of young adults age 21 to 34 in Northampton, including Smith College students,
their numbers have been on the decline as well. In fact, based on 2010 Census Redistricting data, the
number and percentage of those under 18 have continued to decrease from 4,917 or 17% in 2000 to
4,616 or 16.2% by 2010. On the other hand, there were substantial increases in more middle-aged
residents age 35 to 54, a decline since 1980 in the numbers of those aged 55 to 64, and relative stability
of those aged 65 or older. Figure 1-2 summarizes these trends.
Figure 1-2
Change in Age Distribution, 1980 to 2000
1278
4650
2735
8410
2653
2599
2867
4094
1412
3667
2498
7803
4982
2534
2127
4266
1189
3728
2251
6304
4573
4731
2209
3993
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
0 to 4
5 to 17
18 to 20
21 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 +
2000
1990
1980
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
3
· Northampton’s median household income remains consistently lower than the County and State.
The 2000 median income in Northampton was lower than that for the County and State,
$41,808 versus $46,098 and $50,500, respectively. The 2007 and 2008 projections for
the City, County and State, respectively, are $45,760, $53,170 and $61,785, representing
increases of 9.4%, 15.3%, and 22.4%, also respectively. Additionally, estimates suggest
that poverty levels have actually increased. Moreover, altogether there were 4,577
households with incomes within 80% AMI suggesting that at least in 2000, almost 40% of all
households may have qualified for housing assistance based on their income, without
consideration for financial assets.
· Approximately half of Northampton’s housing stock is owner-occupied. In 2000, 53.5% of
Northampton’s housing stock was owner-occupied with 46.5% of units being renter-occupied
while the County and the State had 35% and 38.3% renter-occupancy levels, respectively. The
2007 and 2008 estimates point to reductions in rental-occupancy, suggesting that new housing
growth has focused on owner-occupied units and the likely conversion of some rental units to
owner-occupancy, confirmed by building permit data.
· Addition of new housing units has been steady but modest. Figure 1-3 shows how many units
were built by decade since 1960, indicating continued but much slower housing growth over
time. This housing growth has occurred despite some small declines in population, reflecting
increasing numbers of smaller households.
Figure 1-3
Housing Growth 1960 to 2009
1,244
1,460
132
691
419
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009Number of Units Built
· Housing prices remain high despite a poor economic climate and declining sales. In regard to
2000 median house prices, Northampton had somewhat higher market values than the County –
a median price of $144,600 versus $142,400, but lower than the State at $185,700. Since that
time housing prices soared and then more recently softened somewhat with lower prices and
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
4
fewer sales. More recent data from The Warren Group indicate that the median sales price of a
single-family home as of January 2010 was $260,750, up somewhat from $250,000 in 2008.
While prices and interest rates have been declining, making housing more affordable, the ability
to obtain financing has become increasingly more challenging providing a significant constraint
to those entering the housing market.
In regard to the rental market, in 2000 about 60% of the City’s rental units were renting in the
$500 to $1,000 price range, the median at $647.2 Since then rental prices have increased
significantly and the lowest rent advertised on Craigslist in September 2009 was $850 for a one-
bedroom unit. Rentals also typically require first and last month’s rent up-front plus a security
deposit and broker’s fee. A strong rental housing market has pushed going rents well beyond
the means of many, including most low- and moderate-income individuals and families.
Northampton remains a vibrant community and continues to be a desirable place to move to, to work
in, and to raise our children. The City is also well ahead of most communities in the Commonwealth in
regard to providing affordable housing. However, based on the affordability gap that has been growing,
largely outside of the City’s control due to demographic and economic conditions, the City cannot rest
on its laurels. This Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Plan provide tools for the City to
make progress on reducing the affordability gap. Through a range of strategies including zoning
changes, partnerships with developers and service providers, and subsidies, the City can play a
meaningful role in promoting housing options that match people to appropriately priced and sized units
– producing housing that reflects local needs!
1.3 Priority Housing Needs
Based on input from a wide variety of sources,3 the following priority housing needs have been
identified that reflect the continuum of housing opportunities that should be provided:
Homelessness Prevention
The Tenancy Preservation Program, special federal funding such as the Homelessness
Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP), tenant and landlord mediation efforts,
regional networks for services coordination, and other housing stabilization programs are highly
effective ways to preserve housing for those at-risk of homelessness. As the All Roads Lead
Home Plan states, “Prevention must be a key part of our strategy, because it is humane, cost-
effective, and critical to ending homelessness”.4
Shelters and Rapid Re-housing
For those who become homeless, Northampton does have a number of emergency shelter and
transitional housing programs that are listed in Section 3.2.6. These emergency shelters have
reflected a crisis management response to helping the homeless, saving many lives. Once in the
shelter system, agencies and organization have focused on providing services and programs to
2 It is also important to note that the census rents also include subsidized units.
3 These sources included the visioning analysis during the preparation of the Sustainable Northampton
Comprehensive Plan, the development of Northampton Vision 2020, the Grow Smart Northampton Plan, Executive
Order 418 certification process, Three County Continuum of Care Goals and Objectives, HUD Consolidated Plan,
consultations with service providers, feedback from public forums, and other special meetings and interviews.
4 “All Roads Lead Home: The Pioneer Valley’s Plan to End Homelessness”, supported by the cities of Holyoke,
Northampton and Springfield, MA, and funding from One Family, Inc. for the Pioneer Valley Committee to End
Homelessness (PVCEH), February 2008, page 2.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
5
move these individuals and families into permanent housing. Northampton’s HUD Consolidated
Plan indicates that wait lists for the City’s shelters continue to grow, however.
During recent years there has been a shift to preventing homelessness by quickly providing
housing with wrap-around services as needed through a rapid response Housing First model.
This approach has proven effective in other places around the country. “Housing First” is an
alternative to the current emergency and transitional shelter system of providing temporary
housing for the homeless and is premised on the belief that vulnerable and at-risk homeless
families and individuals are more responsive to interventions and social service support after
they are in their own housing, rather than while living in temporary facilities.
Producing and Preserving Affordable Housing
Finally, the City needs to focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing at a variety of
levels of affordability, including both rental and homeownership options. Many of the existing
affordable units are included in the Subsidized Housing Inventory summarized in Table 3-35 or
rented on the private market through rental subsidy programs that make up the difference
between a fair market rent and what a low- or moderate-income household can afford. It should
be noted, however, that those with Section 8 housing vouchers, or with rental subsidies from
other comparable programs, have experienced difficulties in finding suitable housing in the
private market because of high rents.
The City’s Consolidated Plan presents housing needs related to increasing the supply of
affordable, permanent housing5 units for various levels of affordability that include the
following, with some minor changes:
· Rental housing for individuals
There is a clear need for enhanced SRO units or one-bedroom units for those with
lower-paying jobs who are encountering serious difficulty finding housing that they can
afford in Northampton. A priority will be providing housing for those whose incomes do
not exceed $1,000 per month, what the federal government calls living at about the
100% poverty level.
The Northampton Housing Partnership has undertaken a series of interviews with
housing providers and those serving the homeless since 2005, including a meeting on
June 23, 2009, as important input into the Housing Needs Assessment. Through these
discussions, new Single Room Occupancy (SRO), providing single rooms for individuals,
and the Safe Haven Program, offering housing for the chronically homeless mentally ill,
were identified to be most needed for those homeless, formerly homeless or those very
low-income individuals in search of more affordable and appropriate units in
Northampton.
· Rental housing for families
There is also a significant need to house families, particularly those earning within the poverty
level,6 as well as growing numbers of smaller households that are increasingly including single
5 “Permanent housing” refers to units that are created for year-round use where the terms of occupancy are granted
through a lease, in the case of rental housing, or a title/deed, in the case of homeownership.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
6
parents with children as well as unrelated individuals. There are substantial numbers of two-
person households with unmet housing needs as such households are now estimated to
comprise almost 4,000 households, or about one-third of all households, yet smaller housing
units are in short supply. The Housing Authority also has substantial numbers of families on
their wait list for larger units, indicating a further need for larger subsidized rental units.
· Preservation of the existing affordable rental stock
The preservation of existing affordable rental units is essential to maintaining an
affordable housing stock well into the future. This rental housing, including both units
that are subsidized and in the private housing market, is more cost effective to
rehabilitate and maintain than to build new. Moreover, efforts are needed to maintain
affordability restrictions on subsidized housing in perpetuity to the greatest extent
possible, so as not to lose affordability based on expiring use restrictions.
· Housing rehabilitation resources
Many low- and moderate- income homeowners lack sufficient resources to properly
maintain their homes and address substandard housing conditions. Improvements
should incorporate modifications to improve handicapped accessibility and eliminate
lead-based paint in addition to housing code violations.
· Affordable homeownership for families
Market conditions have placed the purchase of homes beyond the financial means of
low- and moderate-income households, and families need opportunities to “buy up” as
their families grow. Infill development and the redevelopment/reuse of existing
properties in partnership with non-profit organizations and private builders offer the
best options for increasing affordable homeownership opportunities in Northampton.
· Housing for at risk and special needs populations
Housing should continue to be developed to serve those who are at risk of
homelessness and/or have special needs that require supportive services. These units
are needed to provide stable and affordable opportunities for those transitioning out of
shelters or special programs as well as rapid response units as part of the Housing First
approach to ending homelessness.
· Look beyond traditional housing models
The Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan suggests that the City look beyond
more traditional models of housing development, including affordable housing, to
promote alternative living options to meet a variety of local needs such as live/work
space for artists.
1.4 Summary of Housing Strategies
This Plan provides important guidance on opportunities for strategically investing available local funding
for housing to best serve the range of local needs and leverage other public and private financing.
6 The 2009 poverty guidelines are $10,830 for an individual, $14,570 for a 2-person household, $18,310 for 3 persons,
$22,050 for 4 persons, $25,790 for 5 persons, $29,530 for 6 persons, $33,270 for 7 persons, and $37,010 for 8 persons
with an adjustment of $3,740 for each additional person for families with more than 8 persons.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
7
Within the context of other planning documents, priority needs and goals, existing resources, and
affordability requirements, the following housing strategies are proposed as part of an affordable
housing toolbox for the City of Northampton. It is important to note that these strategies are presented
as a package for the City to consider, prioritize, and process, each through the appropriate regulatory
channels.
The strategies address the three (3) major housing goals included in the Sustainable Northampton
Comprehensive Plan (SNCP) as follows:
1. Create new housing along range of income levels – ownership and rentals
Organizational strategies
Conduct community education
Capitalize the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Monitor and report on the implementation of this Plan
Formalize the affordable housing review process
Affirmatively promote fair housing
Regulatory strategies
Adopt inclusionary zoning
Ease restrictions on development near city and village centers
Promote mixed-use development in more locations
Revise cluster zoning provisions
Modify accessory apartment requirements
Rewrite Transfer of Development Rights ordinance
Revise parking requirements
Explore form-based zoning
Establish a new mixed-use innovations zone
New housing production strategies
Continue to pursue nontraditional housing models that respond to diverse needs
Fund small infill development
Establish a subsidy guarantee program
Make suitable public property available for affordable housing
Provide down payment and closing cost assistance
2. Preserve and sustain existing affordable housing
Promote the affordability and sustainability of existing housing
Monitor and maintain Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) units
Convert existing housing to affordability
Rehabilitate the Grove Street Inn
Promote sustainable energy conservation measures
Help preserve affordable market units
Sustain and expand housing rehab programs
Sustain and improve existing SRO units
Create a climate of public support for landlords
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
8
3. Work to end homelessness
Continue active support for local and regional efforts to end homelessness
Continue to facilitate and support the Three County Continuum of Care
Continue to participate in Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness (WMNEH)
Support homelessness prevention programs
Support Housing First efforts
Work on economic development, income and poverty issues
It should be noted that the intent of this Plan is not only to continue to surpass the state’s 10% goal
under Chapter 40B, but more importantly to serve the range of local needs as articulated in the three (3)
housing goals and priority housing needs listed above. Consequently, there are instances where housing
initiatives might be promoted to meet these needs that will not necessarily result in the inclusion of
units in the Subsidized Housing Inventory (examples potentially include the promotion of accessory
apartments or mixed-income housing that includes “community housing” or “workforce housing”
units)7. A more detailed summary of housing strategies is available in Appendix 6.
1.5 Housing Production Goals
This Housing Plan is prepared according to the requirements of the state’s Housing Production Program
should the City decide to submit it to the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) for approval under those guidelines. Many communities that have less than 10%
of their housing stocks defined as affordable by the state have opted to participate in the Housing
Production Program. This allows them to not only prepare a plan that addresses their specific housing
needs, but also potentially to be in a position to deny unwanted comprehensive permit projects should
the municipality be able to meet annual production goals.
Plans approved under the Housing Production Program must include a number of key components. In
addition to a comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment, the locality must describe, through various
housing strategies, how it plans to meet annual production goals equivalent to 0.50% of a community’s
year-round housing stock, at least 61 affordable units in the case of Northampton. This annual goal is
likely to increase to about 63 units8 after the next decennial census count becomes available and future
housing growth will continue to drive-up the 10% goal as well as annual production goals.9
Because Northampton currently has more than 10% of its year-round housing defined as affordable
under state guidelines and has been more than open to working with developers on Chapter 40B
comprehensive permits, the incentives for participating in Housing Production are significantly less
compelling. Nevertheless, Housing Production requirements establish a reasonable framework for
preparing a Housing Plan and have been adopted through this document, providing both a Five-Year and
Ten-Year program for promoting affordable housing, including workforce housing.
7 Community housing generally refers to units directed to those earning between 80% and 100% AMI, whereas
workforce housing refers to units directed to those earning between 80% and 120% AMI, but still priced out of the
private housing market.
8 This is calculated by applying the same level of seasonal or occasional units in 2000 (1% or 128 units) to the number
of total housing units in 2010 of 12,728 units (based on 2010 Census Redistricting data), then subtracting 128 units
from 12,728 and then taking .5% of that amount (12,728-128 units = 12,600 x 0.5% or 63 units).
9 It should be noted, however, that all units in Chapter 40B rental developments count as part of annual production
goals and the 10% state goal as opposed to only 25% for homeownership projects.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
9
1.6 Conclusion
As noted earlier, this document includes two major components – a Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan. The Housing Needs Assessment examines housing in Northampton, particularly
housing affordability, to present a snapshot of current conditions and trends as well as projected future
conditions. It also looks at the gaps between what housing is available to local residents and what is
required to meet community needs, including a review of local, regional and state resources to support
the creation of new affordable housing units. The Housing Needs Assessment in fact reflects a
recommendation included in the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan to identify market
pressures and conditions that restrict affordable housing.
The second part of this planning effort, the Strategic Housing Plan, addresses additional
recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan to increase the production of affordable housing,
including zoning incentives and gap financing. This Housing Plan presents a proactive housing agenda of
City-sponsored initiatives based on documented local needs.
Due to the rising costs of homeownership, including escalating costs associated with taxes, insurance
and utilities, some residents are finding it increasingly difficult to afford to remain in Northampton.
Children who grew up in the community are now facing the possibility that they may not be able to
return to raise their own families locally. Long-term residents, especially the elderly, are finding
themselves less able to maintain their homes and keep up with increased expenses, but are pressed to
find alternative housing that better meets their current life styles. Families are finding it more difficult
to “buy up,” purchasing larger homes as their families grow. Town employees are increasingly hard
pressed to find housing that is affordable in Northampton. Those who are particularly burdened by the
high housing prices are lower-wage workers or the disabled who are squeezed-out of the private
housing market and are ever more reliant on subsidized housing. This Plan is meant to help
Northampton chart its course in providing more affordable housing options to meet these diverse local
needs.
The convergence of demographic and housing trends – increasing numbers of households, lower
incomes, increasing poverty, rising prices, lower housing production, declining supply of rentals, difficulty
in obtaining financing, large up-front cash requirements for homeownership and rentals – all point to a
growing affordability gap! This gap is reinforced by 2000 census data that indicated about 3,000
households or one-quarter of all Northampton households were living in housing that was by common
definition beyond their means and unaffordable as they were paying more than 30% of their income on
housing. If these demographic and housing trends are left to evolve unchecked, Northampton will lose
ground on its ability to be a place where families across a full range of economic and social strata can
call home.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
10
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. An Introduction to the City of Northampton
Northampton is a culturally and economically diverse community located within the heart of the
five-college area of the Pioneer Valley in Western Massachusetts. Home to Smith College,
Northampton also serves as the county seat for Hampshire County. It is located at the
intersection of a major east-west state highway, Route 9, which links Amherst and the University
of Massachusetts with Northampton and the hilltowns to the west. Northampton is also located
in the north-south corridor of Interstate 91, bordered by Easthampton to the south,
Westhampton to the west, Williamsburg and Hatfield to the north, and separated from Hadley
by the Connecticut River to the east.
The City of Northampton was settled in 1654 and now includes almost 36 square miles. The City
is comprised of a lively downtown and several village centers, which are focal points for outlying
residential neighborhoods. The community has a diverse economic base consisting of a strong
retail and commercial sector as well as a manufacturing sector that includes a mix of traditional
manufacturers and innovative industries.
The vibrant small city atmosphere in Northampton is enhanced by numerous cultural attractions
and natural resources including the only municipally owned theater in the Commonwealth, two
hospitals (Cooley Dickinson and a VA Medical Center), Smith College, the Clarke School for the
Deaf, the Connecticut River, rich agricultural and conservation land as well as many active and
passive recreational opportunities. The city has also been strongly influenced by nearby Amherst
College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College and the University of Massachusetts as part
of the five-college system in the region, promoting a more cosmopolitan community, and
attracting many young people to the community. In fact, the City has been described as being an
“intentional” place to live, drawing residents who are particularly interested in living in a place
with an emphasis on environmentalism and wellness, a strong urban core with easy access to
rural recreational amenities and a stunning physical landscape, an active gay and lesbian
community, historic architecture, particularly Victorians, and a strong cultural heritage.
While these impressive cultural, economic and natural assets promote a rich quality of life,
Northampton is nevertheless confronted with substantial challenges. These include
· The City been losing some population, while housing, despite the current economic
slump, is on average expensive and beyond the means of most low- and moderate-
income households. Moreover, housing costs are increasing given higher utility and tax
bills as well as more expensive terms and conditions for accessing mortgage financing
(20% down payments) or renting a unit (first and last month’s rent, security deposit,
broker fees).
· There are homeless individuals and families that need safe, decent and affordable
housing, and seniors on fixed incomes who have limited housing options in the
community.
· While college students add to the vitality of the community, they also put pressure on
the local housing market and make finding rental units more challenging for long-term,
year-round residents.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
11
· The VA Hospital is an important local medical service provider, but it also draws to the
area those with substantial health needs –including substance abuse problems – who
require additional levels of service support.
· Northampton is believed to be particularly attractive to homeless youth.
· The former Northampton State Hospital has provided a wonderful opportunity for
mixed-use and mixed-income development, including affordable housing, but its initial
closing presented significant challenges, remnants of which the community is still
confronting and trying to resolve.
· In recent decades, the strong housing market has encouraged owners to convert
properties to condominiums, thus eroding the supply of rental units, a process only
recently curtailed due to a struggling condo market.
· While more than 10% of the City’s housing stock is defined as affordable according to
the state’s Chapter 40B definition, Northampton is likely to lose some of these units in
the future due to expiring affordability restrictions.
2.2. Definition of Affordable Housing
Federal and State programs offer a number of different definitions of affordable housing. For example,
HUD generally identifies units as affordable if gross rent (including costs of utilities borne by the tenant)
is no more than 30% of a household’s income (with a small deduction for each dependent, for child care,
for extraordinary medical expenses, etc.) or if the carrying costs of purchasing a home (mortgage,
homeowners association fees, property taxes and insurance) are not more than typically 30% of income.
If households are paying more than these amounts, they are described as experiencing housing
affordability problems; and if they are paying 50% or more for housing, they have severe housing
affordability problems and heavy cost burdens.
Table 2-1
2010 Income Levels for
Affordable Housing in the Springfield Area
# Persons in
Household
30% of Median
Income
50% of Median
Income
80% of Median
Income
120% of Median
Income
1 $16,450 $27,400 $43,800 $65,760
2 18,800 31,300 50,050 75,120
3 21,150 35,200 56,300 84,480
4 23,450 39,100 62,550 93,840
5 25,350 42,250 67,600 101,400
6 27,250 45,400 72,600 108,960
7 29,100 48,500 77,600 116,400
8 31,100 51,650 82,600 123,960
2010 Median Household Income for the Springfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) = $67,400
Affordable housing can also be defined according to percentages of median income for the area.10
Housing subsidy programs can be targeted to particular income ranges depending upon programmatic
goals. Extremely low-income housing is directed to households with incomes at or below 30% of area
median income as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ($21,150 for a
family of three for the Springfield area) and very low-income is defined as households with incomes less
10 It should be noted that the Springfield SMSA data does not accurately reflect income/housing costs for
Northampton due to higher housing costs than Springfield’s and other nearby cities.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
12
than 50% of area median income ($35,200 for a family of three). Low- and moderate-income generally
refers to the range between 50% and 80% of area median income ($56,300 for a family of three at the
80% level). These income levels are summarized in Table 2-1.
The state established legislation for promoting affordable housing under Chapter 774 of the Acts of
1969, creating the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
40B).11 This legislation allows developers to override local zoning if the project meets certain
requirements and the municipality has less than 10% of its year-round housing stock defined as
affordable under the 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI). In calculating a community’s progress
toward the 10% Chapter 40B goal, the state counts a housing unit as affordable if it is created by state or
federal programs that support low- and moderate-income households earning at or below 80% of area
median income. Specifically, all SHI units must meet the following criteria:
1. Subsidized by an eligible state or federal program.
2. Subject to a long-term deed restriction limiting occupancy to income eligible households for a
specified period of time (at least 30 years or longer for newly created affordable units, and at
least 15 years for rehabilitated units).
3. Subject to an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan.
Based on current Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development data on
Northampton’s supply of affordable housing included in the state’s Subsidized Housing Inventory, based
on 2000 census figures, he City had 12,282 year-round housing units of which 1,452 are currently
counted by the state as affordable, representing 11.8% of the year-round housing stock.12 Planned
development should push Northampton beyond the 12% threshold.
Additionally, most state-supported housing assistance programs are targeted to households earning at
this same level, at or below 80% of area median income, however, others, particularly rental programs,
are directed to those earning at lower income thresholds. For example, the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit Program subsidizes rental units targeted to households earning up to 60% of median income.
First-time homebuyer programs typically apply income limits of up to 80% of area median income. It is
worth noting that according to the 2000 census, 4,577 households or 38.5% of Northampton’s total
households would have been income-eligible for affordable housing using the 80% of area median
income criterion without consideration of financial assets.
The Community Preservation Act allows Community Preservation funding to be directed to those within
a somewhat higher income range – 100% of area median income – now commonly referred to as
“community housing”. Additionally, some housing developments incorporate several income tiers. For
example, one project could combine units for those earning at or below 80% of area median income,
moderate-income “workforce” units for those earning between 80% and 120% of median income (see
income levels in Table 2-1), and even some market rate units to help cross-subsidize the more
11 Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 established the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law (Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40B) to facilitate the development of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households
(defined as any housing subsidized by the federal or state government under any program to assist in the
construction of low- or moderate-income housing for those earning less than 80% of median income) by permitting
the state to override local zoning and other restrictions in communities where less than 10% of the year-round
housing is subsidized for low- and moderate-income households.
12 The year-round unit is calculated by subtracting vacant units, including seasonal or occasional units, from the
number of total housing units.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
13
affordable ones. A rental project might include a couple of tiers below the 80% level in addition to
workforce and/or market rate units. It should be noted, however, that those units that involve
occupants with incomes higher than 80% of area median income, while still serving local housing needs,
will not count as part of the Subsidized Housing Inventory unless they are part of a Chapter 40B rental
development where 100% of the units would qualify for inclusion in the SHI if at least 25% meet 40B
guidelines.
The City is well over the 10% state affordability goal at this time, at 11.8%, but housing growth has
increased the housing stock to 12,728 units according to the 2010 Census Redistricting data. If the
percentage of year-round units remains about the same as the 2000 census, at about 1%, then
Northampton’s current inventory of affordable units will still surpass the 10% state target, at about
11.5%. However, the pending loss of 207 affordable units at Hathaway Farms would bring
Northampton’s SHI percentage down to 9.9% without the production of additional affordable units and
assuming no significant loss of additional SHI units. Pipeline units of an estimated 67 units should push
Northampton only slightly over the 10% affordability goal to 10.4%.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
14
3. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS
3.1 Demographic Profile
It is important to closely examine social and economic characteristics, particularly past and future
trends, in order to understand the composition of the population and how it relates to housing needs.
Northampton’s Office of Planning and Development has identified five (5) significant demographic
trends that over the past half-century have had a role in shaping the city. These are:
1. Significant decrease in the population living in group quarters, a consequence of the closing of
the Northampton State Hospital. The population of those living in group quarters has stabilized
and is unlikely to increase significantly in the future.
2. Population stability since the mid-20th Century, decreasing slightly over the past 20 years.
3. Substantial increase in smaller families, more non-family households and more single-person
households.
4. Significant increase in the median age and a decrease in those ages 24 to 45.
5. Fewer children, and thus a smaller school-aged population.
Data on many of these important trends is summarized in Table 3-1, which highlights the continued
decrease of those living in group quarters, from 21% in 1960 to 12% in 2000, with only a small estimated
increase to 13% in 2007. The Table also presents the dramatic decrease in the average number of
persons per household or housing unit, from 3.25 persons in 1950 to 2.14 in 2000, estimated to remain
the same by 2007. Consequently, Northampton has an increasing need to serve smaller households
including single persons.
Table 3-1
Population Changes
1950 Through 2007
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007
Population 29,063 30,008 29,664 29,286 29,289 28,978 28,411
Household
Population
-- 23,692
(79.0%)
24,133
(81.4%)
25,007
85.4%)
25,442
(86.9%)
25,376
(87.6%)
24,680
(86.9%)
Group Quarters -- 6,316
(21.0%)
5,511
(18.6%)
4,279
(14.6%)
3,867
13.2%)
3,602
(12.4%)
3,731
(13.1%)
Ave. Household
Size
3.25 3.00 2.82 2.86 2.28 2.14 2.14
Sources: US. Decennial census and the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Additional demographic data will be presented in Section 3 that will have other effects on social and
economic issues and future planning for new housing including but not limited to the following:
· What are the relative increases and decreases of various age groups and the ramifications for
greater housing choices?
· What changes in income levels have occurred and how does this relate to housing affordability?
· What particular areas of the city have higher levels of need, both in terms of their residents and
housing stock?
· What are the variations in household size and types of households that suggest unmet or
greater housing needs?
· What proportion of the population is disabled or has other special needs that suggest the need
for supportive services?
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
15
These and other social and economic issues are discussed in the following section.
3.1.1 Population and Types of Households – Stable population but more households
As noted above, Northampton’s population has been relatively stable for 60 years and remains so
despite recent mild declines, decreasing by 1% since 1980, from 29,286 to 28,978 residents by 2000 as
documented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. This small decrease has continued as the 2010 population was
28,549 according to 2010 Census Redistricting data and projected to be only somewhat less at 28,031 by
2014, noted in Table 3-3, demonstrating continued relative population stability.13 Northampton’s Office
of Planning and Development projects that the city’s population will be about 28,500 by 2030, plus or
minus 1,500, predicting continued population stability well into the future. Projections from the
Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER) predict some small increases in the
population with up to 29,136 residents by 2020.
Despite the more recent subtle population loss, the number of households increased by 16% from
10,277 in 1980 to 11,880 in 2000 while the average household size decreased from 2.45 person to 2.14
persons. This is correlated to the increasing number of typically smaller, non-family households14, which
grew from 3,980 in 1980 to 6,002 in 2000, comprising about 40% to 50% of all households in
Northampton.
Table 3-2
Key Demographic Characteristics, 1980-2000
1980 1990 2000
# % # % # %
Total
Population
29,286 100.0 28,289 100.0 28,978 100.0
Total
Households
10,227 100.0 11,164 100.0 11,880 100.0
Family
Households**
6,247 61.1 6,019 53.9 5,878 49.5
Non-family
Households*
3,980 38.9 5,145 46.1 6,002 50.5
Female Headed
Families *
1,095 10.7 1,176 10.5 1,200 10.1
Average
Household Size
2.45 persons 2.28 persons 2.14 persons
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990 and 2000 Summary File 1
* Percent of all households
Projections indicate that the number of households will continue to increase somewhat despite some
minor fall-off in population with the proportion of families and non-families each remaining about half
of all households through 2014. The number of female-headed households with children has remained
about the same since 1980 at about 10% of all households.
13 Nielsen Claritas, Inc., 2009.
14 Includes individuals and unrelated household members. This census definition actually does not include many of
the city’s families that are headed by same sex couples.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
16
Table 3-3
Types of Households
2000, 2009 Estimates and 2014 Projections
2000
Census
2009
Estimate
2014
Projection
Population 28,978 28,299 28,031
Percent Change -2.34% -0.95%
Households 11,880 12,012 12,064
Percent Change 1.11% 0.43%
Families 5,878 5,926 5,944
Percent Change 0.82% 0.30%
Non-Family Households 6,002 6,086 6,120
Percent Change 1.40% 0.56%
Housing Units 12,405 12,573 12,625
Percent Change 1.35% 0.41%
Group Quarters Population 3,602 3,445 3,371
Percent Change -4.36% -2.15%
Average Household Size 2.14 2.07 2.04
Percent Change -3.13% -1.21%
Source: Nielsen Claritas, Inc. 2009.
Table 3-4 examines the types of households by household size. The average household size of 2.14
people per dwelling unit in 2000 is projected to decrease still to 2.04 by 2014, driven by decreases in
family size, the numbers of children and more “traditional” families, and increases in “child-free” and
“child-delayed” families, especially increases in empty nesters and senior and frail populations. Single-
person households comprised a substantial portion of the population, about 37% of all households and
74% of non-family households in 2000, and are projected to continue to increase in number and in
proportion to all households. Certainly these numbers take into account the population housed in
group quarters including about 2,300 Smith College students as well as about 1,100 institutionalized
individuals living in correctional institutions (245), nursing homes (675), and the VA Hospital (112).
Nevertheless, there still remain approximately another 1,000 single-person households who rely on the
existing housing stock, as they are not in institutional settings.
It should also be noted that half of all residents over 65 lived alone. Moreover, almost half of the
households with children were headed by one parent (82% of these involved unmarried parents or single
mothers) suggesting a compelling need for affordable family housing for families with only one income.
This data suggests a pressing need for a greater number of smaller units to accommodate a growing
population of single-person households.
The need for smaller subsidized units was confirmed by a meeting of housing providers on June 23,
2009, whose services are primarily directed to serving very low-income populations, including the
homeless or those at risk of homelessness. Participants suggested that there was a substantial need for
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
17
enhanced SRO (ESRO)15 units for the chronically homeless to transition into, for those leaving
correctional institutions, for those graduating from foster care, and low wage earning adults. These
groups have encountered increasing difficulties in finding safe, decent and affordable housing in
Northampton. Additionally, many of these individuals need supportive services that will enable them to
live independently and become contributing members of the community at large.
There are also substantial numbers of two-person households with unmet housing needs. There is an
estimated 4,000 such households, comprising about one-third of all households; yet smaller housing
units are in short supply (see Table 3-4)
Table 3-4
Types of Households by Size
2000, 2009 Estimates and 2014 Projections
Households by Type and Size* 2000 2009 2014
Non-family Households 6,002 6,086 6,120
1-person household 4,431 73.8% 4,757 78.2% 4,891 79.9%
2-person household 1,266 21.1% 1,076 17.7% 1,000 16.3%
3-person household 206 3.4% 176 2.9% 160 2.6%
4-person household 78 1.3% 59 0.1% 51 0.8%
5-person household 11 0.2% 10 0.2% 11 0.2%
6-person household 7 0.1% 7 0.1% 6 0.1%
7 or more person household 3 0.05% 1 0.02% 1 0.02%
Family Households 5,878 5,926 5,944
2-person household 2,709 46.1% 2,853 48.1% 2,904 48.9%
3-person household 1,463 24.9% 1,519 25.6% 1,535 25.8%
4-person household 1,169 19.9% 1,094 18.5% 1,067 18.0%
5-person household 398 6.8% 350 5.9% 337 5.7%
6-person household 105 1.8% 91 1.5% 87 1.5%
7 or more person household 34 0.6% 19 0.32% 14 0.2%
Source: Nielsen Claritas, Inc. 2009.
3.1.2 Race and Immigrant Information – Small but growing minority population
Table 3-5 and Figure 3-1 both present data on the racial distribution of the population in Northampton.
While the number and percentage of minority residents has increased significantly, from 950 residents
in 1980 to 2,895 in 2000 and 3,524 by 2010,16 minority ethnic residents comprised only 12.3% of the
population in 2010, a relatively low level in comparison to other cities in Massachusetts. About half of
the minority residents in 2010 described themselves as Latino or Hispanic. Additionally, the 2000 census
indicates that 1,870 residents or 6.5% of the population were born outside of the United States.
15 Enhanced SRO (ESRO) units include a kitchen and bath in each unit as opposed to shared facilities in more of the
traditional SRO models.
16 2010 figure based on 2010 Census Redistricting data.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
18
Table 3-5
Racial and Immigrant Information, 1980 – 2010
1980 1990 2000 2010
# % # % # % # %
Minority Pop. 950 3.2 2,058 7.0 2,895 10.0 3,524 12.3
Black 310 1.1 522 1.8 602 2.1 776 2.7
Asian 184 0.6 848 2.9 906 3.1 1,162 4.1
Latino ** 557 1.9 1,201 4.1 1,518 5.2 1,928 6.8
Foreign Born 1,507 5.1 1,878 6.4 1,870 6.5 -- --
Entered US in
past 10 years
-- -- 823 2.8 742 2.6 -- --
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990 and 2000 Summary File 3
2010 Census Redistricting Data
* All non-White classifications ** Latino or Hispanic of any race. – Indicates data not available
Figure 3-1
Racial Distribution
25,025
776
1,162
1,928
White
Black
Asian
Latino
3.1.3 Age Distribution – Decreasing younger population but growing numbers of middle-aged
residents
Figure 1-2 (in the Executive Summary) visually presents changes in age categories from 1980 to 2000,
demonstrating a number of important demographic trends. Clearly the numbers of children declined,
and while there is a substantial population of young adults age 21 to 34 in Northampton, including Smith
College students, their numbers have been on the decline as well. On the other hand, there were
substantial increases in more middle-aged residents age 35 to 54, a decline since 1980 in the numbers of
those aged 55 to 64 and relative stability (between 1980 to 2000) of those aged 65 or older.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
19
Table 3-6 summarizes 1990 and 2000 census data as well as 2009 estimates and projected 2014
information on the age distribution of the population. While the population is projected to decrease by
only 3.3% between 2000 and 2014, the percentage of those children under the age of 18 is expected to
decrease by 24.3%, a substantial decline with ramifications for school enrollments and types of housing
units to be built in the future. In fact, based on 2010 Census Redistricting data, the number and
percentage of those under 18 has continued to decrease from 4,917 or 17% in 2000 to 4,616 or 16.2% by
2010.
Table 3-7 demonstrates variations in household size and number of school-age children by the type of
dwelling, suggesting that urban areas (whether single-family and multi-family housing) contain the
smallest population and fewest number of school-age children per dwelling unit. Suburban single-family
homes contain the largest population and largest number of school-age children per dwelling unit. In
fact, the Office of Planning and Development has calculated that new suburban-style housing would
have to be assessed at $633,000 for the taxes to cover the basic costs of City services, assuming only one
child.17 Consequently, there is a direct relationship between where housing will be built, and what, if
any, children and types of households will live there.
Table 3-6
Age Distribution
1990, 2000, 2009 Estimates and 2014 Projections
1990
Census
% 2000
Census
% 2009
Estimate
% 2014
Projection
%
Age 28,289 28,978 28,299 28,031
Age 0 to 4 1,412 5.0% 1,189 4.1% 964 3.4% 930 3.3%
Age 5 to 9 1,467 5.2% 1,353 4.7% 1,058 3.7% 966 3.4%
Age 10 to 14 1,353 4.8% 1,522 5.2% 1,199 4.2% 1,063 3.8%
Age 15 to 17 847 3.0% 853 2.9% 832 2.9% 764 2.7%
Subtotal 5,079 18.0% 4,917 17.0% 4,053 14.3% 3,723 13.3%
Age 18 to 20 2,498 8.8% 2,251 7.8% 2,155 7.6% 2,014 7.2%
Age 21 to 24 2,656 9.4% 2,206 7.6% 1,932 6.8% 1,556 5.6%
Age 25 to 34 5,147 18.2% 4,098 14.1% 4,150 14.7% 4,308 15.4%
Subtotal 10,301 36.4% 8,555 29.5% 8,237 29.1% 7,878 28.1%
Age 35 to 44 4,982 17.6% 4,573 15.8% 3,628 12.8% 3,457 12.3%
Age 45 to 49 1,467 5.2% 2,487 8.6% 2,223 7.9% 1,914 6.8%
Subtotal 6,449 22.8% 7,060 24.4% 5,851 20.7% 5,371 19.2%
Age 50 to 54 1,067 3.8% 2,244 7.7% 2,369 8.4% 2,271 8.1%
Age 55 to 59 1,021 3.6% 1,261 4.4% 2,113 7.5% 2,288 8.2%
17 In new suburban house with one (1) school-aged child per house the total average cost = $11,260
Less discounting for children at private schools
Less marginal costs less than average costs
Estimated municipal cost/new suburban house = $8,000
Tax rate of $12.64 per $1,000 assessed value
$633,000 house pays $8,000 in taxes
BREAK EVEN point of $633,000 house
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
20
1990
Census
% 2000
Census
% 2009
Estimate
% 2014
Projection
%
Age 60 to 64 1,106 3.9% 948 3.3% 1,523 5.4% 1,859 6.6%
Subtotal 3,194 11.3% 4,453 15.4% 6,005 21.2% 6,418 22.9%
Age 65 to 74 2,192 7.8% 1,716 5.9% 1,845 6.5% 2,368 8.4%
Age 75 to 84 1,449 5.1% 1,595 5.5% 1,415 5.0% 1,314 4.7%
Age 85 and over 625 2.2% 682 2.4% 893 3.2% 959 3.4%
Age 16 and over 23,772 84.0% 24,628 85.0% 24,803 87.6% 24,821 88.6%
Age 18 and over 23,210 82.0% 24,061 83.0% 24,246 85.7% 24,308 86.7%
Age 21 and over 20,712 73.2% 21,810 75.3% 22,091 78.1% 22,294 79.5%
Age 65 and over 4,266 15.1% 3,993 13.8% 4,153 14.7% 4,641 16.6%
Median Age 30-34* 37.37 40.33 41.96
Average Age -- 38.75 41.08 42.46
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and 2000 Summary File 3 and Nielsen Claritas, Inc. 2009. * The census does
not provide a median age figure for 1990. This range is from the Northampton Community Indicator Final Report
prepared by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in March 2006.
Table 3-7
Average Household Size by Type of Dwelling, 2000
Areas of Northampton Average Household Size % School-Age Children
Citywide 2.14 10%
Single-family Homes/Single Units 2.47 --
Neighborhoods Near Downtown
(primarily single-family homes)
1.86 9%
New Suburban Neighborhoods 3.39 29%
Older Suburban Neighborhoods 2.72 18%
Multi-family Homes 1.69 --
Smaller Affordable Housing
Projects not including Public
Housing or elderly housing
1.61 5%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File and City Census 2007 Partial Extract
Northampton and Hampshire County have had a significant proportion of young adults – those aged 20
to 34 – entering the labor force and forming their own households, approximately 24% for both the city
and the county versus 21% for the state. However, those young adults between 18 and 34 are also
expected to decrease in number and in proportion to the total population, decreasing by about 8% from
2000 to 2014 (although the 2007 census estimates suggest that this population has increased). Similarly
the population of those aged 35 to 49 is projected to decrease even more, by 24%. On the other hand,
the population of those 50 years of age and over is expected to increase substantially over the next few
years with residents 50 to 64, the baby boomers, increasing by 44%, and those 65 and over increasing by
16% between 2000 and 2014. It is important to note that these figures represent projected data only.
Data from the 2010 census should be available by 2011, and should enable us to confirm actual
population trends.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
21
There has also been a substantial increase in the median age, from 37.3 years in 2000 to a projected
41.96 years in 2014. The 2000 median age was only slightly higher than the state’s at 36.5 years and the
nation at 35.3 years as the aging of the population at large is a national trend.
Table 3-8 provides additional population projections for 2010 and 2020, with a distribution of ages,
based on data compiled by the Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER) of the
University of Massachusetts. This data also suggests a relative stability of the population in the coming
years, projecting a small increase in the number of residents, as opposed to the small decrease noted in
Table 3-6. As predicted in Table 3-6, children and adolescents are expected to continue to decrease in
number and in proportion to the total population. Also, those young adults and more middle-aged
residents are predicted to decrease somewhat through 2020, while residents over age 55 are expected
to increase substantially, representing the aging of the baby boomers.
Table 3-8
Age Distribution Projections for 2010 and 2020
Age Range
2000
Census
% 2010
Projection
% 2020
Projection
%
Less than age 5 1,189 4.1 1,288 4.4 1,212 4.2
Age 5 to 19 5,206 18.0 4,840 16.6 4,821 16.6
Age 20 to 34 7,077 24.4 6,701 23.0 6,493 22.3
Age 35 to 44 4,573 15.8 3,790 13.0 3,230 11.1
Age 45 to 54 4,731 16.3 4,420 15.2 3,671 12.6
Age 55 to 64 2,209 7.6 4,166 14.3 3,916 13.4
Age 65 to 74 1,716 5.9 1,893 6.5 3,679 12.6
Age 75 to 84 1,595 5.5 1,249 4.3 1,420 4.9
Age 85 and over 682 2.4 771 2.6 694 2.4
Total 28,978 100.0 29,118 100.0 29,136 100.0
Less than age 20 6,395 22.1 6,128 21.0 6,033 20.7
Age 65 and over 3,993 13.8 3,913 13.4 5,793 20.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research, MISER, University of
Massachusetts, 2003.
3.1.4 Income
Table 3-9 presents income data based on the 1979, 1989 and 1999 census counts, which is also visually
presented in the chart in Figure 3-2. Incomes have increased substantially, especially between 1979 and
1989 when the median income more than doubled. From 1989 to 1999, the median income increased
from $31,097 to $41,808, or roughly 34%. Those earning less than $25,000 decreased from 78% of all
households in 1979 to 28% in 1999. Households earning between $25,000 and $50,000 almost doubled
between 1979 and 1989, from 18.8% to 36.7%, but then decreased again to 29.8% in 1999. Those with
higher incomes, earning more than $50,000, increased from only 331 households in 1979 or 3.2%, to
2,647 or 23.8% in 1989, to 4,988 or 42.1% in 1999. With time it would be expected that incomes would
climb, but in comparison to the state Northampton had a lower portion of those earning more than
$75,000, 20.9% as opposed to 30.5% of all households statewide.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
22
Table 3-9
Income Distribution by Household
1979-1999
1979 1989 1999
Income Range # % # % # %
Under $10,000 3,522 34.4 1,815 16.3 1,246 10.5
10,000-24,999 4,457 43.5 2,604 23.4 2,103 17.7
25,000-34,999 1,364 13.3 1,880 16.9 1,526 12.9
35,000-49,999 561 5.5 2,205 19.8 2,000 16.9
50,000-74,999 1,780 16.0 2,517 21.2
75,000-99,999 530 4.8 1,076 9.1
100,000-149,999 258 2.3 910 7.7
150,000 +
331
3.2
79 0.7 485 4.1
Total 10,235 100.0 11,151 100.0 11,863 100.0
Median income $14,867 $31,097 $41,808
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990 and 2000 Summary File 3
Figure 3-2
Income Distribution by Census Year
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
<10,00010,000-24,99925,000-34,99935,000-49,99950,000-74,999$75,000-$99,999$100,000-$149,999>$150,000IncomeNumber of HouseholdsYear 1979
Year 1989
Year 1999
It is also worth noting that the City’s per capita income was $24,022 in 2000, only somewhat less than
the state average of $25,952. However the income of multiracial residents was 62% of the City’s
average ($14,952) and that of Hispanics was half of the City average ($11,131).
While non-family households comprised half the population in 2000, the median income of families was
substantially higher, $56,844 versus $29,818, a finding highly correlated with a greater prevalence of
two worker households in families. Additionally, and not surprisingly, the median income level of
homeowners is substantially higher than that of renters, in fact almost double, $57,327 versus $29,333
in 2000.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
23
Comparisons of 2000 income levels for owners and renters are provided in Table 3-10. The majority of
renters earned below $35,000, while the majority of homeowners earned between $35,000 and
$100,000. Almost 20% of the homeowners earned more than $100,000 compared to only 3% of the
renter households.
Table 3-10
Income Distribution by Owner and Renter Households, 2000
Homeowners Renters
Income Range # % # %
Under $10,000 241 3.8 1,027 18.6
10,000-24,999 731 11.5 1,361 24.6
25,000-34,999 639 10.1 907 16.4
35,000-49,999 1,046 16.5 944 17.1
50,000-74,999 1,581 24.9 912 16.5
75,000-99,999 882 13.9 218 4.0
100,000-149,999 791 12.4 130 2.4
150,000 + 444 7.0 26 0.5
Total 6,355 100.0 5,525 100.0
Median income $57,327 $29,333
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3
It would be expected that between 2000 and 2009, the proportion of those in the lower income levels
would decrease and those in the higher levels would increase with inflation, a result borne out in Table
3-11.
Table 3-11
Projected Household Income
2000, 2009 and 2014
2000 # %
2009
Estimate
%
2014
Projections
%
Households by Household Income 11,863 12,012 12,064
Less than $15,000 2,062 17.38% 1,651 13.74% 1,510 12.52%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,287 10.85% 1,087 9.05% 1,048 8.69%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,526 12.86% 1,182 9.84% 1,053 8.73%
$35,000 to $49,999 2,000 16.86% 1,913 15.93% 1,727 14.32%
$50,000 to $74,999 2,517 21.22% 2,408 20.05% 2,368 19.63%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,076 9.07% 1,567 13.05% 1,628 13.49%
$100,000 to $149,999 910 7.67% 1,341 11.16% 1,621 13.44%
$150,000 to $249,999 366 3.09% 630 5.24% 808 6.70%
$250,000 to $499,999 98 0.83% 176 1.47% 215 1.78%
$500,000 or more 21 0.18% 57 0.47% 86 0.71%
Average Household Income $56,335 $67,949 $74,954
Median Household Income $42,924 $51,796 $57,327
Source: Nielsen Claritas, Inc. 2009.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
24
Those earning less than $25,000 are estimated to have decreased to 22.8% by 2009 and then to decline
a bit further to 21.2% by 2014. On the other end of the income scale, households earning more than
$75,000 increased from 20.8% in 2000 to 31.4% and then to 36.1% by 2014, a significant increase
reflected in the increase in the average and median income levels as well. Households in the middle-
income ranges of $25,000 to $50,000 are projected to decrease from almost 30% in 2000 to 25.8% in
2009 and then to 23.0% by 2014.
3.1.5. Poverty Status – Increases in poverty
Table 3-12 confirms that poverty declined between 1979 and 1999, both in terms of the numbers of
individuals and families living in poverty and in proportion to the population at large. Most dramatically,
the number of children living in poverty decreased by 52% between 1989 and 1999.
Table 3-12
Poverty Status
1989-1999
1979 1989 1999
# % # % # %
Individuals* 3,194 10.9 2,925 10.0 2,508 8.7
Families ** 489 7.8 418 6.9 338 5.8
Female Headed
Families ***
252 23.0 257 21.9 178 14.8
Related Children
Under 18 Years
(Under 17 Years
for 1980 data)****
836 14.2 772 15.2 399 8.1
Individuals
65 and Over*****
387 9.4 321 7.5 296 7.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990 and 2000 Summary File 3
* Percentage of total population ** Percentage of all families
*** Percentage of all female-headed families
**** Percentage of all families with related children less than 18 years
***** Percentage of all individuals age 65+
The level of poverty was somewhat lower than that for the state as a whole, where 9.3% of all
individuals were living in poverty in 2000, as opposed to 8.7% in Northampton and 6.7% of all families
statewide versus 5.8% for Northampton.
While the decrease in poverty levels between 1979 and 1999 appears to signal that the City’s
population was doing better economically, it may also be that the most vulnerable residents living in
Northampton in 1980 were forced to leave the City in search of more affordable living conditions
elsewhere, most likely to Holyoke or Springfield. The ability to provide affordable housing options for
those with very limited incomes who have lived or currently live in the community and want to continue
to do so is a continuing challenge and a pressing need.
Recent estimates suggest that poverty levels have actually increased. The 2007 census estimates in the
American Community Survey for Northampton indicate that poverty increased to 13.6% with 3,466
residents living below the poverty level as opposed to about 2,500 in 1999. The 2008 American
Community Survey, that had estimates for the county and state, also showed increases in poverty, from
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
25
9.4% to 10.4% of all residents for Hampshire County, and from 9% to 9.7% for the state. Given the
recent economic crisis, these poverty levels may in fact have increased even more.
3.1.6 Employment – Increasing workforce
Northampton has had a strong and diverse economic base with an increasing number of workers despite
some decreases in the total population. It can boast a significant manufacturing sector with a mixture of
traditional operations, such as wire protrusion and plastic molding, as well as innovative ones including
the production of heat sensing devices. It also has a resilient retail and commercial sector and a large
institutional base that includes county services, two hospitals and Smith College. Of those 16,008
Northampton residents over the age of 16 who were employed in 2000, 8,270, or about 52%, worked in
the community, a percentage that is higher than Hampshire County and the state at 39% and 34%,
respectively, suggesting far more employment opportunities in the city. It should also be noted that
most workers drove alone to work, another 7.1% carpooled and 3.2% (507 workers) used public
transportation. The average commuting time was about 20 minutes, suggesting employment
opportunities in town or nearby.
The 2000 census indicated that half of Northampton’s workers were involved in management or
professional occupations and the remainder employed in the lesser paying retail and service-oriented
jobs that support the local economy including sales and office occupations (21.6%), service occupations
(14.8%), production and transportation (8.1%), and construction (5.2%). Almost three-quarters of
Northampton’s labor force were salaried workers, another 19.2% were government workers and 8.8%
were self-employed.
Table 3-13
Average Employment and Wages By Industry, 2007
Industry
#
Establishments
Total Wages
Average
Employment
Average
Weekly Wage
Construction 58 $28,514,981 592 $926
Manufacturing 35 69,318,800 1,231 1,083
Utilities 3 5,117,360 60 1,640
Wholesale Trade 35 11,443,676 278 792
Retail Trade 170 53,996,883 2,051 506
Transportation/Ware-housing 15 6,030,494 151 768
Information 24 17,394,491 388 862
Finance/Insurance 42 26,009,152 453 1,104
Real estate/rental/leasing 38 3,574,539 127 541
Professional/technical services 128 25,517,897 534 919
Management of
companies/enterprises
6 4,309,916 174 476
Administrative and waste
services
37 8,845,977 315 540
Educational services 33 125,464,627 2,693 896
Health care/social assistance 147 233,719,934 5,142 874
Arts/entertainment/recreation 29 5,739,359 350 315
Accommodation/food services 100 31,361,103 1,937 311
Other services 193 20,415,348 873 450
Public Administration 28 57,967,071 1,024 1,089
Total 1,123 $734,749,553 18,374 $769
Source: Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, 2008
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
26
More recent labor and workforce data, from 2007, is presented in Table 3-13, which shows an
average employment of 18,374 workers as opposed to a total workforce in 2000 of 16,008,
indicative of significant job expansion. The data also confirm the concentration of jobs in the
retail and service sectors, and demonstrates that these jobs tend to have somewhat lower
wage levels. The average weekly wage for Northampton’s workers was $769, about half of
Boston’s at $1,476. Those industries with more than 1,000 Northampton workers included
manufacturing (1,231 workers), retail trade (2,051), educational services (2,693), health care
and social assistance (5,142), accommodation and food services (1,937) and public
administration (1,024), clearly reflective of the major sectors of the city’s economy mentioned
above.
The 2007 state labor statistics project an unemployment rate in Northampton in March 2009 of
5.3%, with 871 Northampton workers unemployed, higher than that of 2008 at 3.8%. As
another point of comparison, the unemployment level in March 2009 was 7.1% for Boston,
much higher than Northampton’s. Nevertheless, during an economic recession, it can be
expected that there will be some job reductions that are already affecting housing, as evidenced
by the increasing numbers of residents who are seeking counseling from the Valley CDC for
foreclosure prevention, for example.
3.1.7 Education – Increasing educational attainment
The educational attainment of Northampton residents has improved over the last couple of decades. In
2000, 88.7% of those 25 years and older had a high school diploma or higher, and 46.1 had a Bachelor’s
degree or higher (compared with 37.9% for the country), up from the 1990 figure of 32.9% with a
college degree or higher. Those enrolled in school (nursery through graduate school) in 2000 totaled
8,843 residents or 30.5% of the population (includes Smith College students), and those enrolled in
kindergarten through high school totaled 3,915 students, representing 13.5% of the total population.
Clearly Smith College, whose students are included in the population and enrollment data, represents a
substantial presence in the community. Some of these students as well as students from other nearby
schools, the University of Massachusetts in particular, offer competition for available and more
affordable housing, but also a continued opportunity for creating town-gown partnerships to promote
affordable housing development.
3.1.8 Disability Status – Significant Special Needs
Of the 2000 residents aged between 5 and 20, 539 or 9.1% had some disability. Of those aged 21 to 64,
2,650 residents, or 15% of the persons in the age range, claimed a disability. About 58% of this group
was employed, leaving another 42% or 1,100 residents unemployed, likely due to their disability. In
regard to the population 65 years of age or older, 1,227 seniors or 37.9% of those in the age group
claimed some type of disability. These levels of disability represent significant special needs within the
Northampton community and suggest that the City make a concerted effort to integrate special needs
housing, units that are handicapped accessible and housing with supportive services, into its planning for
affordable housing development.
The Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services (DDS) indicates that there are typically six (6)
individuals coming out of residential schools for the developmentally disabled every year who are
looking for appropriate housing and services in Northampton.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
27
3.1.9 Residency in 1995
Approximately half of Northampton residents over the age of five who were living in the city in 2000, or
13,116 residents, moved to a new residence within Northampton between 1995 and 2000. Of these,
21% came from somewhere else in Hampshire County, 26% came from a different county, with 10%
coming from Massachusetts and 16% coming from a different state or elsewhere.
Table 3-14 shows the gender and age distribution of migrants, including those who left Northampton
and those who arrived, involving a net out-migration of 462 residents. There were more female
migrants, 62% of all those who moved in and out of the city. The largest net out-migration involved
young children and those ages 25 to 29 as well as those 40 to 44, whereas those ages 15 to 24
comprised the largest concentration of net new arrivals, most likely affected by Smith College and other
college students.
An analysis of the net migration patterns of those leaving and entering Hampshire County from 1993 to
2003 shows that in the 1990s, most of Hampshire County’s new arrivals came from nearby Hampden
County. However, from 2000 to 2003 most of the new arrivals were coming from further east,
Middlesex County and Worcester County in particular, suggesting some subtle changes in migration
patterns across the state.
Table 3-14
Selected Characteristics of 1995 to 2000 Migrants
In-Migration Out-Migration
Number Percent Number Percent
Net
Migration
Total 9,067 9,529 -462
Gender
Male 3,444 38% 3,585 38% -141
Female 5,623 62% 5,944 62% -321
Age Groups
5 to 9 years 306 3% 420 4% -114
10 to 14 years 305 3% 295 3% 10
15 to 19 years 1,094 12% 389 4% 705
20 to 24 years 1,967 22% 1,476 15% 491
25 to 29 years 1,184 13% 2,155 23% -971
30 to 34 years 1,183 13% 1,296 14% -113
35 to 39 years 804 9% 867 9% -63
40 to 44 years 572 6% 836 9% -264
45 to 49 years 508 6% 464 5% 44
50 to 54 years 404 4% 412 4% -8
55 to 59 years 143 2% 281 3% -138
60 to 64 years 62 1% 233 2% -171
65 to 69 years 113 1% 124 1% -11
70 to 74 years 63 1% 79 1% -16
75 to 79 years 111 1% 57 1% 54
80 to 84 years 143 2% 49 1% 94
85 years and over 105 1% 96 1% 9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Net migration equals in migration minus out migration.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
28
3.2 Housing Profile
This section of the Housing Needs Assessment looks at housing characteristics and trends, analyzes the
housing market from a number of different data sources and perspectives, compares what housing is
available to what residents can afford, summarizes what units are defined as affordable by the state and
establishes the context for identifying priority housing needs.
Northampton has a relatively diverse housing stock with units distributed among various types of
properties and price ranges. The city also includes a fairly even distribution of rental and ownership
housing and a considerable amount of units in group quarters, particularly given local institutions and
Smith College.
Table 3-15 includes a summary of housing characteristics from 1980 through 2000. Of the 12,405 total
housing units in 2000, Northampton had 12,282 year-round units18 of which 11,880 or 95.8% were
occupied. Of the occupied units, 6,356 or 53.5% were owner-occupied and the remaining 5,524 or
46.5% were renter-occupied. These figures represent a somewhat lower level of owner-occupancy in
2000 than that of Hampshire County as a whole where 65% of the units were owner-occupied. Based
on recently released 2010 Census Redistricting data, the number of housing units has increased to
12,728, an increase of 323 units since 2000 or a 2.6% housing growth rate despite small population
declines.
Table 3-15
Housing Characteristics
1980-2000
1980 1990 2000
# % # % # %
Total # Housing
Units
10,660 100.0 11,747 100.0 12,405 100.0
Occupied
Units *
10,227 95.9 11,164 95.0 11,880 95.8
Occupied
Owner Units **
5,387 52.7 5,682 50.9 6,356 53.5
Occupied
Rental Units **
4,840 47.3 5,482 49.1 5,524 46.5
Total Vacant
Units/Seasonal,
Recreational or
Occasional Use *
356/39 33/0.4 583/110 5.1/0.9 525/123 4.2/1.0
Average House-
Hold Size of
Owner-Occupied
Unit
2.54 persons 2.59 persons 2.44 persons
Average House-
Hold Size of
Renter-Occupied
Unit
1.66 persons 1.95 persons 1.79 persons
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990 and 2000 Summary File 1
* Percentage of all housing units ** Percentage of occupied housing units
18 The year-round figure is the one used under Chapter 40B for determining the 10% affordability goal.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
29
In reviewing changes in the housing stock since 1980, a number of important trends become apparent:
· Continued housing growth: Housing growth has continued in Northampton despite an overall
population decrease, largely reflective of the formation of smaller households. While 1,745 new
housing units were created between 1980 and 2000, the rate of growth has slowed down from a
growth rate of 10.2% between 1980 and 1990, to 5.6% from 1990 to 2000, and to 2.6% between
2000 and 2010.
· Decrease in persons per unit. Average household size continues to drop, although at a slower
rate than it did between 1960 and 2000. Consequently, new housing units do not necessarily
translate into more people. The average number of persons per unit declined between 1980 and
2000 from 2.54 persons to 2.44 persons for owner-occupied units and from 1990 to 2000 from
1.95 to 1.79 persons for rental units. This decrease reflects local, regional and national trends
towards smaller household sizes and relates to the change in the average household size in
Northampton from 2.45 persons in 1990 to 2.14 in 2000.
· Limited growth in rental units: After an increase of 642 rental units between 1980 and 1990,
Northampton gained only 42 rental units from 1990 to 2000, most likely related to limited new
construction and the conversion of rentals to homeownership through condominium
conversions. Since 2000, the only new rental apartments that have been built in the City have
occurred with public subsidies, mainly through The Village at Hospital Hill and some small
developments sponsored by the Valley CDC, or the accessory apartment ordinance.
Northampton’s rental units are distributed throughout the housing stock with 82% of the total
5,524 occupied rental units in 2000 in structures of three (3) or more units.
· Tight market conditions. Vacancy rates for both rental and ownership housing were well below
5% indicative of an extremely tight housing market. These rates were substantially lower than
the state and national rates as shown in Table 3-16.
· More visible new development. New housing has been built in previously undeveloped areas,
now typically consuming more land than historical building patterns. Consequently, such
development has attracted more attention from residents and some pushback from neighbors.
· Loss of small multi-family units. The U.S. Census estimates that from April 1, 2000 to July 1,
2007, 270 new dwelling units were built but 229 units were lost either to other uses, to
teardowns, or conversions of two-family dwellings to single-family homes. Moreover, the
number of two-family homes decreased from 1,722 such units in 1980 to only 1,529 in 2000,
representing the loss of a valuable segment of the city’s existing housing stock (see Table 3-17).
Table 3-16
Vacancy Rates by Tenure
1990 and 2000
Tenure 1990 2000 MA 2000 Nation 2000
Rental 3.4% 2.9% 3.5% 5%
Homeowner 1.7% 0.7% 0.7% 3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
30
3.2.1 Types of Structures and Units
The 2000 census indicated that there is significant diversity in Northampton’s existing housing stock as
shown in Table 3-17. Single-family homes comprise almost one-half of all units, increasing by 525 such
units from 1980 to 2000. The number of units in larger properties also grew between 1980 and 2000,
increasing by 25% for three and four-unit structures, by 21% for five to nine-unit structures and by 30%
for larger properties.
On the other hand, there was a decline in the number of two-family homes, from 1,722 units in 1980 to
1,529 in 2000, due largely to conversions to single-family units. This means that roughly 200 rental units
in likely owner-occupied homes were lost. Many of these units were probably more affordable, as
private landlords, particularly owner-occupied ones, tend to value good tenants and frequently maintain
rents below market to keep their tenants. It also suggests the loss of some affordable homeownership
stock as well since owners with rental units benefit from rental income that helps them finance the
house. Lenders typically count about 75% of the rental income towards mortgage underwriting
calculations thus allowing a lower income homeowner to purchase a home. Thus, small multi-family
homes have offered important starter housing in many communities, cities in particular. Strategies to
replace some of this housing should be considered in future planning.
Table 3-17
Units by Type of Structure
1980-2000
1980 1990 2000 Type of
Structure # % # % # %
1-detached 5,257 44.8 5,726 46.2
1-attached
5,201 49.2
319 2.7 571 4.6
2 1,722 16.3 1,529 12.3
3-4 1,196 11.3
2,980 25.4
1,494 12.0
5-9 1,029 9.7 1,137 9.7 1,243 10.0
10+ 1,402 13.3 1,812 15.4 1,816 14.6
Other 21 0.2 242 2.1 26 0.2
Total 10,571 100.0 11,747 100.0 12,405 100.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990 and 2000 Summary File 3
The distribution of units by structure type in 2000 is presented below in Figure 3-3.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
31
Figure 3-3
Distribution of Units Per Structure
5,726
571159
1,494
1,243
1,816
26
1-detached
1-attached
2
3 to 4
5 to 9
10+
Other
Table 3-18 provides a breakdown of the 2000 distribution of units per structure according to whether
the units were occupied by renters or homeowners as well as the number of residents in each category.
While about 85% of owners resided in single-family homes, about the same portion of renters lived in
multi-family units. It is interesting to note that about 13% of the single-family homes were renter-
occupied as opposed to 9.6% statewide.
Table 3-18
Type of Structure by Tenure
2000
Homeowner Units/
Number of Residents
Renter Units/
Number of Residents
Type of
Structure
# % # %
1-detached 5,021/13,203 79.0 564/1,258 10.2
1-attached 364/686 5.7 168/370 3.0
2 530/1,246 8.3 939/1,802 17.0
3-4 136/273 2.1 1,231/2,032 22.3
5-9 113/244 1.8 1,079/1,819 19.5
10+ 174/347 2.7 1,535/2,034 27.8
Other 17/42 0.3 9/16 0.2
Total 6,355/16,041 100.0 5,525/9,331 100.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3
Table 3-19 provides information on the distribution of unit sizes, more specifically the number of rooms
per unit. These data indicate that the median sized unit was relatively modest with five (5) rooms, or
two to three bedrooms. In addition those units most appropriate for single persons, with three rooms
or less, comprised only 21% of the housing stock.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
32
Table 3-19
Number of Rooms Per Unit
2000
Number of Rooms Per Unit # %
1 Room 310 2.5
2 Rooms 794 6.4
3 Rooms 1,526 12.3
4 Rooms 2,415 19.5
5 Rooms 2,435 19.6
6 Rooms 1,845 14.9
7 Rooms 1,381 11.1
8 Rooms 905 7.3
9 or More Rooms 794 6.4
Total 12,405 100.0
Median (Rooms) 5.0 --
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3
3.2.2 Age of Housing Stock
Table 3-20 indicates that a substantial portion of Northampton’s housing stock, (45.4% or 5,638 units)
predates World War II. Additionally, almost another 30% or 3,484 units were built between 1940 and
1970, with another 1,500 units built between 1970 and 1980. Only 823 units were built more recently,
between 1980 and 2000, representing only 6.6% of the housing stock up to that point. Because of the
relative age of the existing housing stock, it is likely that many units may have remnants of lead-based
paint and/or deferred housing maintenance needs, including some basic code violations related to
structural or systemic deficiencies.
Table 3-20
Housing Units by Year Structure Was Built, 2000
Time Period # %
1999 to March 2000 76 0.6
1995 –1998 242 2.0
1990-1994 373 3.0
1980-1989 132 9.1
1970-1979 1,460 11.8
1960-1969 1,244 10.0
1940-1959 2,240 18.1
1939 or earlier 5,638 45.4
Total 12,405 100.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3
3.2.3 More Recent and Projected Housing Growth
Building permit activity since 2000 through 2009 indicates that Northampton added 419 total
units to its housing stock, representing a total investment of almost $77.5 million for an average
per unit cost of $185,034 as indicated in Table 3-21. Figures released through the 2010 Census
Redistricting data counted 12,728 total housing units, representing a gain of 323 units since
2000. This suggests that there was a net loss of about 100 units in the existing housing stock
during the last decade, potentially through the conversion of small multi-family structures to
single-family homes, a trend that was occurring prior to 2000 as noted in Table 3-17 above.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
33
Table 3-21
Building Permit Activity – New Dwelling Units
2000 - 2009
Year Total Units Single-family Units Multi-family Units Total Value/Value per Unit
2000 12 8 2 duplexes/4 units $1,042,500/$86,875
2001 30 28 2-family house/2 units $4,138,928/$137,964
2002 20 14 2 duplexes/4 units
2-family house/2 units
$3,070,057/$153,503
2003 60 37 10 unit building
3 3-families/9 units
2 duplexes/4 units
$11,118,568/$185,309
2004 54 52 2-family house/2 units $12,222,070/$226,335
2005 87 43 5 duplexes/10 units
8 duplexes/16 units
3 4-unit bldgs/12 units
3 2-family homes/6
$13,684,954/$157,298
2006 36 20 2 duplexes/4 units
2 6-unit bldgs/12 units
$12,582,376/$349,510
2007 34 15 5-unit bldg 5 units
6-unit bldg/6 units
2 3-unit bldgs/6 units
1 duplex/2 units
$6,556,465/$192,837
2008 62 19 3-unit bldg/3 units
4 8-unit bldgs/32 units
5-unit bldg/5 units
3 unit bldg/3 units
$9,878,297/$159,327
2009 24 7 3 2-family bldg/6 units
3 3-4 unit bldg/11 units
$3,235,147/$134,798
Total 419 243 176 $77,529,362/$185,034
Source: Northampton Building Department and MassBenchmarks database, Donahue Institute of the University of
Massachusetts
The table also shows that 60% of the units produced were single-family homes, somewhat
higher than what had been produced before 2000 when less than half of the existing housing
stock was comprised of single-family dwellings. The amount of permit activity varied
considerably from year to year with significantly lower activity in the early years of the decade
to a high of 87 permits in 2005. The average per unit investment also ranged substantially from
a low of $86,875 in 2000 to a high of $349,510 in 2006.
There were a total of 39 accessory apartments permitted since 2000, ranging in costs from
$1,550, obviously requiring very little alteration in the property, to as high as $369,250 that
even included some meditation space. Most of the higher priced accessory apartments involved
the new construction of an addition to an existing property. The total investment in creating
accessory units was $2,842,582 with an average cost per unit of $72,887.
2001 – 1 unit ($5,500)
2002 – 2 units ($132,216 and $83,990)
2003 – 10 units ($121,600, $8,550, $51,000, ($94,500, $13,530, $11,000, ($116,250, $15,000,
$52,500, $70,000)
2004 – 5 units ($90,958, $17,500, $45,000, ($65,000, $21,500)
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
34
2005 – 8 units ($42,500, $60,000, $1,550, $359,250, $60,000, $11,000, $119,205, $56,500)
2006 – 7 units ($8,800, $166,658, $140,000, $38,500, $13,000, $70,200, $34,500)
2007 – 3 units ($54,000, $80,000, $84,130)
2008 – 1 unit ($189,650)
As of May 2009 – 2 units ($250,000, $17,500)
In the future, development is likely to be “smarter,” with most development occurring in and adjacent
to existing urbanized areas (see Appendix 5 for the City’s future land use map). For example,
development is more likely to occur within the footprint of the existing urban core at Village
Hill/Hospital Hill, Pleasant Street, King Street, downtown, Florence, Bay State, Leeds, their surrounding
neighborhoods, and a buffer beyond these developed areas. The adoption of Sustainable Northampton,
the City’s new comprehensive plan, and this Strategic Housing Plan, should serve to reinforce these
more sustainable development patterns. As part of these planning efforts (which should incorporate
necessary consensus building, regulatory reform and neighborhood implementation planning),
development should be guided by the principles as provided by the City’s Office of Planning and
Development:
· Large-scale development will be discouraged in the outlying rural and suburban areas of the City
because these kinds of development patterns are far more consumptive of energy and natural
resources and create greater financial burdens on the City.
· Development will instead be channeled towards walkable and more sustainable patterns, in
places like Village Hill, downtown, and other appropriate places in pre-World War II historically
developed areas and roughly a mile out from those places.
· The City will focus on providing services in sustainable areas, and not in patterns that
underwrite unsustainable development patterns.
· Developers have reported that they understand that the City is discouraging suburban-style
housing projects in outlying areas.
The Office of Planning and Development further recognizes that while much of the policy, regulatory,
and investment changes to implement its plans will take some time, the initial work is already
underway:
· All new subdivisions now require concrete sidewalks, granite curbs, and sufficient water
pressure or sprinkler systems to fight fires. These expensive features will both lower future City
costs and make it far more likely that development will occur closer to downtown and Florence,
where street lengths per unit are shorter, and not in outlying areas.
· Open space acquisitions are being targeted in part to purchase frontage and prevent
development in those outlying areas of the City where it is least appropriate.
· Investments in publicly supported development, such as CPA funds for affordable housing, are
being channeled away from outlying areas.
3.2.4 Housing Market Conditions
The following analysis of the housing market looks at past, present and future values of homeownership
and rental housing from a number of data sources including:
Past and current values
· The 1980, 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
35
· The Warren Group’s median income statistics and sales volume by year, from 1988
through 2009
· Multiple Listing Service data
· City Assessor’s data
· Craigslist (rental housing)
· The U.S. Census’s American Community Survey (2008 estimates)
· Nielsen Claritas data for 2009 estimates
Future values
· Nielsen Claritas data for 2014 projections
Homeownership
Census data also provides information on housing values for homeownership and rental units. While
this information is now more than nine (9) years old, it still provides a reasonable frame of reference to
compare with more current values, with other communities, and with the county as a whole and the
state. The census indicated that the 2000 median house value was $144,600, up only about 8.8% from
the median in 1990 of $132,900, but up about 280% since 1980 when the median was only $38,200. As
Table 3-22 indicates, there were 555 units valued at less than $100,000 in 2000, and another 2,217, or
43.6% of the housing stock, valued between $100,000 and $150,000, demonstrating that more than half
of the city’s housing units were relatively affordable at that time. Still another 1,101 units or 21.7% were
valued between $150,000 and $200,000. On the other end of the price range, 390 units, or 7.8% of the
housing stock, were priced at $300,000 or more, clearly in the high-end of the market at the time.
Table 3-22
Housing Values
1980 – 2000
1980 1990 2000
Price Range # % # % # %
Less than $50,000 2,439 55.8 50 1.1 29 0.6
$50,000 to $99,999 926 21.2 650 14.8 526 10.4
$100,000 to $149,999 45 1.0 2,167 49.5 2,217 43.6
$150,000 to $199,999 6 0.1 866 19.8 1,101 21.7
$200,000 to $299,999 493 11.3 819 16.1
$300,000 to $499,999 369 7.3
$500,000 or more
3
0.07 153 3.5
21 0.5
Total 4,368 100.0 4,379 100.0 5,082 100.0
Median (dollars) $38,200 $132,900 $144,600
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990 (Summary File 1) and 2000 Summary File 3
In 2000, housing prices in Northampton were only a bit higher than those for Hampshire County, with a
median house value of $142,400. The median price was somewhat lower than the state’s median of
$162,800.
Table 3-23 provides Warren Group data on median sales prices and number of sales from 1988 through
2010, offering a long-range perspective on sales activity. This data is tracked from Multiple Listing
Service information based on actual sales. The median sales price of a single-family home as of the end
of 2008 was $250,000, and despite an economic recession the median has increased somewhat to
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
36
$255,000 in Northampton as of the end of 2010. The lowest point of the market occurred in 1994 when
the median single-family home was priced at $120,000, down only very little from values earlier in the
decade, during the last serious economic slump. Since then home values climbed relatively slowly,
reaching $299,000 in 2005, a 149% increase from 1994. The number of single-family home sales also
increased significantly from less than 170 units in the early 1990s to a high of 245 in 2001, and then back
down to about 170 sales between 2007 and 2010. A local realtor indicated that between January and
July of 2008 there were 60 sales of single-families, but only 40 such sales during the same timeframe in
2009, a substantial decline in sales activity.
The condo market has experienced significantly more volatility in both values and number of sales.
Median prices dropped from 1988 to 1993, from $107,900 to $62,500, and then the market revived
somewhat in 2000 when the median condo price rose to $125,000. After another small dip in value, the
condo market grew increasingly strong until it reached $202,700 in 2008. During 2009, the market took
another hit and the median declined to $172,800, but has revived somewhat with an increase to
$187,250 as of the end of 2010. The condo market has been very soft throughout the Commonwealth,
as financing has become more difficult to obtain and prices in some communities have fallen to all-time
lows. The sales volume of condos was quite robust through the mid part of this decade, with sales of
more than a hundred condos annually, reflective of new condo construction. While the number of
condo sales fell to only 62 in 2009, the volume of sales was up a bit in 2010 at 70 sales through the end
of the year.
Table 3-23
Median Sales Prices and Number of Sales
1988 – 2010
Year Months Single-family/# Condo/# All Sales # Sales
2010 Jan – Dec $255,000/173 $187,250/70 $237,250 342
2009 Jan – Dec 260,000/167 172,800/62 235,500 324
2008 Jan – Dec 250,000/164 202,700/84 249,950 352
2007 Jan – Dec 277,125/158 196,500/136 239,500 405
2006 Jan – Dec 275,000/223 195,000/117 253,000 445
2005 Jan – Dec 299,000/227 199,000/154 260,000 530
2004 Jan – Dec 242,500/227 153,950/138 212,250 525
2003 Jan – Dec 224,000/212 122,750/116 188,000 473
2002 Jan – Dec 192,500/221 115,000/65 190,000 386
2001 Jan – Dec 174,500/245 97,000/97 162,000 472
2000 Jan – Dec 180,000/207 125,000/113 155,000 426
1999 Jan – Dec 147,000/241 87,500/107 139,300 453
1998 Jan – Dec 148,000/241 78,750/83 135,000 432
1997 Jan – Dec 130,000/217 87,500/65 124,700 388
1996 Jan – Dec 130,000/199 75,750/68 121,350 352
1995 Jan – Dec 129,000/179 82,000/63 118,250 330
1994 Jan – Dec 120,000/182 79,950/50 119,000 343
1993 Jan – Dec 127,000/167 62,500/95 115,000 346
1992 Jan – Dec 125,000/168 64,625/81 106,500 311
1991 Jan – Dec 122,500/169 76,000/74 112,000 317
1990 Jan – Dec 121,000/171 74,900/114 108,160 359
1989 Jan – Dec 131,750/166 101,771/75 123,000 361
1988 Jan – Dec 133,000/191 107,900/99 125,000 411
Source: The Warren Group, May 8, 2011
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
37
Another analysis of housing market data is presented in Tables 3-24 and 3-25, which break down sales
data from the Multiple Listing Service for single-family homes and condominiums. Table 3-24 provides a
snap-shot of the range of sales for 2008. There were a total of 230 sales, 144 single-family homes and
86 condos. Units that sold below $200,000, and were therefore relatively affordable, included 27 single-
family homes and 41 condominiums for a total of 68 units. The average or mean sale price for 2008 was
$302,656 for single-family homes and $227,228 for condos, although the medians were considerably
less at $260,000 and $202,400, respectively.
The 2008 MLS data further indicate that the average marketing period was 98 days for single-family
homes, 118 days for condos and 108 days for multi-family units, which given the slowing of the housing
market, and the economy in general, is not as long as might be expected. However, days on the market
varied considerably among properties.
Table 3-24
Single-family House and Condo Sales
January 1, 2008 Through December 31, 2008
Single-family
Homes
Condominiums
Total
Price Range # % # % # %
Less than 100,000 3 2.1 4 4.6 7 3.0
$100,000-149,999 3 2.1 22 25.6 25 10.9
$150,000- 199,999 21 14.6 15 17.4 36 15.6
$200,000-249,999 40 27.8 22 25.6 62 27.0
$250,000-299,999 23 16.0 7 8.1 30 13.0
$300,000-349,999 13 9.0 4 4.6 17 7.4
$350,000-399,999 11 7.6 3 3.5 14 6.1
$400,000-449,999 10 6.9 0 0.0 10 4.4
$450,000-499,999 7 4.9 2 2.3 9 3.9
$500,000-599,999 6 4.2 7 8.1 13 5.6
$600,000-699,999 5 3.5 0 0.0 5 2.2
$700,000-799,999 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.4
$800,000-899,999 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.4
$900,000-999,999 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Over $1 million 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 144 100.0 86 100.0 230 100.0
Average List
Price/Average Sale
Price
$315,758/
$302,656
$227,711/
$227,228
--
Median Price $260,000 $202,400 --
Source: Multiple Listing Service, Goggins Real Estate, September 10, 2009
Sales in 2009, from January through September 10, and as presented in Table 3-26, show some
strengthening in the single-family market with the average sales price increasing to $327,899
and the median to $281,500. However, the decline in the condo market is evident from the
drop in both the average and median sales prices, the median to $167,000. Also the number of
condo sales fell to only 42 sales during the first eight (8) months of the year.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
38
Days on the market ranged from 118 days for single-family homes to 165 days for condos, and 104 days
for multi-family properties, demonstrating longer marketing periods for single-families and condos than
in 2008. Once again there was a huge variation regarding the marketing time among properties.
In regard to current listings as of September 10, 2009, the average list price for a single-family home was
$435,545, based on 82 listings, while the median was $345,000. Both price levels are substantially
higher than the average list price and median sales price in 2008. Prices of current condo listings, with
an average list price of $224, 051 and a median of $209,000, are fairly comparable to the 2008 levels. It
appears that in comparison to actual sales to date in 2009, however, both single-families and condos
were being listed at substantially higher prices than what the market would actually bear.
Table 3-25
Single-family Home (SF) and Condo Sales
January 1, 2009 Through September 10, 2009
Active Listings
#/%
Sales
#/%
Total
Price Range
SF Condos SF Condos # %
Less than 100,000 0/0.0 5/7.6 1/0.9 4/9.5 10 3.4
$100,000-149,999 1/1.2 17/25.8 1/0.9 11/26.2 30 10.1
$150,000- 199,999 6/7.3 9/13.6 14/13.1 13/31.0 42 14.1
$200,000-249,999 20/24.4 15/22.7 26/24.3 9/21.4 70 23.6
$250,000-299,999 12/14.6 6/9.1 17/15.9 2/4.8 37 12.5
$300,000-349,999 4/4.9 4/6.1 12/11.2 0/0.0 20 6.7
$350,000-399,999 7/8.5 4/6.1 10/9.4 2/4.8 23 7.7
$400,000-449,999 8/9.8 2/3.0 10/9.4 0/0.0 20 6.7
$450,000-499,999 6/6.1 3/4.6 5/4.7 1/2.4 15 5.0
$500,000-599,999 5/6.1 1/1.5 5/4.7 0/0.0 11 3.7
$600,000-699,999 3/3.7 0/0.0 1/0.9 0/0.0 4 1.4
$700,000-799,999 3/3.7 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0 3 1.0
$800,000-899,999 3/3.7 0/0.0 3/2.8 0/0.0 6 2.0
$900,000-999,999 0/0.0 0/0.0 2/1.9 0/0.0 2 0.7
Over $1 million 4/4.9 0/0.0 0/0.0 0/0.0 4 1.4
Total 82/100.0 66/100.0 107/100 42/100 297 100.0
Average List
Price/Average Sale
Price
$435,545/
NA
$224,051/
NA
$339,619
$327,899
$195,969
$186,210
-- --
Median Price $345,000 $209,000 $281,500 $167,000 -- --
Source: Multiple Listing Service, Goggins Real Estate, September 10, 2009
There were sales of multi-family structures including 26 sales in 2008 and 20 sales as of September 10
2009, ranging in price from a $125,000 two-family to a $545,00 six-unit property. The median price of a
two-family house in both 2008 and 2009 was $300,000 versus an average sales price of $316,488.
City Assessor data on the assessed values of residential property in Northampton is presented in
several of the following tables and provides some insights not only into the diversity of the
existing housing stock but also the range of values for each dwelling type related to permanent
housing. The information does not include group quarters such as rooming and boarding
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
39
houses, residence halls or dormitories, and other congregate housing that includes non-
transient shared living arrangements.
Table 3-26 provides information on the assessed values of single-family homes that includes
5,500 units, fewer than the 5,726 single-family detached units reported in the 2000 U.S. Census.
Of these units, 3,443 or about 63% were assessed at less than $300,000, 760 at less than
$200,000 (i.e. relatively affordable). Another 19.4% or 1,067 units were valued between
$300,000 and $400,000. The median valued single-family home was $260,900 based on
Assessor’s records, somewhat higher than the median price based on sales of approximately
$250,000 in 2008, lower than the 2009 MLS listing of $281,500 and the Warren Group July 2009
median figure of $295,000.
Table 3-26
Assessed Values of Single-family and Mixed-use Properties
Assessment Single-family
Dwellings
Mixed-Use
Properties*
Total
# % # % # %
0-$199,999 760 13.8 3 2.2 763 13.5
$200,000-299,999 2,683 48.8 21 15.7 2,704 48.0
$300,000-399,999 1,067 19.4 24 17.9 1,091 19.4
$400,000-499,999 550 10.0 20 14.9 570 10.1
$500,000-599,999 237 4.3 21 15.7 258 4.6
$600,000-699,999 108 2.0 11 8.2 119 2.1
$700,000-799,999 46 0.8 8 6.0 54 1.0
$800,000-899,999 28 0.5 6 4.5 34 0.6
$900,000-999,999 7 0.1 6 4.5 13 0.2
Over $1 million 14 0.3 14 10.4 28 0.5
Total 5,500 100.0 134 100.0 5,634 100.0
Source: Northampton Assessor, fiscal year 2009.
* Includes 51 mixed-use properties that are primarily residential and 83 that are primarily commercial.
Table 3-26 also provides a count of mixed commercial and residential properties, 51 of which
are included in buildings that are predominantly residential and 83 in those that are
predominantly commercial. There is considerable variation in the values of such properties,
ranging from only three (3) properties valued below $200,000, to 20 to 24 units in the ranges of
$200,000 to $600,000, and another 45 properties assessed beyond $600,000 including 14 over a
million-dollar properties.
Table 3-27 examines the values of condominiums, including 110 units at Laurel Park that have
been converted from summer bungalows to condos over a number of years, and 81 co-housing
units at a couple of developments such as Pathways Co-Housing and Rocky Hill Co-Housing.
Laurel Park is a former campground where units have been individually sold and improved over
the years. There are also a couple of co-housing developments that are cooperative
neighborhoods that include homes clustered around a common house with facilities that are
shared by all residents (dining room, kitchen, play rooms, library) and where parking is in lots as
opposed to separate driveways. The co-housing concept originated in Denmark with a focus on
knowing one’s neighbors and providing a safe and nurturing environment for children. The City
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
40
Assessor maintains data on these developments separately as they involve less traditional
housing types.
The total number of traditional condos was 1,204 in fiscal year 2009 records with 92.6% of the
units valued below $300,000, 60.5% or 728 units valued below $200,000, representing a
significant segment of the City’s relatively affordable housing stock. The median condo value
was $180,000, higher than the $167,000 median in the 2009 MLS data and comparable to the
Warren Group median of $165,300 as of July 2009.
As demonstrated in Table 3-24, condos are susceptible to wide fluctuations in the housing
market. Condo markets are historically slower to appreciate and faster to decline in value, and
several years ago the value of condos rose disproportionately when the price of single-family
homes reached an unprecedented high.
Table 3-27
Assessed Values of Condominiums
Assessment
Condominiums
Laurel Park*
Co-Housing
Units**
Total
# % # % # % # %
0-$199,999 728 60.5 94 85.4 9 11.1 831 59.6
$200,000-299,999 386 32.1 16 14.6 59 72.8 461 33.0
$300,000-399,999 55 4.6 0 0.0 10 12.4 65 4.7
$400,000-499,999 24 2.0 0 0.0 3 3.7 27 1.9
$500,000-599,999 10 0.8. 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 0.7
$600,000-699,999 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
$700,000-799,999 1 0.08 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.07
$800,000-899,999 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
$900,000-999,999 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Over $1 million 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 1,204 100.0 110 100.0 81 100.0 1,395 100.0
Source: Northampton Assessor, fiscal year 2009.
* Former campground where units have been purchased and improved as condominiums.
** Includes co-housing developments of Pathways Co-Housing and Rocky Hill Co-Housing.
Conversion of rental properties to condominiums has been a concern for many interested in
promoting more housing diversity and affordable housing. There has been a considerable
amount of such conversion going back to the 1970s and including:
· The McCormack block on South Street was legally converted to condos in the 1970s but
most units remain as rentals.
· The Old School Commons property involved the conversion of the Hawley Junior High
School to condominiums in the 1980s.
· The River Run Condominium on Damon Road includes 252 condo units many of which
are being rented.
· The Clarke School has been in the process of selling units for conversion to condos.
· Property owners in and near the downtown have converted units to condos, now selling
for more than $300,000 in areas that were considered marginal decades ago.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
41
· Factory housing and rowhouses close to downtown have been particularly affected by
conversions.
During the 1980s, the City planned to establish a moratorium on condo conversions, largely in response
to the announcement that the McCormack block was going to be converted, although the moratorium
was not ultimately approved.
Given current market conditions, condo conversions have stopped altogether. It has become, in fact,
extremely challenging to secure financing for condos, as lenders are applying much more rigorous
lending criteria. Some condo associations are in trouble because, with the economic downturn, owners
are failing to pay condo fees or assessments, putting entire developments in jeopardy.
Rocky Hill Co-Housing Development (also known as Black Birch Trail)
Assessor’s data also indicated that the majority of the multi-unit dwellings that involved two- and three-
family properties were assessed between $200,000 and $400,000 (Table 3-28). About 60% of the four
(4) to eight (8) unit properties were valued between $300,000 and $500,000 and about the same level of
properties of more than eight (8) units were assessed above $1 million. Assessor’s data indicated that
there were 902 two-family homes, 168 three-families, 171 structures of four to eight units and 37 with
eight units or more. There were also 56 properties that involved more than one house on the same lot,
with a wide fluctuation in values.
Table 3-28
Assessed Values of Multi-family Properties
Assessment
2/ 3-unit
property
4 to 8-unit/8+
property
Multiple
houses 1 lot
Total
# % # % # % # %
0-$199,999 10/1 1.1/0.6 0/0 0.0/0.0 2 3.6 13 1.0
$200,000-299,999 410/24 45.4/14.3 20/0 11.7/0.0 7 12.5 461 34.6
$300,000-399,999 349/81 38.7/48.2 61/1 35.7/2.7 10 17.9 502 37.6
$400,000-499,999 84/34 9.3/20.2 44/0 25.7/0.0 12 21.4 174 13.0
$500,000-599,999 24/21 2.7/12.5 27/0 15.8/0.0 11 19.6 83 6.2
$600,000-699,999 8/4 0.9/2.4 9/2 5.3/5.4 3 5.4 26 2.0
$700,000-799,999 7/2 0.8/1.2 6/4 3.5/10.8 4 7.1 23 1.7
$800,000-899,999 4/0 0.4/0.0 0/5 0.0/13.5 2 3.6 11 0.8
$900,000-999,999 4/1 0.4/0.6 2/3 1.2/8.1 2 3.6 12 0.9
Over $1 million 2/0 0.2/0.0 2/22 1.2/59.5 3 5.4 29 2.2
Total 902/
168
100.0/
100.0
171/37 100.0/
100.0
56 100.0 1,334 100.0
Source: Northampton Assessor, fiscal year 2009.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
42
Table 3-29 provides additional data on the values of owner-occupied housing, summarizing data from
Nielsen Claritas reports, a proprietary data source. This database indicates that the 2009 median house
value is $244,256, a bit higher than The Warren Group’s median value for all sales of $239,500. The
Nielsen Claritas report suggests that the median value of the owner-occupied housing stock will increase
to $267,035 by 2014, representing fairly stable housing values into the next few years.
Table 3-29
Values of Owner-Occupied Housing Units
2009 Estimates and 2014 Projections
Price Range
2009
Estimate
% 2014
Projection
%
Less than $20,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
$20,000 to $39,999 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
$40,000 to $59,999 16 0.25% 7 0.11%
$60,000 to $79,999 44 0.68% 34 0.52%
$80,000 to $99,999 86 1.32% 61 0.93%
$100,000 to $149,999 406 6.25% 281 4.29%
$150,000 to $199,999 1,534 23.63% 1,072 16.38%
$200,000 to $299,999 2,620 40.36% 2,712 41.43%
$300,000 to $399,999 895 13.79% 1,140 17.42%
$400,000 to $499,999 429 6.61% 567 8.66%
$500,000 to $749,999 375 5.78% 494 7.55%
$750,000 to $999,999 56 0.86% 137 2.09%
$1,000,000 or more 30 0.46% 41 0.63%
Total 6,491 100.00% 6,546 100.00%
Median Value $244,256 $267,035
As to farther into the future, the Harvard MIT Joint Center for Housing Studies issued its State of the
Nation’s Housing 2009 report which indicated that the “echo boomers”, the children of the post World
War II baby boomer generation, offer a massive source of support for housing. The generation is
entering the peak home buying and renting ages of 25 to 44 and numbers more than five million people
more than did their parents’ record-setting group in the 1970s. The study further states that while the
echo boomers will likely bolster the housing market, they will also likely enter the market with
somewhat lower real incomes than people the same age did decades ago. While there is a substantial
population of young adults age 21 to 34 in Northampton, their numbers have been on the decline. It
may be the significant presence of this age group that has provided the ballast to keep Northampton
home prices from declining significantly. However, the study also suggests that the highest
unemployment in almost 26 years, record foreclosures and rigid lending practices threaten to overcome
emerging sales progress despite the unprecedented efforts of the Obama administration. Such threats,
tight lending practices in particular, are clearly impacting the condo market in Northampton.
Rentals
Table 3-30 presents information on rental costs from 1980 to 2000, based on the U.S. Census. The
rental market has changed substantially as the median rent doubled between 1980 and 2000, going
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
43
from $326 per month to $647. In 2000 about 60% of the City’s rental units were renting in the $500 to
$1,000 price range. It is also important to note that the census counts also include subsidized units.
Table 3-30
Rental Costs
1980-2000
1980 1990 2000 Gross
Rent # % # % # %
Under $200 1,460 30.2 685 12.5 480 8.7
$200-299 2,051 42.5 365 6.6 318 5.8
$300-499 *** 945 20.0 1,326 24.2 786 14.2
$500-749 *** 2,221 40.5 1,958 35.5
$750-999 622 11.3 1,324 24.0
$1,000-1,499 431 7.9
$1,500 +
213
4.4
143 2.6
23 0.4
No Cash Rent19 161 43.3 127 2.3 198 3.6
Total* 4,830 5,489 100.0 5,518 100.0
Median Rent $326 $530 $647
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990 and 2000 Summary File 3
* Number of rental units with data on gross rents/total number of rental units; percentage breakdowns exclude units
counted without cash rent/all units counted
** Figures in 1990 census data are listed as $1,000 or more and do not break numbers into the $1,500 or more range.
*** 1980 data is for costs from $300 to $399 and for $400 or over.
Updated information from Craigslist on rental offerings in Northampton are offered below.
One-bedroom Units
· $850 one-bedroom in an owner-occupied house in Florence Center
· $880 for a one-bedroom condo near the downtown with hardwood floors and tile
· $950 one-bedroom unit on the second floor of a newly renovated house with the bedroom in a
loft space
· $1,200 one-bedroom close to downtown
Two-bedroom Units
· $900 two-bedroom on the second floor of a two-family house in a “cute, quiet neighborhood”
· $950 for a two-bedroom condo for lease with pool access and other amenities with easy access
to Route 91
· $1,000 five-room two to three-bedroom apartment in the downtown with wood floors
· $1,095 furnished two-bedroom in the lower half of a two-family house
· $1,100 two-bedroom across from Smith College with about 1,000 square feet in a Victorian
house
· $1,100 two-bedroom in downtown, newly renovated multi-style loft apartment including a
spiral staircase to bedroom space and an open kitchen and living floor plan
· $1,375 two-bedroom ranch near Look Park
Three-bedroom Units
· $1,250 three-bedroom duplex unit just off Main Street in the downtown with wood floors
· $1,285 for a three-bedroom townhouse
19 No cash rent involves units where there are no formal rent payments.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
44
· $1,350 for a six-room, three-bedroom unit only a five-minute walk to the downtown
· $1,375 for a three-bedroom renovated duplex with office and parking on a bus route
· $1,950 three-bedroom in a renovated Victorian home near the downtown
Four-bedroom Unit
· $2,000 for a four-bedroom Cape-style home near Smith College and walking distance to the
downtown
Most of these apartments require first and last month’s rent plus a security deposit equivalent to a
month’s rent. For a $1,200 apartment, that totals $3,600 in up-front cash, an amount that many
prospective tenants just do not have. Some listings include just a half-month’s rent up-front, in addition
to the first month’s rent, as a “finders fee”.
Rental property managers cite fairly similar rental price ranges. One indicated that she had just recently
rented a “somewhat renovated” two-bedroom unit on West Street for $850 that did not include utilities
but did require first and last months rent as well as a security deposit. She mentioned that small
efficiencies could rent for as low as $600 and a three-bedroom house for at least $1,200. She rarely sees
large apartments of three-bedrooms or more come onto the market.
Another rental property manager suggested that one-bedroom apartments are renting for as low as
$650 but can easily go up to $1,100, depending on size, condition and location. Two-bedroom units go
from $859 “and up from there”. She also does not see many three-bedroom units become available.
Houses that become available to rent are priced between $1,100 (smaller homes in Florence) to $2,100,
with the median being between $1,300 and $1,400.
A third realtor commented on how the downtown market typically commands higher rents than those
further out, including Florence. He suggested relatively similar price ranges as the others, and indicated
that condo units rented at Old School Commons represent the high end of the market, going for $1,200
to $1,300 for one-bedrooms and $2,200 for two-bedrooms. He also mentioned that there are very few
larger apartments in the housing stock, and most of the three-bedroom rentals he sees are houses. A
three-bedroom ranch in Florence would typically rent for between $1,200 and $1,400. He added that a
few years ago landlords were more prone to get carried away with their pricing, attempting to get
higher rents. However, landlords now tend to be more reasonable about what they can charge given
current market conditions. He made another important point about the fact that renters pay the
agent’s rental fee, which is 60% of the monthly rent, as opposed to landlords paying the fee in most
places. This fee represents another cost barrier to accessing housing in Northampton. He did suggest
that only about 30% of the landlords he deals with exact first and last month’s rent plus a security
deposit with most charging two of the three.
With the exception of The Village Hill project and units that are being developed on a relatively small
scale by the Valley CDC or through accessory apartments, no new rental housing is being built in
Northampton.
3.2.5 Affordability of Existing Housing
While it is useful to have a better understanding of past and current housing costs, with some sense of
what the future may bring, it is also important to analyze the implications of these costs on affordability.
Tables 3-31 and 3-32 attempt to look at affordability from two different vantage points. Table 3-31
calculates what households earning at various income levels can afford, and Table 3-32 examines some
of the housing costs summarized above in Section 3.2.4, estimating what households must earn to
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
45
afford these prices based on spending no more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, the
commonly applied threshold of affordability.
Table 3-31
Affordability Analysis I
Maximum Affordable Prices Based on Income Levels
Type of
Property
Income Level
30% of Monthly
Income
Estimated Max.
Affordable Price
5% Down ****
Estimated Max.
Affordable Price
20% Down ****
Single-family Median Income =
$51,796*/$62,125**
$1,294.90/
$1,553.12
$190,000/
$230,000
$228,000/
$275,000
80% AMI =
$49,700***
$1,242.50 $184,000 $220,000
Condominium Median Income =
$51,796*/$62,125**
$1,294.90/
$1,553.12
$155,000/
$193,000
$185,000/
$230,000
80% AMI =
$49,700**
$1,242.50 $145,000 $175,000
Two-family Median Income =
$51,796*/$62,125
$1,294.90/
$1,553.12
$295,000/
$330,000
$350,000/
$380,000
80% AMI =
$49,700**
$1,242.50 $285,000 $340,000
30% of Monthly
Income
Estimated
Utility Cost
Affordable
Monthly Rental
Rental Median Income =
$51,796*/$62,125**
$1,294.90/
$1,553.12
$135 $1,159.90/
$1,418.12
80% AMI =
$49,700**
$1,242.50 $135 $1,107.50
60% AMI =
$37,260**
$931.50 $135 $796.50
30% AMI =
$18,650
$466.25 $135 $331.25
Source: Calculations provided by Karen Sunnarborg.
* Based on Nielsen Claritas database 2009 estimate.
** Based on extrapolating median income from the 80% AMI HUD figure for a household of two (2).
*** HUD 2009 Income Limits for the Springfield MSA for a household of two (2), which is the average household size in
Northampton.
**** Figures based on interest of 5.5%, 30-year term, annual property tax rate of $11.48 per thousand, insurance
costs of $1.25 per $1,000 of combined valuation of dwelling value (value x 0.5), personal property ($100,000 fixed),
and personal liability ($100,000 fixed), and private mortgage insurance estimated at 0.3125 of loan amount for 95%
financing, estimated monthly condo fees of $250, and rental income of 75% of $900 or $675.
Table 3-31 shows how different types of housing are more or less affordable to households
earning at median income and at 80% of area median income. It also indicates that the amount
of down payment has a substantial bearing on what a household can afford. During the past
few years, it has been fairly easy for purchasers to limit their down payments on mortgage
financing to 5% or even less as long as they paid private mortgage insurance or qualified for a
subsidized mortgage program such as the state’s Soft Second Loan Program. Given the recent
financial crisis, lenders are now typically applying more rigid lending criteria including the need
for 20% down payments. Such high cash requirements make homeownership, particularly first-
time homeownership, much more difficult. However, as Table 3-32 demonstrates, a household
earning the same level of income can acquire a much higher priced home with more cash down.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
46
Table 3-31 also shows that because condo fees are calculated as housing expenses in mortgage
underwriting criteria, they are more expensive. Therefore, a household earning 80% of area median
income, for example, can afford a single-family home of $220,000 with a 20% down payment, but a
condo for only $175,000, also with 80% financing. The same household is estimated to be able to buy a
two-family house for $340,000 if it can charge $900 per month in rent as this income is also considered
in mortgage underwriting, usually at about 75% of the rent level. A three-family house is even more
affordable with two paying tenants and it is therefore not surprising that the triple-decker has been such
a success as starter housing for those looking to enter into homeownership in some of the state’s cities.
Table 3-31 also looks at what renters can afford at three different rent levels. For example, a two-
person household earning at 60% of area median income and earning $37,260 annually could afford a
monthly rental of about $800, assuming they are paying no more than 30% of their income on housing
and pay utility bills that average about $135 per month. A rental this low is increasingly difficult to find
in Northampton, where the lowest rental advertised in September 2009 was $850, that required first
and last month’s rent and a security deposit equivalent to a month’s rent. This means that any
household looking to rent in the private housing market must have a considerable amount of cash
available, which has a significant impact on affordability.
Table 3-32
Affordability Analysis II
Income Required to Afford Median Prices or Minimum Market Rents
Estimated Mortgage Income Required
Type of Property
Median Price*
5% Down 20% Down 5% Down 20% Down
Single-family $295,000/2009 $280,250 $236,000 $80,000 $68,500
$250,000/2008 $237,500 $200,000 $67,300 $56,300
Condominium $165,300/2009 $157,035 $132,240 $54,800 $47,500
$202,700/2008 $192,565 $162,160 $64,750 $55,850
Two-family $300,000/2009 $285,000 $240,000 $53,600 $40,400
$300,000/2008 $285,000 $240,000 $53,600 $40,400
Estimated Market
Monthly Rental
***
Estimated
Monthly
Utility Costs
Income Required
Rental
One-bedroom $850 $100 $38,000
Two-bedroom $900 $135 $41,400
Three-bedroom $1,250 $165 $56,600
Source: Calculations provided by Karen Sunnarborg.
* From The Warren Group Town Stats data
** Figures based on interest of 5.5%, 30-year term, annual property tax rate of $11.48 per thousand, insurance costs
of $1.25 per $1,000 of combined valuation of dwelling value (value x 0.5), personal property ($100,000 fixed), and
personal liability ($100,000 fixed), and private mortgage insurance estimated at 0.3125 of loan amount, estimated
monthly condo fees of $250, and rental income of 75% of $900 or $675.
*** Lowest prices seen in September 2009 listings in Craigslist.
Table 3-32 looks at affordability from another angle, going from specific housing costs to income instead
of the other way around as was the case in Table 3-31. Taking median price levels for single-family
homes, condos and two-family homes, the incomes that would be required to afford these prices are
calculated, showing the differences between 95% and 80% financing. For example, using the median
single-family home price as of July 2009, a household would have to earn $80,000 if they were able to
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
47
access 95% financing. If they could afford the 20% down payment, an income of $68,500 would be
required. The median condo price was $165,300 in July 2009, requiring an income of $54,800 with 5%
down and $47,500 with the 20% down payment. Once again, because of the income generated in a
two-family home, this type of property is significantly more affordable. It is worth noting that the
federal government has offered $8,000 in subsidies to first-time homebuyers through the end of June
2010, which has helped promote sales in the lower price ranges and made homeownership more
affordable.
In regard to rentals, using the lowest prices advertised in September 2009 on Craigslist, a one-bedroom
unit renting for $850 would require an income of $38,000, assuming $100 per month in utility bills and
that housing expenses are no more than 30% of the household’s income. Even so, someone earning
minimum wage of $8.00 for 40 hours per week every week during the year would still only earn a gross
income of $16,640. Households with two persons earning the minimum wage would still fall short of
the $38,000 income needed to afford this minimum advertised rent. While there are rents that fall
below this level, particularly subsidized rents, market rents tend to be beyond the reach of those lower
wage earners. This relative scarcity of affordable rentals, particularly those with supportive services, was
identified as perhaps the foremost housing need in the June 2009 meeting convened by the
Northampton Housing Partnership with representatives of local and regional housing program and
service providers.
Through the combination of information in Tables 3-31 and 3-32, it is possible to compute the
affordability gap, typically defined as the difference between what a median income household can
afford and the median priced unit on the market. The affordability gap would then be $20,000 as of July
2009 for single-family homes, the difference between $275,000 (based on the extrapolated median
income figure for a household of two and 80% financing) and the median house price of $295,000.
There is currently no affordability gap for condos as the household earning at median income can well
afford the median priced condo. However, the high costs associated with obtaining mortgage financing
or the up-front cash requirements of renting an apartment effectively widen the affordability gap.
Table 3-33 identifies how many single-family homes and condos are existing in Northampton to those
within various income categories and shows that more than half of the single-family homes and more
than 80% of the condos are assessed as being affordable to those earning at or below median income,
representing considerable affordability in the housing stock based on a number of assumptions
including 80% financing. Once again, the ability to obtain financing, including issues related to credit
history and case requirements, can provide substantial barriers to accessing housing. It is also important
to note that this analysis is based on assessed values of all properties in Northampton, not what is
available on the market (see Tables 3-24 and 3-25 for recent market activity and prices).
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
48
Table 3-33
Affordability Analysis III
Relative Affordability of Single-family and Condo Units in Northampton, 2009
Single-family Homes
Available in Price
Range
Condominiums
Available in Price
Range
Price Range
Single-
family/Condo*
Income Range
Number % Number %
Less than $220,000/
Less than $175,000
Less than 80% AMI
1,398 25.4 598 49.7
$220,001-$275,000/
$175,001-$230,000
80% - 100%
1,563 28.4 381 31.6
$275,001-$330,000/
$230,001-$285,000
100% - 120%**
929 16.9 121 10.1
More than $330,000
more than$285,000
More than 120%**
1,610 29.3 104 8.6
Total 5,500 100.0 1,204*** 100.0
Source: Northampton Assessor’s Database for fiscal year 2009. Please note that as a standard practice, assessed value is
assumed to be 93% of actual value or potential sale price. Figures based on a three-person household.
* Includes estimated condo fee of $250 per month and figures are based on 80% financing.
** Based on extrapolating 120% AMI from the 80% AMI HUD figure for a household of two (2) or $74,550.
*** Does not include units at Laurel Park or in co-housing developments.
In addition to an analysis of affordability based on spending no more than 30% of a household’s income
on housing expenses and how this relates to the existing housing stock and financing terms, it is also
useful to identify numbers of residents living beyond their means based on their housing costs. The 2000
census provides data on how much households spent on housing whether for ownership or rental. Such
information is helpful in assessing how many households are overspending on housing or encountering
housing affordability problems, defined as spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Based
on 1999 data, the census indicated that 332 households or 6.5% of the homeowners in Northampton
were spending between 30% and 34% of their income on housing and another 805 or 15.8% of owners
were spending more than 35% of their income on housing expenses. In regard to renters, 332 renters or
6.0% were spending between 30% and 34% of their income on housing and another 1,488 or 26.9% were
allocating 35% or more of their incomes for housing. This data suggests that about 3,000 households or
one-quarter of all Northampton households were living in housing that is by common definition beyond
their means and unaffordable.
HUD provides additional data on housing affordability problems through its CHAS report that identifies
cost burdens by household type and whether they are renters or owners, offering a breakdown of
households within specific income categories as summarized in Table 3-34. This report, based on 2000
census data for Northampton, indicates the following:
· Of the 11,783 households counted, 3,052 or more than one-quarter were spending more
than 30% of their income on housing and 1,337 or 11.4% were spending more than half
their income on housing including 779 renters and 558 owners.
· There were 1,488 households earning at or below 30% AMI, referred to by HUD as
extremely low-income households, and half were spending more than 50% of their income
on housing including almost half of the renters and two-thirds of the owners in this income
category.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
49
· There were 1,213 households earning between 30% and 50% AMI, referred to by HUD as
very low-income households, and almost 30% were spending more than half their income
on housing including one-quarter of all renters and one-third of the owners.
· Of the 1,876 households earning between 50% and 80% AMI, which HUD defines as low-
income households, 760 were spending too much on housing including 403 renters and 357
owners with 144 households spending at least half of their income on housing.
· Altogether there were 4,577 households with incomes within 80% AMI suggesting that at
least in 2000, almost 40% of all households may have qualified for housing assistance based
on their income, without consideration for financial assets.
· There were 818 renters and 1,658 owners over the age of 65, 630 of whom were
experiencing cost burdens including at least 213 who were spending at least half their
income on housing expenses.
Table 3-34
Type of Households by Income Category and Cost Burdens,* 2000
Type of
Household
Households
Earning < 30%
MFI/# with
cost burdens
(# spending
50% or more)
Households
Earning > 30%
to < 50%
MFI/ # with
cost burdens *
Households
Earning > 50%
to < 80%
MFI/# with
cost burdens *
Households
Earning >
80% MFI/
# with cost
burdens *
Total/# with
cost burdens *
Elderly
Renters
263/98 (49) 242/119 (45) 149/39 164/4 818/260
Small Family
Renters
199/145 (110)
145/65 279/85 580/35 1,203/330
Large Family
Renters
4/4 16/4 27/4 45/0 92/12
Other Renters 749/459 (405) 330/285 (135) 665/275 1,624/29 3,368/1,048
Total Renters 1215//706(564) 733/473 (190) 1,120/403 (25) 2,413/68(0) 5,481/1,650(779)
Elderly
Owners
142/118 (64) 293/154 (55) 283/48 940/50 1,658/370
Small Family
Owners
63/59 (55) 119/70 (70) 280/200 2,690/239 3,152/568
Large Family
Owners
4/4 (4) 4/4 (4) 58/19 364/39 430/66
Other Owners 64/60 (60) 64/54 (25) 135/90 799/190 1,062/394
Total Owners 273/241 (183) 480/282 (155) 756/357(119) 4,793/518(101) 6,302/1,398(558)
Total 1,488/946(747) 1,213/755(345) 1,876/760(144) 7,206/586(101) 11,783/3,052
(1,337)
Source: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), SOCDS CHAS Data, 2000.
MFI indicates median family income.
*Cost burdens indicate that households are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. The CHAS data also provides
data on those spending more than 50% of earnings on housing as indicated by parentheses ( ).
Large-family households are defined as having five (5) or more members, small families with two (2) to four (4) members.
Housing costs rose precipitously after 2000, and it is likely that even more households in Northampton
experienced significant cost burdens over the past nine (9) years. Moreover, given recent housing
finance problems associated with high cost mortgages from predatory lenders, it is likely that some
homeowners in Northampton have even lost their homes or are confronting possible foreclosure.
Recent information on the level of foreclosures indicates that from March through August of 2009, there
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
50
were 19 foreclosure actions in Northampton, including both petitions and auctions.20 This level of
foreclosure has decreased to seven (7) between January 1st to May 9th 2011, four (4) of which were
actual auctions and three (3) involving petitions to foreclose, the initial stage of the foreclosure
process.21
With CPA funding support ($26,211 in 2008) as well as a grant of $410,000 from the Community
Foundation of Western Massachusetts (CFWM), based in Springfield, and $5,000 from the state’s
Department of Banks (DOB), the Valley CDC has been providing counseling to those living in Hampshire
County who are at risk or actually facing foreclosure. Last year the CDC provided this counseling to
more than a hundred households, many of which were able to refinance their house or modify their
existing mortgage.
3.2.6 Subsidized Housing Inventory Including Housing for the Homeless
Current Inventory
The state currently lists 1,452 affordable housing units in Northampton’s state-approved
Subsidized Housing Inventory, representing 11.8% of the total year-round housing stock of
12,282 units based on 2000 census data. Therefore, the city has passed the Chapter 40B 10%
affordability threshold. This means that the City is exempt from comprehensive permit projects
that would enable developers to override local zoning in exchange for meeting state
guidelines.22
Based on figures recently released as part of the 2010 Census Redistricting data, housing growth has
increased the housing stock to 12,728 units according to the 2010 Census Redistricting data. If the
percentage of year-round units remains about the same as the 2000 census, at about 1%, then
Northampton’s current inventory of affordable units will still surpass the 10% state target, at about
11.5%. However, the pending loss of 207 affordable units at Hathaway Farms would bring
Northampton’s SHI percentage down to 9.9% assuming no significant loss of additional SHI units.
Recently completed projects involving 67 units will help offset this loss but Northampton will likely be
very close to the 10% level only slightly over the 10% affordability goal to 10.4%.
Unlike Northampton, most communities in the state are confronting challenges in boosting their
relatively limited supply of affordable housing. Some of Northampton’s neighbors, and their affordable
housing levels are visually presented in Figure 3-4.
20 Data available from ForeclosuresMass database.
21 Warren Group, May 9, 2011.
22 Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 established the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law (Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40B) to facilitate the development of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households
(defined as any housing subsidized by the federal or state government under any program to assist in the
construction of low- or moderate-income housing for those earning less than 80% of median income) by permitting
the state to override local zoning and other restrictions in communities where less than 10% of the year-round
housing is subsidized for low- and moderate-income households.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
51
Figure 3-4
Level of Affordable Housing
11.10%
6.70%
13.20%
3.30%
11.80%
0.00%
7.90%
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Amherst/1,016Easthampton/471Hadley/257Hatfield/47Northampton/1,452Westhampton/0Williamsburg/83Community/Number of Affordable UnitsPercent Affordable Housing
Affordable housing production varies substantially among these communities with Amherst,
Northampton and Hadley above the 10% state affordability thresholds, with Easthampton and
Williamsburg in the middle at 6.7% and 7.9%, respectively, Hatfield at 3.3%, and Westhampton at zero
although the town is in the process of developing some affordable housing.23
Table 3-35 summarizes the units included in the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI), the list of
affordable dwelling units that the state recognizes as eligible for counting towards
Northampton’s 10% state affordability goal. Almost all of Northampton’s listed 1,452 SHI units
are rentals (1,433 units or 98.7%), including 45 special needs units in group homes.
Northampton has 25 units managed by the state’s Department of Developmental Services (DDS)
and another 20 Department of Mental Health units.
Table 3-35
Northampton’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI)
Project Name
# SHI
Units
Project Type/
Subsidizing Agency
Use of a
Comp
Permit
Affordability
Expiration Date
Florence Heights* 49 Rental/HUD (for families) No Perpetuity
MacDonald House* 60 Rental/HUD (seniors/disabled) No Perpetuity
Hampshire Heights* 80 Rental/DHCD (for families) No Perpetuity
Cahill Apartments* 64 Rental/DDCD (seniors/disabled) No Perpetuity
Forsander Apartments* 72 Rental/DHCD (seniors/disabled) No Perpetuity
Salvo House* 192 Rental/DHCD (seniors/disabled) No Perpetuity
State Street House* 6 Rental/DHCD (families) No Perpetuity
23 The Town is producing seven (7) rental units for seniors with the Hilltown CDC, including four (4) affordable units
and three (3) market ones as part of the first phase of a project that will ultimately include 20 total units.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
52
Tobin Manor* 49 Rental/DHCD (seniors/disabled) No Perpetuity
Bridge Street House* 7 Rental/DHCD (special needs) No Perpetuity
Scattered Site* 8 Rental/DHCD, MHP (families) Yes Perpetuity
Millbank *
NHA-owned units in
existing condo
4 Rental/DHCD, HUD
(families)
No Perpetuity
Earle Street/Smith
College – HAP/HER, Inc.
15 Rental (ESRO + a 2-bedroom)/
DHCD
No 2037
Florence Inn/Services
Thru ServiceNet
14 Rental/FHLBB No 2025
Hampshire Inn/Valley
CDC
8 Rental (SRO’s)/DHCD No Perpetuity
Hampton Court 77 Rental/DHCD No 2025
Hathaway Farms 207 Rental/DHCD+MassHousing No 2014
Leeds Village Apts. 19 Rental/MassHousing No 2018
Meadowbrook Apts./
POAH refinanced
expiring use project
252 Rental/MassHousing No 2034
Millbank - Michelman/
Valley CDC
24 Rental/HUD, MassHousing +
DHCD
No 2032
Pine’s Edge 8 Ownership/DHCD Yes 2031
Michael’s House 86 Rental/MassHousing No 2032
The Lorraine/HAP 20 Rental/DHCD No 2030
Go West SRO/Valley
CDC
17 Rental (Enhanced SRO’s)/
DHCD
No 2035
Village at Hospital Hill
Phase I – Hilltop Apts/
TCB
33 Rental/DHCD No 2034
Ice Pond Drive/TCB 8 Mix/DHCD and HUD No 2103
Valley Homes Project/
Valley CDC
4 Mix/DHCD and HUD No 2016
New South Street Apt./
Valley CDC
18 Rental/DHCD and HUD No 2027
Westhampton Road/
Habitat
6 Ownership/HUD No 2057
DDS Group Homes 25 Special Needs Rental/DDS No NA
DMH Group Homes 20 Special Needs Rental/DMH No NA
SUBTOTAL
(units on SHI)
1,452/
1,245**
1,428 rentals
45 group homes
14 ownership
10 mix of ownership/rental
16 units
used the
comp
permit
599 units (41%)
with restrictions in
perpetuity
Additional Units Eligible
For SHI
Project Name
# SHI
Units
Project Type/
Subsidizing Agency
Use of a
Comp
Permit
Affordability
Expiration Date
Village at Hospital Hill
Hillside Place/TCB
36 Rental No Perpetuity
School Street/
Valley CDC
8 Rental/DHCD Yes Perpetuity
Yvonne’s House 6 Special Needs Rental No Perpetuity
Paradise Pond/HAP 11 Special Needs Rental No Perpetuity
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
53
Mary McColgan Apts.* 6 Special Needs Rental No Perpetuity
SUBTOTAL
(Units eligible to be added to
SHI)
67 All rentals
TOTAL 1,519/
1,312**
Source: Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, June 1, 2009
* Northampton Housing Authority units ** Unit count without Hathaway Farms.
Table 3-35 also lists a number of additional developments that should be added to the
Subsidized Housing Inventory that will bring the SHI total to 1,312 units or 10.4% of the city’s
year-round housing units,24 this percentage also assuming the loss of 207 units at Hathaway
Farms. As noted in the table, however, there are a couple of projects where the affordability
restrictions are due to expire that might lead to some loss of SHI units in the future. Efforts
should be made to monitor these expiring use units and intervene when necessary to maintain
affordability.
The Northampton Housing Authority (NHA) manages a total of 618 units (42.6% of the SHI
units), 26 of which are not included in the SHI including 20 units at Grace House Shelter and six
(6) units of special needs housing at Mary McColgan apartments. A summary of NHA units is
included in Table 3-36.
Table 3-36
Northampton Housing Authority Units
Bedroom Size
Development Name and
Number*
# Units 1 2 3 4
Approved
Off Line **
Of Total
HP
Modified
Hampshire Heights (200-1) 80 0 41 36 2 1 2
Florence Heights (26-1) 50 0 23 22 4 1 1^
McDonald House (26-2) 60 54 6 0 0 0 9
Cahill Apartments (667-1A) 64 64 0 0 0 0 0
Forsander Apts. (667-1B) 72 72 0 0 0 0 0
Salvo House (667-2A) 192 189 2 0 0 1 5
State St. House (167-1 and
705-3)
6 5 0 0 1 0 2
Tobin Manor (667-3) 49 47 0 0 2 0 3
Scattered Site (705-1) 8 0 0 8 0 0 1
Millbank Apts. (705-2) 4 0 4 0 0 0 4
Bridge St. House (689-1) 7 3 4 0 0 0 2
Grace House Shelter (689-2) 20 20 0 0 0 0 0
Mary McColgan Apts. (689-3) 6 6 0 0 0 0 2
Total 618 462 78 66 9 3 31
Source: Northampton Housing Authority, as of July 2009.
*Indicates type and round of financing. ** Units that are no longer occupied. ^ Indicates partially modified unit.
Table 3-37 also provides a breakdown of NHA units by the size of elderly or family housing
(number of bedrooms). It also indicates the numbers of applicants on the wait list whose
24 The number of year-round units is estimated by assuming that about 1% of the total housing stock will be for
seasonal or occasional units, as was the case in 2000, and subtracts this amount from the 12,728 total housing unit
figure released through the 2010 Census Redistricting data (12,728 – 128 = 12,600 year-round units).
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
54
eligibility has finally been approved and are ready to be housed and others who have been
determined eligible on a more preliminary basis (income, family composition) but have not
completed the full application process (landlord references, CORI, etc.). The family that has
been waiting longest for a unit applied over two (2) years ago.
Table 3-37
Northampton Housing Authority Housing Unit Wait Lists
Program Units Bedroom Final Approved
Eligibility*
Preliminary
Eligibility/Pending**
Federal Elderly 60 1 34 42
State Elderly 379 1 14 49
State Family 45 2 8 22
State Family 42 3 3 21
State Family 2 4 2 12
Federal Family 50 All 4 55
Total 578 -- 65 201
Source: Northampton Housing Authority, as of July 1, 2009. *Indicates that applicant’s eligibility has been verified.
**Indicates that the determination of eligibility has not been finally verified.
In 2008, NHA had a tenancy turnover in about 100 units, most of them for the elderly/disabled.
There is no accurate measure of the average time on the wait list. Applicants 62 or older go to
the top of the state elderly waiting list, above younger applicants with disabilities age 55 to 62,
and above those younger than that as well. If you are a victim of domestic violence or homeless
due to no fault of your own, you would jump to the top of the appropriate list. (go back to
notes?) The applicant that has been on any of the elderly wait lists the longest applied more
than two (2) years ago.
More than half of the tenants in elderly housing have a disability. This includes a substantial
number of veterans with substance abuse problems and a large number of Department of
Mental Health (DMH) clients. NHA has been particularly challenged by youth who “age-out” of
the state’s Department of Social Services facilities, qualify as disabled and need to find new and
affordable places to live, as they are frequently disruptive and destructive. Although there is an
allowable state cap of 13% younger disabled in elderly housing, the NHA typically houses
between 30 and 40%.
Of the actual senior population living in NHA housing, approximately 80% are White, almost 20%
are Hispanic the remaining few are Black or African-American. In regard to family housing,
about 50% of the tenants are Hispanic, 40% White and about 10% Black or Asian. As indicated
in Table 3-5, Northampton has historically had a very small minority population, Black or
African-Americans in particular.
NHA also administers leased housing programs that offer rental subsidies to qualifying households
renting units in the private housing market, filling the gap between an established market rent – the Fair
Market Rent (FMR) – and a portion of the household’s income.25 The number of rental subsidies by
program is summarized in Table 3-38.
25 Northampton uses 110% of HUD’s FMR as its payment standard.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
55
Table 3-38
Number of Rental Subsidies by Program
Rental Subsidy Program Number of Units/Vouchers
Section 8 Program/federal program 153
Hathaway Farms – Section 8 Preservation/
federal program
95
Mobile Rental Voucher Program/state program 25
Alternative Housing Voucher Program/state
program
9
Florence Inn – Section 8 Moderate Rehab/
Federal program
14
The Maples – Section 8 Moderate Rehab/
For Homeless/federal program
11
Total 307
Source: Northampton Housing Authority as of July 2009.
There is substantial demand for NHA rental subsidies. The last time the NHA opened its wait list was in
October 2006, when they had 700 applicants. In 2008, NHA purged this list, eliminating a majority of
applicants, but the last person offered a voucher was in October 2006. NHA still has 140 applicants on
the wait list, 31 with a preference, meaning that they live or work in the NHA jurisdiction that includes
Belchertown, Easthampton, Williamsburg, Goshen, Cummington, Huntington, Westhampton,
Middlefield and Chesterfield in addition to Northampton. The Authority believes that it will work
through its existing waitlist by 2012 and will not likely open it again until the summer of 2011. Therefore,
it will probably have taken the last person left on the current waitlist about six (6) years to receive a
voucher – a very long wait.26
Another important partner in housing development is the Valley CDC with 85 units in five (5) separate
projects and another recently completed project at 46-48 School Street that should be added to the SHI.
This development includes eight (8) rental units and used the Chapter 40B comprehensive permit
process, a relative rarity in Northampton. It involved a combination of rehab and new construction and
multiple sources of financing including HOME funds, state Housing Stabilization Funds, CDBG,
Commercial Area Transit Neighborhood Improvement Program (CAT-NIP), and the Smith College
Affordable Housing Fund. They are in the process of redeveloping another property on North Maple
Street27 and developing an Enhanced SRO on King Street that will create 10 affordable ESRO units. The
organization also provides a wide range of other housing and economic development programs and
services as described in Section 3.5.
HAPHousing (formerly known as HAP, Inc.), the regional non-profit housing organization has also been
involved in property development and management in Northampton. The organization acquired The
Lorraine, a 28-unit rental project which it continues to manage (20 of the units are eligible for counting
in the SHI, the rest being unsubsidized but with fairly low rents), as well as the Paradise Pond
Apartments that provides one (1) transitional unit as well as 11-units of permanent family rental
housing. HAP also administers the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Program that provides
closing cost assistance for first-time homebuyers.
26 This timeframe assumes that many on the list have found housing elsewhere since 2006.
27 The Valley CDC already owns this SRO property at 16 North Maple Street and will be renovating it.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
56
The Community Builders (TCB) is the residential developer of the first phase of Village Hill (the
redevelopment of the former Northampton State Hospital), Ice Pond Drive, a 26-lot subdivision. The
project contains six (6) affordable homes and two (2) accessory apartments. The remaining lots were
developed as market rate housing and serves as a model for mixed-income development.
Photo: Dietz & Company Architects, Inc.
Ice Pond Drive – First Phase of the Village Hill Development
TCB also developed 33 units of rental housing through the Hilltop Apartments development as well as
another 40-unit rental development at Hillside Place. MassDevelopment has become the master
developer of the rest of the Village Hill project. The Village Hill project involved a Smart Growth Overlay
District that was approved as part of the state’s Chapter 40R regulations (see Appendix 4 for more
details on 40R). A Request for Proposals was issued for 25 bungalow units to be developed as workforce
housing in the $250,000 to $350,000 price range.
It should also be noted that considerable additional work has already occurred at the former
Northampton State Hospital site, beyond The Village Hill development. Four (4) parcels were deeded
directly to Northampton Housing Authority (NHA), the West Street parcel behind the former Jessie’s
House was developed as the Paradise Pond Apartments by HAP, the Grove Street parcel was developed
for Department of Mental Health (DMH) clients, the Burts Pit Road parcel is slated for use by
Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the Laurel Street parcel is planned to be developed
for homeownership.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
57
Photo: Dietz & Company Architects, Inc. Village Hill – Hillside Place Apartments
Photo: Dietz & Company Architects, Inc. Village Hill – Hilltop Apartments
Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity has completed or is in the process of developing three (3) projects
on sites the City acquired for limited development, involving open space preservation as well. These
projects include:
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
58
· Six (6) new homes on Westhampton Road that provides a neighborhood housing buffer from a
planned landfill expansion as well as a tot-lot and walking trails. Another market rate lot was
sold to help defray project costs.
· Two (2) condo units on Ryan Road.
· Five (5) single-family homes are being built on Garfield Avenue.
Additionally, the organization has completed two (2) condos on Pine Brook Curve, one (1) single-family
home on Cahillane Terrace, and another two condos at Vernon Street and Forbes Avenue, which are not
included in the SHI.
Homeless Housing Options
While not eligible for counting as part of the City’s Subsidized Housing Inventory because they are not
permanent units but temporary housing, the City has two (2) year-round emergency shelters for
individuals:
· Grove Street Inn
Originally a farmhouse that was part of the Northampton State Hospital, the building is now
owned by the City of Northampton and operated by ServiceNet, Inc. It has capacity for 20 to 24
beds for both men and women and is always full, with an average of 40 to 50 people on the wait
list.
· Soldier On in Leeds
This 125-bed facility is located at the Veterans Administration Campus in Leeds and is
administered by Soldier On. The shelter and transitional housing programs serve veterans
throughout the New England area.
The City also acquired a permanent site at 43 Center Street for the Hampshire County Interfaith Program
as a winter overflow shelter and drop-in program for the homeless. The programs are administered by
ServiceNet. Inc. A local 501(c)(3) organization, Friends of the Homeless, assists with fundraising,
peripheral support programs, oversees the 400-member volunteer network, and purchased
Northampton’s first Housing First facility.
Approximately 42 families are served annually in Amherst. Northampton also has an emergency shelter
for families through Safe Passage, serving five (5) families who have been victims of domestic violence.
Jessie’s House is the only other family shelter in Hampshire County but can only accommodate eight (8)
families, although 90 requests to live there are received monthly.
The city also has several transitional programs that provide housing and support services for a period of
up to two (2) years. The need for next step housing beyond shelter has been long-standing in
Northampton. Homeless people get stuck in the emergency shelter system as there are few options to
transition into. Fortunately there is a Housing First Model being embraced in the region that will begin
to transform this lack of permanent housing with supportive services. The current transitional housing
options include the following:
· Grace House, serving nine (9) women in recovery and their children;
· Hairston House provides a sober house for up to 17 adult men, staying for an average of three
(3) to six (6) months;
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
59
· Soldier On Transitional Housing for 45 veterans, a sober program;
· The Valley Inn had been operated by ServiceNet Inc. for homeless people with mental illness
(has 12 rooms and served approximately 25 annually) and was recently closed ( ServiceNet
opened 2 other houses at other locations to accommodate the occupants of the Valley Inn);
· The YWCA Transitional Living Program for formerly battered young mothers with children with a
capacity of five families at any time;
· The Florence Inn, owned and operated by ServiceNet, for formerly homeless men and women
with 14 rooms; and
· Paradise Pond, developed by HAP, Inc. includes 11 units of family rental housing and one (1 )
transitional unit. Grace House provides supportive services.
There is outstanding demand for “next step” housing serving the more generic population beyond those
for veterans or with mental health or substance abuse problems towards which most of these units are
targeted. New development will focus on creating “housing first” programs of providing permanent
housing for homeless individuals and families with supportive services.
Projects in Development or Recently Completed
There are other affordable housing units that are being developed including the following:
· 16 North Maple Street (The Maples)
The Valley CDC has completed the renovation of this 11-unit SRO with Project-based Section 8
subsidies via federal McKinney funding. A commitment of $250,000 from CPA was received in
January 2009, and $950,000 from DHCD was secured in January 2010. The project provides
housing for both men and women exiting from homelessness.
· 98 King Street
The Valley CDC acquired this property with the assistance of a CEDAC acquisition loan to
develop ten (10) enhanced SRO units. Valley has a commitment of $225,000 from CPA. The
Smith College Affordable Housing Fund is providing $550,000 in funding to support the project.
The CDC was awarded $650,000 in state funds and $500,000 in federal HOME funds.
Applications are being taken for a July 2011 completion.
· Additional Phases of Village Hill
MassDevelopment required changes in the project’s Master Plan for the next stage of the
development. A total of approximately 25 new bungalow units will be built with a mix of market
and workforce units with prices ranging from $250,000 to $350,000. A total of 327 housing
units have been approved for the Village Hill project in total and per the requirements of the
Land Disposition Agreement the project sponsor must make reasonable efforts to include a mix
of low, affordable and market rate housing and to ensure that 15% of the units are made
available to clients of the Department of Mental Health (DMH).
· Bedford Terrace
This project was developed as replacement housing by Smith College. The project included the
renovation of an existing building and new construction, for a total of 26 units, 24 of which are
affordable but cannot be counted in the SHI because a lottery was not conducted.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
60
Photo: Dietz & Company Architects, Inc. Bedford Terrace Replacement Housing
· Smith College Affordable Housing Fund
Smith College agreed to create a fund to develop replacement housing for the market rate
affordable housing that would be demolished to accommodate campus expansion. This
commitment was codified in a development agreement, crafted by the City, the College, and
area housing advocates. Smith owned 66 units in the West Street neighborhood, and 26 units
were eliminated in the first phase of construction but replaced at Bedford Terrace.
· The Oaks
This privately-developed subdivision received waivers from the Northampton Planning Board,
and as a condition of approval, the Planning Board required that of the 70 total homeownership
units, eight (8) to ten (10) be developed as affordable. This project is currently moving forward.
· Paradise Pond
As mentioned above, this project on former State Hospital land was conveyed to the Housing
Authority and developed by HAP, Inc. into a mix of 11 permanent housing units for families and
one (1) transitional family unit. The adjacent Grace House provides support services. The City
earmarked $112,500 in CDBG towards the project, which has been completed.
· Laurel Street
This Housing Authority project hopes to include six (6) duplexes for a total of 12 units on a
former Northampton State Hospital parcel. State legislative approval is required to change the
use stipulated in the Disposition Agreement from rental to ownership.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
61
· Leeds Veteran Village
Soldier On is in the conceptual stages of developing a limited equity housing project to create
permanent affordable housing for formerly homeless veterans on the VA campus in Leeds.
Soldier On is in the preliminary stage of developing the project and 60 to 80 units are proposed.
· Garfield Avenue Habitat Project
The Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity is in the process of developing five (5) single-family
homes on Garfield Avenue in Florence. Construction has begun on this limited development
project initiated by the city. A market rate lot will be retained and sold by the City to seed
future projects. Two (2) units have been completed to date.
3.3 Priority Housing Needs
Based on input from a wide variety of sources,28 the following priority housing needs have been
identified:
3.3.1 Homelessness Prevention
There is documented evidence that it is far less costly to preserve tenancies than to provide
shelter and services to those who have lost their housing. A recent report compiled by the Cape
Cod Commission tracked 51 individuals over the course of a one-year period and found it cost
almost $50,000 annually to provide emergency housing and services to the homeless.29 The All
Roads Lead Home Plan to end homelessness indicates that Massachusetts pays an average of
$2,940 per month to maintain a family in a homeless shelter, not including case management
and services, which typically costs about $50,000 per family given stays of 15 months on
average.
The Tenancy Preservation Program, special federal funding such as the Homelessness
Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP), tenant and landlord mediation efforts,
regional networks for rapid re-housing, and other housing stabilization programs are highly
effective ways to preserve housing for those at-risk of homelessness. Providing cash assistance
for rent or utility arrearages to keep an individual or family in their current housing is the most
cost-effective response to preventing homelessness. As the All Roads Home Plan further states,
“Prevention must be a key part of our strategy, because it is humane, cost-effective, and critical
to ending homelessness”.30
3.3.2 Shelters and Rapid Re-housing Efforts
For those who become homeless, Northampton does have a number of emergency and
transitional shelters that are listed above in Section 3.2.6. These temporary shelters have
reflected a crisis management response to helping the homeless, saving many lives. Agencies
28 Resources include visioning analysis during the preparation of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan,
the development of Northampton Vision 2020 and the Grow Smart Northampton Plan, Executive Order 418
certification process, Three County Continuum of Care Goals and Objectives, the HUD Consolidated plan,
consultations with service providers, feedback from public forums, and interviews.)
29 Lee M. Hamilton, “Costs of Homelessness: A Study of Current and Formerly Chronically Homeless Individuals on
Cape Cod, Massachusetts”, February 2009.
30 “All Roads Lead Home: The Pioneer Valley’s Plan to End Homelessness”, supported by the cities of Holyoke,
Northampton and Springfield, MA, and funding from One Family, Inc. for the Pioneer Valley Committee to End
Homelessness (PVCEH), February 2008, page 2.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
62
and organizations have focused on providing services and programs to move sheltered
individuals and families into permanent housing. The All Roads Lead Home Plan indicates that
there is a regular ongoing movement of homeless people from one shelter to another up and
down the I-91 corridor, either in search of additional services or better shelter. The Plan goes
on to say that this movement in fact extends the period of homelessness as caseworkers start
over at each new location, the homeless lose ties to family and friends who may provide
support, address changes mean lost mail, and health care and mental health services are
disrupted.
Northampton’s HUD Consolidated Plan indicates that wait lists for the City’s shelters continue to
grow and offers the following information regarding the homeless population:
· About 10% to 15% of shelter guests are young adults who require more intensive case
management given their high level of need, lack of income and inadequate life skills.
Northampton also has experienced a relatively high number of transient gay, lesbian
and bisexual youth entering the shelter system.
· About 25% of those in the shelter system are women, many who have experienced
domestic violence and may be lacking employment histories or job skills.
· Typically about 10% of shelter guests are veterans, many who are not eligible or are
resistant to VA services.
· About 35% of emergency shelter guests are chronically homeless.
· The staff of Eliot Services estimate that there are generally between 5 and 15
unsheltered individuals on the street at any time and approximately 30 more doubled-
up with friends or family. These numbers swell during the summer, particularly for
homeless youth.
· DMH also estimates that on average there are 35 to 50 people with severe mental
illness, often with substance abuse problems as well, who are at risk of homelessness
annually and require subsidized housing. The homeless mentally ill make-up 10 to 20%
of the sheltered population.
There has been a shift from focusing all resources on crisis management to one that focuses on
diversion and prevention. The region is embracing a Housing First model that provides wrap-
around services as a better solution than an emergency shelter admission. The model is based
on the premise that vulnerable and at-risk homeless families and individuals are more
responsive to interventions and social service support after they are in their own housing, rather
than in shelter. With permanent housing, people can begin to regain the self-confidence and
control over their lives that they lost when they became homeless. More specifically the model
creates a time-limited relationship designed to empower participants and foster self-reliance.
The Housing First intervention 1) helps the homeless move directly to affordable rental housing
in residential neighborhoods as quickly as possible and 2) then provides six months to one year
of individualized, home-based social services support “after the move” to help each household
transition to stability. The cost of this strategy is about $16,000 per year, significantly less than
the costs of emergency shelter and services. In this model, chronically unstable individuals and
families are provided with a deeply subsidized housing unit and supportive services, which may
include case management, health and mental health care, drug and alcohol counseling, job
counseling and placement, life skills classes, financial literacy training, parenting classes,
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
63
children’s programs and support groups, etc. Studies have demonstrated that more than 80% of
households served by a Housing First program achieve and maintain housing stability.
This program is being implemented in the Pioneer Valley, coordinated by the Western
Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness (WMNEH) of which the City of Northampton is a
participant. This organization is one of ten (10) regional entities that have been funded by the
state’s Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness (ICHH). Progress has been made in
Northampton on the development of Yvonne’s House for the chronically disabled. Yvonne’s
House offers supportive housing for six (6) chronically homeless individuals with special needs.
The Friends of Hampshire County Homeless raised private donations and received the necessary
CPA funds to purchase this house. It then donated the property to ServiceNet, Inc. to be used as
a safe haven for the most vulnerable of those experiencing homelessness. The project sponsors
are now proposing a second similar project.
3.3.3 Producing and Preserving Affordable Housing
Finally, the City needs to focus on increasing the supply of housing at a variety of levels of
affordability, including both rental and homeownership options. Many of the existing affordable
units are included in the Subsidized Housing Inventory summarized in Table 3-33 or rented on
the private market through rental subsidy programs that make up the difference between a fair
market rent and what a low- or moderate-income household can afford.31 There are other
existing units that while not subsidized, still should be preserved to the greatest extent possible
as they provide some level of relative affordability and help diversify the housing stock. The City
needs to work with private sector stakeholders to devise strategies that preserve this broader
range of affordable housing options.
The City’s HUD Consolidated Plan presents housing needs related to housing the homeless as
well as increasing the supply of affordable, permanent housing32 units for various levels of
affordability that include the following, with some minor changes:
· Rental housing for individuals
A priority will be providing housing for those whose incomes do not exceed $1,000 per
month, what the federal government calls living at 100% poverty level. There is a clear
need for enhanced SRO units, efficiency or studio apartments, or one-bedroom units for
those with lower-paying jobs who are encountering serious difficulty finding housing
that they can afford in Northampton. Some of these individuals have disabilities. Some
are younger, looking for opportunities to live in Northampton, while others are older,
perhaps divorced with children who moved out on their own. Some are trying to
reenter the community after a period of incarceration, others are recent immigrants
working in local businesses with limited pay. Some have struggled with homelessness.
What they all share is the need for a safe, decent and affordable place to live.
31 It should be noted, however, that those with Section 8 housing vouchers, or with rental subsidies from other
comparable programs, have experienced difficulties in finding suitable housing in the private market because of high
rents.
32 “Permanent housing” refers to units that are created for year-round use where the terms of occupancy are granted
through a lease, in the case of rental housing, or a title/deed, in the case of homeownership.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
64
Indications of Need:
Single-person households comprised a substantial portion of the population, about 37% of all
households and 74% of non-family households in 2000, and are projected to continue to
increase in number and proportion to all households. Despite the population housed in group
quarters, there still remain another one thousand single-person households that rely on the
existing housing stock.
About half of all residents over 65 lived alone.
Thirty-two percent (32%) of elderly renters, or 260 seniors earning at or below 50% of
area median income, were paying too much for housing including almost a hundred or
11.5% who were spending at least half of their income on housing.
Most seniors earning fixed incomes and relying substantially on Social Security find that
when they lose their spouse, their income may not be sufficient to afford their current
housing and other expenses.
There are at least two-year waits for those seniors applying to live in public housing.
Using the lowest prices advertised in September 2009 on Craigslist, a one-bedroom unit
renting for $850 would require an income of $38,000, assuming $100 per month in
utility bills and housing expenses of no more than 30% of the household’s income, much
higher than what most renters can afford. For example, someone earning the minimum
wage of $7.25 for 40 hours per week and every week during the year would still only
earn a gross income of $15,080.
The 2000 rental vacancy rate was 2.9%, representing extremely tight conditions and
little turnover in the rental market.
The Northampton Housing Partnership has undertaken a series of interviews with
housing providers and those serving the homeless since 2005, including a meeting on
June 23, 2009 as important input into this Housing Needs Assessment. Through these
discussions, new Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units, providing single rooms for
individuals, and the Safe Haven Program, offering housing for the chronically homeless
mentally ill, were identified as priority needs. The City has lost more than half of its SRO
housing stock over the past few decades, most recently 21 units at Augies on Hawley
Street due to fire. A typical SRO rents for about $300 to $400 per month, and many
offer weekly rates as well, serving as valuable sources of affordable housing for low-
income individuals. The Valley CDC renovated a 17-unit enhanced SRO project in
Florence in 2005 with some limited supportive services.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
65
· Rental housing for families
There is also a significant need to house families, particularly those earning within the
poverty level33 and growing numbers of smaller households that are increasingly
including single parents with children as well as unrelated individuals.
Indications of Need:
The average household size of 2.14 people per dwelling unit in 2000, is projected to decrease
still to 2.04 by 2014. This trend towards smaller households is driven by decreases in the
numbers of children and more “traditional” families with accompanying increases in “child-free”
and “child-delayed” families. There have also been increases in empty nesters and senior and
frail populations.
There are also substantial numbers of two-person households that are now estimated to
comprise almost 4,000 households, or about one-third of all households, yet smaller housing
units are in short supply.
Almost half of the households with children were headed by one parent (82% of these involved
unmarried parents or single mothers), suggesting a compelling need for affordable family
housing for families with only one income.
In 2000, 27.4% of all small family renters, or 330 families, were spending too much on
housing costs, including 110 families earning at or below 30% AMI.
The wait for a unit in one of the Northampton Housing Authority’s family rental
developments is at least two (2) years, including substantial waits for larger families
looking for three- and four-bedroom units
Realtors indicate that there are very few three- and four-bedroom apartments that
come on the market and are suitable for larger families.
There is substantial demand for NHA rental subsidies with waits of about six (6) years to obtain a
voucher.
Rental costs are high. Advertised two-bedroom apartments start at $900, requiring an
income of about $41,400 (this is based on $135 in monthly utility costs and that housing
costs are no more than 30% of the household’s income). This rent is beyond most lower
income household’s ability to afford. Also, landlords typically expect first and last
month’s rent and a security deposit when the lease is signed, a sum that blocks many
households from finding decent housing.
Given a 2.9% vacancy rate, the housing market is very tight and units are hard to find.
33 The 2009 poverty guidelines are $10,830 for an individual, $14,570 for a 2-person household, $18,310 for 3
persons, $22,050 for 4 persons, $25,790 for 5 persons, $29,530 for 6 persons, $33,270 for 7 persons, and $37,010 for
8 persons with an adjustment of $3,740 for each additional person for families with more than 8 persons.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
66
· Preservation of the existing affordable rental stock
The preservation of existing affordable rental units is essential to maintaining an
affordable housing stock well into the future. This rental housing, including both units
that are subsidized and in the private housing market, is more cost effective to
rehabilitate and maintain than to build new. Moreover, efforts are needed to maintain
affordability restrictions on subsidized housing in perpetuity to the greatest extent
possible, so as not to lose affordability based on expiring use restrictions.
Indications of Need:
Northampton’s rental housing stock has been eroded over the last several decades due
largely to condo conversions or the elimination of rooming houses or downtown hotels
that catered to lower income individuals.
No new unsubsidized rental housing has been built with the exception of accessory
apartments.
Subsidized rental developments have been relatively small in scale and number with the
exception of developments at the former State Hospital site.
Northampton has a number of housing units in its Subsidized Housing Inventory where
affordability restrictions are due to expire within the next decade.
All strategies that preserve existing rental housing, at all affordability levels, should be
explored. Because preservation is so cost-effective compared with the creation of new
rental units, this needs to include supporting private sector providers as well as those in
the Subsidized Housing Inventory. It is also useful to note that many private landlords
may be in fact subsidizing their tenants, keeping rents at below market value to enable
their tenants to remain in their units.
· Housing rehabilitation resources
Many low- and moderate- income homeowners lack sufficient resources to properly
maintain their homes and address substandard housing conditions. Improvements
should incorporate modifications to improve handicapped accessibility and eliminate
lead-based paint and housing code violations.
Indications of Need:
A substantial portion of Northampton’s housing stock, 45.4% or 5,638 units, was built before
1939. Almost another 30%, or 3,484 units, was built between 1940 and 1970, with another
1,500 units built between 1970 and 1980. Because of the relative age of the existing housing
stock, it is likely that many units may have remnants of lead-based paint and/or deferred
housing maintenance needs.
Only 31 of the Housing Authority’s 618 units are modified to be accessible to the
physically handicapped. The wait list is only between three (3) and five (5) applicants but
turnover is rare.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
67
As noted in the City’s HUD Consolidated Plan, when the issue of accessibility is coupled
with affordability, choices become severely diminished for families or individuals looking
for such housing. They may become at risk of homelessness.
The Council on Aging has noted some demand within their home repair program to
address accessibility issues in homes occupied by non-elders.
· Affordable homeownership for families
Market conditions have placed the purchase of homes beyond the financial means of
low- and moderate-income households and families need opportunities to “buy up” as
their families grow. Infill development and the redevelopment/reuse of existing
properties in partnership with non-profit organizations and private builders offer the
best options for increasing affordable homeownership opportunities in Northampton.
Indications of Need:
The large gap between incomes and the entry cost for homeownership forces first-time
homebuyers to look elsewhere for housing they can afford to buy. A household has to
earn at least at the median income level to afford to purchase a home in Northampton.
Without a subsidized mortgage, this household would also have to come up with a
substantial amount of cash, now more typically a down payment of 20%, blocking many
who seek to own a home. Credit problems also pose substantial barriers to
homeownership.
While condo prices are lower, it has become very difficult to obtain financing for
condominiums and monthly fees raise housing expenses, limiting how much that can be
borrowed.
Almost all of the City’s existing subsidized housing units are rentals.
Prior generations have had the advantage of GI loans and other favorable mortgage lending
options with reasonable down payments. Also, in prior years the average home price to average
income ratio was much lower than it is today, making homeownership more accessible. Given
current economic conditions, the ability to obtain financing will likely become only more
challenging for today’s first-time homebuyers without subsidized homeownership.
The 2000 vacancy rate for homeownership units was less than one percent, reflecting
very tight market conditions. Since then the market has not softened substantially in
Northampton despite the financial crisis, and housing costs remain out of reach for
those earning at or below 80% AMI.
· Housing for at risk and special needs populations
Housing should continue to be developed to serve those who are at risk of
homelessness and/or have special needs that require supportive services. Providing
stable and affordable opportunities for those transitioning out of shelters or special
programs remains a high priority.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
68
Indications of Need:
The relative scarcity of affordable rentals, particularly those with supportive services, was
identified as perhaps the foremost housing need in the June 2009 meeting convened by the
Northampton Housing Partnership with representatives of local and regional housing program
and service providers.
The City and region are pursuing the Housing First model as an alternative to the current
emergency and transitional shelter system. Permanent housing needs to be built to provide
much needed rapid response units.
Northampton’s Consolidated Plan indicates that wait lists for the City’s shelters continue
to grow.
While the decreases in poverty levels appear to be a healthy signal that the City’s population is
doing better economically, it may also be that those of the most vulnerable residents living in
Northampton in 1980 have been forced to leave the City in search of more affordable living
conditions elsewhere, most likely to Holyoke or Springfield. The ability to provide affordable
housing options for those with very limited incomes who have lived or currently live in the
community and want to continue to do so is a continuing challenge and a pressing need.
Other indications of need are listed in Section 3.3 above under emergency and
transitional shelters and rapid re-housing efforts.
· Look beyond traditional housing models and methods
The Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan suggests that the City look beyond
more traditional models of housing development, including affordable housing, to
promote alternative living options to meet a variety of local needs. This would allow the
City to better match priority needs with affordable living options. Such models might
include, but are not limited, to the following:
· Housing that allows occupants to both live and work in their units, which is
particularly responsive to the needs of Northampton’s artists.
· Mixed-income developments that incorporate two (2) or more income tiers to
accommodate different affordability levels. For instance, workforce units that
serve those earning between 80% and 120% of area median income and market
units to help cross-subsidize the affordable ones should be developed.
· Options for detached housing, such as cottage housing developments, to
increase density in designated locations and serve the community’s increasing
smaller households.
· Green and sustainable design alternatives.
· Examine and modify zoning to make regulations supportive of innovative ways
to meet housing needs.
Indications of Need:
Even those with incomes above the median are priced out of most housing that
becomes available in Northampton. Increased challenges in accessing financing only
exacerbate the problem of affordability in Northampton. Consequently, the City should
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
69
also find opportunities to provide housing for those earning above 80% of area median
income but still priced out of the private housing market.
Northampton has had a significant artist community, which is challenged to find
workspace and living quarters on what are typically limited incomes.
The average household size of 2.14 people per dwelling unit in 2000 is projected to
decrease still to 2.04 by 2014, driven by decreases in family size, the numbers of
children and more “traditional” families, and increases in “child-free” and “child-
delayed” families, especially increases in empty nesters and senior and frail populations.
There are substantial numbers of two-person households with unmet housing needs as
such households are estimated to comprise about one-third of all households, or about
4,000 households, yet smaller housing units are in short supply.
Green design and building techniques substantially reduce ongoing property
maintenance costs through much lower energy bills, thus ensuring greater long-term
sustainability of affordable housing.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
70
4. CHALLENGES TO DEVELOPMENT
While Northampton has made considerable progress with respect to creating affordable
housing, there continue to be formidable challenges to developing such housing including the
following:
· Community Perceptions
In most communities, residents are concerned about impacts that new development has
on local services and quality of life. They may also have negative impressions of
affordable housing and question whether there is a real need for such housing.
Therefore, local opposition to new affordable developments is more the norm than the
exception. On the other hand, given still high real estate prices, more people are
recognizing that the new kindergarten teacher, their grown children, or the elderly
neighbor may not be able to afford to live or remain in the community. This Housing
Plan documents a range of pressing housing needs through the Housing Needs
Assessment. Ongoing community outreach and education will be necessary to better
acquaint the community with housing needs and garner local support and ultimately
approvals for new housing initiatives.
· Transportation
Given its size, public transportation is limited in Northampton as the City does not have
mass transit. Public bus routes are largely directed to stops along Route 9/10. In the
mid to late 1980s, a special bus route was established to provide service to residents of
Florence Heights, a 49-unit family housing development owned and operated by the
Northampton Housing Authority. Recently bus service was extended to the Village Hill
development. Owning and maintaining a car is beyond the means of many low- and
moderate-income households. Continued efforts to direct housing in areas that are
closer to public transportation and expand transportation to support growth areas will
be a required component of a coordinated service delivery system.
· Expiring Use
There are a number of affordable housing developments where affordability
requirements are due to expire in the near future or long-term. Thus it is likely that the
City will lose units on the Subsidized Housing Inventory. The City should explore options
for maintaining affordability if at all possible, intervening as necessary. In fact, 252
rental units at the Meadowbrook Apartments were purchased and refinanced by
Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH). The City was very proactively involved in
brokering this acquisition, as it was with Hathaway Farms and the creation of the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The Fund was established to provide rental subsidies to
households earning at or below 60% of AMI to continue affordability after the
conversion to market rates. Although the Fund is now exhausted, it yielded an
additional eight (8) years of affordability for 55 households.
· Condo Conversions
The conversion of rental properties to condominiums has been a concern for many interested in
promoting more housing diversity and affordable housing in Northampton. There was a
considerable amount of such conversions in the 1970s and 1980s. The City attempted to
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
71
establish a moratorium on condo conversions, which the City Council did not ultimately
approve. Given current market conditions, condo conversions have stopped altogether. It has
also become extremely challenging to secure financing for condos as lenders are applying much
more rigorous lending criteria. Additionally, some condo associations may be in trouble
because, with the down economy, owners are failing to pay condo fees or assessments, putting
entire developments in jeopardy. Once the economy picks up, however, it is probable that
there will once again be renewed interest in condo conversions that erode the community’s
supply of market rate affordable rentals.
· Zoning
As is the case in most American communities, a zoning by-law or ordinance is enacted to
control the use of land including the patterns of housing development. Northampton’s
Zoning Ordinance includes 22 zoning districts, which include five (5) residential, a
suburban zone (SR) and three (3) urban residence (UR) zones – A, B and C as shown
below in the zoning map.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
72
The Zoning Ordinance permits various residential uses as follows:
o Single-family units are allowed by-right in all residential zoning districts.
o Two-family dwellings with a shared front entrance are not permitted in the RR,
SR and URA districts but are allowed by-right in the URB and URC Districts and
with Planning Board approval in the Neighborhood Business (NB) District.
o Other two-family dwellings meeting all dimensional requirements for a newly
created lot are only allowed by right in the URC District or by special permit
from the Planning Board in the URB and Neighborhood Business Districts.
o Three-family homes are allowed by-right in the URC, URB and NB Districts.? Peg
o Multi-family dwellings not exceeding three (3) stories are allowed under Site
Plan approval from the Planning Board in the URC and NB Districts.
o Multi-family properties exceeding three (3) stories and townhouses must obtain
a special permit from the Planning Board in the URC and NB Districts.
o Lodging and halfway houses are allowed by special permit from the Planning
Board in the URB and URC as well as the NB Zoning Districts.
o Mixed residential and work space which conforms to all Building and Life Safety
Codes and located above the first floor is allowed by-right in the Central
Business, General Business and Neighborhood Business Districts and by special
permit in the URC and Highway Business Districts.
o Mixed residential and commercial/retail or service uses are allowed by-right in
all business districts, except the PV District, and by special permit in the URC
District. (spell out PV and PUD)?
o Residential development, PUDs and cluster developing using a Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR), obtained by a special permit from the Farms, Forest
and Rivers District, are only allowed in the Planned Village District, but are
permitted on an as-of-right basis.
o Where the principal use is serviced by on-site water and sanitary sewage
disposal, there is a requirement of at least 80,000 square feet per lot.
In addition to minimum lot sizes that can often constrain affordable unit development,
frontage requirements present challenges to development as well. Many lots meet the
minimum area requirements but do not have sufficient frontage.
Parking requirements also play a significant role in unit production. The reuse of
existing buildings in the General Business and Central Business districts can be done
without requiring new parking spaces while other districts require a permit from the
Planning Board to reduce total required parking if it is deemed to be unnecessary.
Nevertheless, in an effort to direct higher density development to appropriate locations,
the Zoning Ordinance includes the following lot size and frontage requirements for
various types of dwelling units:
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
73
Table 4-1
Minimum Required Lot Sizes (In Square Feet)/Frontage Requirements (Linear
Feet)
Unit Type RR District SR District URA District URB
District
URC District
Single-family homes 40,000/175 30,000/125 12,000/75 8,000/75 6,000/75
Zero lot line single-family Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed 8,000/65 6,000/65
Two-family homes Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed 12,000/80 12,000/75
Townhouses Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed 7,000 per
unit/120
6,000 per
unit/100
Townhouses in cluster
development
Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed by
Special
permit
Allowed by Site
Plan review
Multi-family structures and
mixed-use with 4+ stories
Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed 10,000 +
2,500 per
bedroom/200
Any Other Multi-family Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed 7,000 per
unit/120
6,000 per
unit/100
Source: Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Attachment 2.1.
Townhouse development34 is also allowed in the Neighborhood Business Zoning District
with a minimum required lot size of 20,000 square feet plus 4,500 square feet per unit
and frontage of at least 100 feet. Moreover, mixed residential and retail/commercial
and service development is also allowed in this district, requiring 10,000 square feet
plus 1,000 per unit and frontage of 80 feet. There are no minimum lot requirements in
the Central Business and General Business Zoning Districts and a 20,000 square foot
minimum and 120 frontage requirement for all uses in the Highway Business District
when parking is located in the rear or the side. All residential uses in the Business Park
Zoning District must have a minimum of 10,000 square feet and an additional 1,000
square feet for each unit unless 33% of the units are affordable in which case the
requirements drop to 7,500 square feet and 750 per unit (frontage requirements of 75
feet). Importantly, townhouse development is also allowed as part of a cluster in all
residential districts and by Special Permit in the URB districts and by Site Plan review in
the URC districts.
The Zoning Ordinance also includes numerous specific provisions to promote smart
growth development and affordable housing, directing future development to
appropriate locations, particularly denser development, and offering incentives for the
inclusion of affordable housing. These provisions include:
o Residential Incentive Development Overlay District35
This zoning district, north of Bridge Road, enables the Planning Board to issue a
special permit that allows housing development at somewhat higher density if
33% of the total number of units are affordable and the development conforms
to use regulations and dimensional/density regulations and, in all other
34 By definition in the Zoning Ordinance, a townhouse is a side by side unit while multi-family involves one unit over
another.
35 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-10.11.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
74
respects, meets the requirements for an open space (cluster) residential
development (Section 350-10.5) in URB districts (Urban Residence B). Two (2)
projects have been permitted but neither was built.
Table 4-2
Minimum Required Lot Size/Frontage Requirements in Residential Incentive
Overlay Development
Unit Type RR District SR District URA District URB District URC District
Single-family homes 5,000/70 5,000//70 NA NA NA
Two-family homes 7,500/75 7,500//75 NA NA NA
Three-family homes/
townhouses
4,000 per
unit/75 +5
per unit
4,000 per
unit/75 +5
per unit
NA NA NA
Source: Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Attachment 2.1. NA = Not applicable
o Sustainable Growth Overlay District36
In order to facilitate smart growth development, the Sustainable Growth
Overlay District (SG District) was created to “foster a range of housing
opportunities along with a mixed-use development component, to be proposed
in a distinctive and attractive site development program that promotes compact
design, preservation of open space, and a variety of transportation options”.
The overlay district, centered on the redevelopment of the former
Northampton State Hospital, Village Hill, was established in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40R (see Appendix 4 for details on 40R).
The overlay district enables the City to receive zoning incentive payments and
density bonus payments that help subsidize the development, provided at least
20% of the housing units are set aside as affordable. The District includes two
(2) subareas, one for single-family development with permitted densities of up
to eight (8) units per acre and the other for multi-family development of up to
21 units per acre.
o Planned Village District37
The Planned Village (PV) District was established “to encourage economic
diversity and vitality, to foster the creation of a village or campus center with
coherent development patterns similar to traditional Northampton
development, to provide for an environment conducive to a high quality of life,
to avoid unnecessary public expense for the extension of services, and to meet
other community goals.” The ordinance promotes a pedestrian-scale, mixed-
use village design to create a compatible and attractive village area. The
Planning Board is the permit granting authority. The PV District was also
conceived as a “receiving” location for the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
ordinance (see below). Minimum lot requirements are 4,000 square feet per
unit when using a TDR, 15 acres for a development as a whole, with no
minimum lot requirement for individual lots.
36 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-20.
37 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-10.14.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
75
o Transfer of Development Rights38
TDR involves the conveyance of development rights by deed, easement or other
legal instrument from one parcel of land to another as a means of encouraging
development in certain areas while preserving open space in others. The
Northampton ordinance allows the Planning Board to grant a property owner in
the Farms, Forests and Rivers (FFR) District a special permit to transfer the
development rights of a “sending” parcel to “receiving” parcels in the Planned
Village (PV) District where higher density is more appropriate. Development
rights cannot be transferred from a property, which may not otherwise be
developed, and development rights may be transferred and put on hold pending
assignment to a receiving parcel.
o Accessory Apartments39
The Zoning Ordinance recognizes that accessory apartments40 provide a number
of important benefits including the following:
1. Provide older homeowners with a means of obtaining rental income,
companionship, security and services, and thus enabling them to stay
more comfortably in homes and neighborhoods they might otherwise
be forced to leave;
2. Add moderately-priced rental units to the housing stock to meet the
needs of smaller households and make housing units available to
moderate-income households that might otherwise have difficulty
finding housing;
3. Develop housing units in single-family neighborhoods that are
appropriate for households at a variety of stages in their life cycle;
4. Protect stability, property values, and the single-family residential
character of a neighborhood by ensuring that accessory apartments are
installed only in owner-occupied houses; and
5. Provide housing units for persons with disabilities.
The ordinance allows the Building Commissioner to issue a zoning permit for an
accessory apartment in an owner-occupied, single-family house and provides for
accessory apartments in a detached structure by a special permit from the
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) based on a number of conditions including
requiring separate kitchen and bath facilities, an entrance at the side or rear of
the house or house lot, be no larger than 900 square feet and not enlarged
beyond 900 square feet at some point in the future, be occupied by no more
than three (3) people, have three (3) off-street parking spaces, etc.
o Zero Lot Line (ZLL) Developments41
Zero lot line (ZLL) developments allow house lots that have a minimum side yard
setback of zero feet on one side based on a number of provisions such as the
38 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-17.3.
39 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-10.10.
40 The Zoning Ordinance defines an accessory apartment, or in-law apartment, as a self-contained unit incorporated
within a single-family dwelling that is a subordinate part of the dwelling and complies with a number of criteria.
41 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-10.14.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
76
side yard of the nonzero lot line must be twice the usual setback, the zero lot
line side of the house must abut permanently protected open space or the lot
line of another ZLL lot under the control of the same developer, etc. Such
developments allow for efficient use of existing lots and are allowed in the
Urban Residence B and C Districts. The greatest benefit to ZLL developments is
the by-right reduction in frontage from 75 to 65 feet in the URB and URC
districts. Check on diagram?
o Planned Unit Development (PUD)42
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) involve mixed uses with extensive open
space, approved through a special permit of the Planning Board in accordance
with the requirements of the Open Space Residential Development ordinance
(see below) and site plan review. The development parcel must be in common
ownership and have at least 30 contiguous acres in the Rural Residence or
Suburban Residence Districts or four (4) contiguous acres in all other residential
and business zones except the Central Business District and Planned Village
District where they are not permitted. All types of housing are allowed with the
maximum density computed by multiplying the total area of the parcel, less
proposed roadways and 80% of wetlands and floodplains, by a prescribed
density multiplier by zoning district, from 1.1 (unless in the Water Supply
Protection District where it is 0.54), to 7.0 in the Highway Business District. For
residential districts, each thousand square feet of nonresidential gross floor
area counts as one unit for the purpose of calculating the maximum number of
units.
o Open Space Residential Development (OSRD)43
This ordinance promotes flexible development where residential units are
clustered on a portion of the site, leaving at least 50% of the parcel
undeveloped as open space that is meant to “a) preserve the rural character of
the community by maximizing and preserving expanses of open space in their
natural state; b) provide a buffer between developments; and c) serve a
functional relationship to each of the lots in the development in those districts
for which such an option is allowed.” Site plan approval is required and
subdivision approval as well where the parcel is being subdivided. The parcel
must have at least four (4) acres of contiguous land area and be in single
ownership at the time of application for SR, RR and URA districts, at least three
(3) acres for URB and URC districts. The maximum number of units allowed is
calculated by multiplying the total tract area, less proposed roadways and 90%
of wetlands and floodplains, by particular multipliers according to zoning
district, from 0.54 in the Water Supply Protection District, to 1.1 in the Rural
Residence District, 1.5 in the Suburban Residence District, 2.2 in the Urban
Residence A District, and 4.4 in both the Urban Residence B and C Districts.
These densities can be increased by up to 15% if the percent of density bonus is
no greater than the percent of dwelling units in the cluster that are affordable.
Zero lot line developments are also permitted.
42 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-10.6.
43 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-10.5.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
77
Table 4-3
Minimum Required Lot Size/Frontage/Minimum Open Space in OSRD or PUD
Unit Type RR District SR District URA District URB District URC District
Single-family
homes
10,000/85/75% 10,000/80/75% 7,500/75/70% 5,000/70/65% 5,000/70/65%
Zero lot line
single-family
9,000/75/70% 9,000/75/70% 6,000/65/65% 4,500/60/60% 4,000/55/55%
Two-family
homes
15,000/95/75% 15,000.90/75% 10,000/80/70% 7,500/75/65% 7,500/75/65%
Three-family
homes
20,000/105/75% 20,000/100/75% 12,500/85/70% 10,000/80/65% 10,000/80/65%
Townhouse 7,500 per
unit/100 + 10
per unit/75%
7,500 per
unit/100 + 10
per unit/70%
5,000 per
unit/85 + 10
per unit/70%
5,000 per
unit/75 + 5 per
unit/65%
4,500 per
unit/75 + 5 per
unit/65%
Multi-family Not allowed Not allowed 5,000 per
unit/85 + 10
per unit/70%
5,000 per
unit/75 + 5 per
unit/65%
4,500 per
unit/75 + 5 per
unit/65%
Source: Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Attachment 2.1.
It is important to note that minimum open space requirements create
challenges to affordable housing development. In addition to having 50% of the
initial parcel protected as open space, individual unit lots require 65 to 75% of
open space that limits the number of units that can be produced. This is more
open space than is required under standard frontage lot development without a
cluster OSRD. This amount of open space also reduces the economies of scale
that are frequently necessary for affordable housing to be feasible.
o Single-lot Exemption for Single and Two-family Use44
This ordinance, based on a state statute exemption, allows for the development
of a single-family or two-family house on a nonconforming lot, stating that an
increase in dimensional requirements will not apply to a vacant lot for single or
two-family use that has at least 5,000 square feet, 50 feet of frontage, is located
in an area zoned for such use (two-family use may require a special permit),
conformed to existing zoning when the lot was legally created, and was in
separate ownership prior to the City Council vote that made the lot
nonconforming and has maintained a separate identity.
· Funding Availability
While the City has more resources than it has had in the past to promote affordable
housing including Community Preservation funding through the passage of CPA in 2005,
as well as Smith College’s Affordable Housing Fund: subsidy funds still remain in short
supply and are highly competitive. Northampton receives an allocation of about
$750,000 in CDBG funding annually. Funding that was once available for affordable
housing is being used to pay down the Senior Center debt for the next few years. Unlike
most cities, Northampton does not receive an annual allocation of federal HOME
Program funding that has provided substantial housing support for a wide range of
44 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-9.4.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
78
housing activities in other cities. McKinney funding for the region has been an
important source of subsidy for housing development. McKinney projects that have
been created in Northampton include Paradise Pond Apts. Go West SRO, The Maples
SRO and Soldier On Programs. Local residents also benefit from regional programming.
In FY10, the region received about $1.3 million and has each year since 1997.
In regard to state funds, the Valley CDC, HAPHousing, and TCB have applied for and
obtained important state financing from a number of programs for new affordable
housing development. These awards have been essential to insuring the financial
feasibility of the new units, but these funds are extremely competitive. Moreover, while
in short supply, rental subsidies, including project-based, are critical to the ability of
local development projects to serve extremely low-income households. While it is
unlikely that local, state and federal subsidy funds will increase substantially or even at
all in the near future, the limitations related to available funding do restrict new unit
production and housing-related programs and services.
As mentioned earlier, those who have been awarded rental subsidies to help pay their
rent in privately-owned housing based on a reasonable percentage of their income,
have experienced difficulties in leasing units based on Northampton’s high rents, which
are over and above program limits.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
79
5. HOUSING STRATEGIES
As mentioned earlier, the City of Northampton has embarked on a series of planning efforts over the
past several years including the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan, completed in January of
2008; the HUD Consolidated Plan, which is in the process of being updated; Grow Smart Northampton,
All Roads Lead Home – The Pioneer Valley Plan to End Homelessness, the Community Preservation Plan,
Northampton Vision 2020, and the Northampton Community Indicator Report. This Strategic Housing
Plan represents an updated and comprehensive compilation of the housing components of these
various planning documents, focusing solely on the promotion of affordable or mixed-income housing.
The strategies outlined below are derived not only from these plans but also from the Housing Needs
Assessment, community input throughout the preparation of this Plan, and the experience of other
comparable localities in the area and throughout the Commonwealth. The strategies also address and
are categorized under three (3) major housing goals in the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive
Plan (SNCP) including:
1. Create new housing along a range of income levels – ownership and rentals
2. Preserve and sustain existing affordable housing
3. Work to end homelessness
Additionally, the strategies are categorized according to anticipated implementation. Those highest
priority actions, to be implemented within Years 1 and 2, will involve some immediate attention, while
those within Years 3 to 5 may require some early exploration but actual execution after 2011. This Plan
also suggests several other longer-term strategies reaching past Year 6. A summary of these actions by
goal and priority is included in Appendix 6.
It should be noted that the intent of this Plan is not only to continue to surpass the state’s 10% goal
under Chapter 40B, but more importantly to serve the range of local needs as articulated in the three (3)
housing goals above and the priority housing needs described in Section 3.3. Consequently, there are
instances where housing initiatives might be promoted to meet these needs that will not necessarily
result in the inclusion of units in the Subsidized Housing Inventory (examples potentially include the
promotion of accessory apartments or mixed-income housing that includes “community housing” or
“workforce housing” units)45. More commonly, housing affordability is being referred to as either little
“a” affordability, meaning that the units do not meet all state requirements for inclusion in the
Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) but still meet local housing needs, versus big “A” affordability for
those units that can be counted as part of the SHI.
This Plan also provides important guidance on opportunities for strategically investing available local
funding for housing to best serve the range of local needs and leverage other public and private
financing.
Within the context of other planning documents, priority needs and goals, existing resources, and
affordability requirements, the following housing strategies are proposed. It is important to note that
45 Community housing generally refers to units directed to those earning between 80% and 100% AMI, whereas
workforce housing refers to units directed to those earning between 80% and 120% AMI, but still priced out of the
private housing market.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
80
these strategies are presented as a package for the City to consider, prioritize, and process, each
through the appropriate regulatory channels.
HOUSING GOAL #1: Create new housing along range of income levels –
ownership and rentals
5.1 Organizational Strategies
As summarized in Appendix 2 (Local and Regional Organizations and Resources), Northampton is
fortunate to have a number of capable housing agencies and organizations that have made
substantial contributions to the promotion of affordable housing in the community, including
City government, local non-profit organizations and regional entities. This Housing Plan, by
drawing upon the participation of these effective organizations, describes the necessary
framework for implementing affordable housing initiatives, and each strategy references those
entities that are most directly accountable for implementation.
The following strategies suggest ways the City plans to bolster community understanding and
support for new initiatives, to increase available funding, and better coordinate the
implementation of this Housing Plan.
5.1.1 Conduct Ongoing Community Education
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Parties: Northampton Housing Partnership and other sponsors of affordable housing-
related initiatives
Current Status: Because most of the housing strategies in this Housing Plan rely on local approvals,
including those of City Council, community support for new initiatives has and will continue to be
essential. Strategic efforts to better inform residents and local leaders on the issue of affordable
housing and specific new initiatives can build local support by generating a greater understanding of the
benefits of affordable housing, reducing misinformation and dispelling negative stereotypes. These
outreach efforts are mutually beneficial as they provide useful information to community residents and
important feedback to local leaders on local concerns and suggestions. While such activities do not
directly produce affordable units, they help build important local support for new affordable housing
initiatives. The City of Northampton has sponsored opportunities for such input in the past, but should
consider boosting community education efforts.
Next Steps: To further build local capacity to meet local housing needs and production goals, the City
should increase its focus on a range of activities that are meant to better engage local residents on
affordable housing issues and initiatives. The presentation of this Housing Plan offers opportunities to
bring attention to the issue of affordable housing, providing information on housing needs and
proposed strategies that can help attract community support for affordable housing initiatives. Other
education opportunities to be pursued include:
· Forums on specific new initiatives
As the City develops new housing initiatives, the sponsoring entity should hold community
meetings to insure a broad and transparent presentation of these efforts to other local leaders
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
81
and residents, providing important information on what is being proposed and opportunities for
feedback before local approvals are requested.
· Annual housing summits
Most communities lack an effective mechanism for promoting regular communication among
relevant City boards and committees on issues related to affordable housing. Having a forum to
share information on current housing issues would help foster greater communication and
coordination among these entities. Additionally, inviting residents can help build community
interest, improve communication and garner support. Many communities are sponsoring such
events, at least on an annual basis. For example, Truro organized a panel discussion on housing
issues, inviting representatives of other communities on the Cape and organizations involved in
affordable housing. Yarmouth held a spaghetti dinner and offered an update on their affordable
housing initiatives with opportunities for feedback from local leaders and the public.
· Public information on existing programs and services
Despite a sluggish housing market, high housing costs are still creating problems for lower
income residents. For example, renters continue to confront difficulties finding safe and decent
rental units. Owners, including seniors living on fixed incomes, are finding it increasingly difficult
to afford the costs associated with rising taxes, energy costs, insurance and home
improvements, and increasingly some may be faced with foreclosure. Additionally, some
seniors and those with special needs require handicapped adaptations and repairs to help them
remain in their homes. Northampton residents in some areas of the city might also benefit from
technical and financial support in the case of septic failures and Title V compliance issues.
The City should get the word out about existing programs and services that support
homeownership, property improvements or help reduce the risk of foreclosure including first-
time homebuyer and foreclosure prevention counseling from the Valley CDC. Additional
housing rehab and counseling programs that are available to qualifying local residents are
summarized in Appendix 4. Continued information and referral efforts on the part of service
providers, the Council on Aging, Northampton Housing Authority, etc. are essential, but there
are other outreach approaches that might also be helpful. For example, the enhanced website
and cable programs described below may be excellent vehicles for disseminating information on
helpful programs and services.
· Educational opportunities for board and committee members
Local boards such as the City Council, Community Preservation Committee, Housing Partnership,
Affordable Housing Trust, Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board, Council on Aging, Housing
Authority, Economic Development, Housing and Land Use Committee, and other interested local
leaders should be able to receive ongoing training on affordable housing issues. Well advised
and prepared board and committee members are likely to conduct City business in a more
effective and efficient manner. New members without significant housing experience would
benefit substantially from some training and orientation. Moreover, requirements keep
changing and local leaders must keep up-to-date. Funding for the professional development of
staff, including those of the Office of Planning and Development and Community and Economic
Development Office, would also help keep key professionals informed of important new
developments, best practices and regulations.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
82
The University of Massachusetts Extension’s Citizen Planner Training Collaborative (CPTC) offers
classes periodically throughout the year and will even provide customized training sessions to
individual communities. The Massachusetts Housing Partnership conducts its Massachusetts
Housing Institute at least annually, which is “an educational program to support municipalities
and local participants to better understand the affordable housing development process and
have an effective role in initiating and implementing local solutions to increasing housing
choices”. Other organizations and agencies, such as DHCD, MHP, CHAPA, and the Community
Preservation Coalition, also provide conferences and training sessions on a wide variety of
housing issues that would be useful for local officials and staff persons to attend. In addition,
there are numerous written resources for localities. For example, DHCD has prepared a
procedural “how to” booklet for local communities on the development process, MHP has many
technical guides for localities, and CHAPA has a wide variety of reports on many issues related to
affordable housing as well.
· Cable Programming
The City of Northampton has local cable access through NCTV Channels 12 and 15. The City
contracts with Northampton Community Television, Inc. (NCTI) for this service, which is an
independent non-profit membership organization organized exclusively for educational,
scientific and charitable purposes. Membership is open to all Northampton residents. The
Northampton Housing Partnership should consider sponsoring regular programming to
showcase the issue of affordable housing, highlighting new initiatives as well as ongoing
programs and services.
· An Enhanced City Website
The City of Northampton has an excellent website. The website offers an excellent opportunity
to provide additional information and links on affordable housing issues, programs and services.
· Outreach on State Affordability Requirements
Insure that developers of affordable housing fully understand all necessary local and state
affordability requirements, and where appropriate, advocate for changes in requirements to
allow for greater flexibility in local affordable housing initiatives.
· Continue Valley CDC counseling programs
The City provides funding to the Valley CDC in support of their educational programs and
counseling services in the areas of obtaining first-time homeownership and preventing
foreclosure that should be continued.
Resources Required: Staff time from the Housing and Community Development Planner and donated
time from members of the Housing Partnership to help organize the necessary forums, track training
opportunities and inform appropriate local leaders as well as coordinate the cable station programming.
The support of an IT professional within City government would also be required. The Housing
Partnership would coordinate public meetings on zoning-related efforts involving affordable housing
with the Planning Board with assistance from the Office of Planning and Development.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
83
5.1.2 Capitalize the Northampton Affordable Housing Trust (NAHT)
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Parties: Mayor and City Council with support from the Housing Partnership,
Community Preservation Committee, and Affordable Housing Trust
Current Status: The Northampton Affordable Housing Trust was created in 1998 by local
ordinance in connection with the expiring use at Hampton Gardens (now Hathaway Farms) to
oversee public and private funds used to subsidize low- and moderate-income housing units as
they gradually transitioned to market rate. The Trust was created for the following purposes:
1. For the acquisition, renovation, construction, financing or refinancing of real property in
Northampton for low- and moderate-income residents.
2. For rental subsidies and loans and/or guarantees to make housing more affordable (first
and/or last month’s rent, security deposits, mortgage payments, utility or other
expenses that threaten a household’s ability to remain in its unit).
3. For temporary consulting services that allow the City to provide or preserve affordable
housing.
Despite the exhaustion of funds, the Affordable Housing Trust continues to exist with appointed
trustees in place. Due to the generic nature of its statutory design, if new resources are found,
the Fund can continue to operate and assist new projects and efforts.
Next Steps: It will be important to explore a wide range of possible fundraising options to capitalize the
Housing Trust. It should be noted that some communities have decided to commit CPA funding to
Housing Trust Funds without targeting the funding to any one specific initiative. For example, the towns
of Grafton, Leverett and Sudbury have been directing 10% of their annual CPA allocation to their Trust
Funds. The Trusts are encouraged to apply for additional CPA funds for specific projects. Scituate’s
Town Meeting funded its Housing Trust with $700,000 of Community Preservation funding from its
community housing reserves. The Northampton Affordable Housing Trust should discuss such funding
opportunities with the Community Preservation Committee.
In addition to CPA funding, payments offered in lieu of actual units as part of a potential
inclusionary zoning ordinance (see strategy 5.2.1) as well as other funds that might be tapped
from developers would appropriately be deposited in the Housing Trust Fund. For example,
developers make additional contributions to these funds if the purchase prices for the market
units are higher than the prices that were projected in their comprehensive permit applications
and profits are more than the 20% allowed under Chapter 40B.
The City should also consider private sector donations. This process of securing private support
not only provides financial benefits to support local housing efforts, but it is also a vehicle for
raising awareness of affordable housing and generating interest and political support for new
housing initiatives. Other communities, such as Chatham and Orleans for example, have
separate local organizations that have effectively raised private funds for affordable housing
(Friends of Chatham Affordable Homes and Friends of Orleans Affordable Homes), and the
Housing Trust might approach them to learn more about their efforts to date.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
84
Many communities are reaching out to residents for private donations of land to promote
housing affordability. Such contributions and the “bargain sale” of real estate could become a
part of the Northampton land ethic, but donations need to be promoted, nurtured, and
facilitated. Habitat for Humanity has relied on private donations – property, funds, goods and
services – to support their developments. Faith-based affordable housing initiatives are also
widely viewed as effective, as reported by the organization World Vision.46 The Housing Trust
might work with local religious institutions on some additional activities that focus on affordable
housing, including, for example, donations to the Housing Trust Fund, perhaps during Fair
Housing month.
Resources Required: CPA funding in support of affordable housing initiatives. Other resources
include the donated time of volunteers to coordinate fundraising activities with some staff
support.
5.1.3 Monitor and Report on Implementation of this Housing Plan
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: The Northampton Housing Partnership is preparing this Housing Plan as a means of
defining and driving the City’s housing agenda. It is the intent of the Housing Partnership that there be
substantial good faith efforts made to implement the Plan. It is also the objective of the Housing
Partnership to monitor implementation efforts and to report on any progress made on at least an
annual basis through a report to the Mayor and City Council.
The Housing Partnership also believes that it will continue to be important to monitor new unit
production to insure that affordable units produced through this Plan be eligible for inclusion in the
Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI), to the greatest extent possible, applied through the Local Initiative
Program (LIP) administered by the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
if another state or federal housing subsidy is not used (i.e., Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Housing
Stabilization Fund, etc.). In addition to being used for “friendly” 40B projects, LIP can be used for
counting those affordable units as part of a City’s Subsidized Housing Inventory that are being
developed through some local action including:
· Zoning-based approval, particularly inclusionary zoning provisions and special permits for
affordable housing;
· Substantial financial assistance from funds raised, appropriated or administered by the City;
and/or
· Provision of land or buildings that are owned or acquired by the City and conveyed at a
substantial discount from their fair market value.
In order to be counted as part of the Subsidized Housing Inventory the units must meet the following
criteria:
· Be a result of municipal action or approval;
46 Shabecoff, Alice. Rebuilding Our Communities: How Churches Can Provide, Support, and Finance Quality Housing
for Low-Income Families, World Vision: Monrovia, California.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
85
· Sold or rented based on procedures articulated in an affirmative fair marketing and lottery plan
approved by DHCD;
· Sales prices and rents must be affordable to households earning at or below 80% of area median
income; and
· Long-term affordability is enforced through affordability restrictions, approved by DHCD.
Next Steps: The Community and Economic Development Office’s Housing and Community Development
Planner will provide staff support to the Housing Partnership to coordinate implementation efforts,
produce an annual report, monitor eligibility of new affordable units for inclusion in the SHI, and submit
required documentation to DHCD. The annual housing summit mentioned in strategy 5.1.1 would also
be an appropriate forum to report on progress made during the last year. These activities should be
systematized and formally inserted into the Housing Partnership’s calendar.
Some of the important tasks for insuring that the affordable units, referred to as Local Action Units
(LAU’s), meet the requirements of Chapter 40B/LIP include:
· Meet with the developer to discuss requirements for insuring that the unit(s) meets the
requirements for inclusion in the Subsidized Housing Inventory through the state’s Local
Initiatives Program (LIP).
· Contact DHCD to discuss the project and determine the purchase price based on LIP Guidelines.
· Prepare a LIP Local Action Units application submitted by the Mayor, working with the
developer, including an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan.
· Execute a regulatory agreement to further insure long-term affordability between the
developer, municipality and DHCD.
· Insure that the Marketing Plan is implemented.
· Submit necessary documentation to DHCD to have the unit counted as part of the Subsidized
Housing Inventory.
· Insure that project sponsors annually recertify the continued eligibility of affordable units.
Resources Required: Donated time from the Housing Partnership and staff time from the Housing and
Community Development Planner.
5.1.4 Formalize the Affordable Housing Review Process
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Parties: Mayors Office and Housing Partnership
Current Status: The Northampton Housing Partnership, in its mission to identify the range of
local housing needs and find solutions to address them, has been the first stop for many
affordable housing developers interested in pursuing new development and seeking local
funding, particularly CPA funds. As such, the Housing Partnership has been an effective review
agent and advocate for affordable housing developments.
Because the Housing Partnership is the sponsor of this Housing Plan and responsible for
overseeing its implementation, it naturally follows that the Partnership should be the first “go
to” City entity to review any new affordable housing initiatives, even in their conceptual stages,
to provide early input into project planning in order to be able to fully advocate for approval
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
86
throughout the regulatory and funding approval processes. Also, the Housing Partnership is
comprised of members with considerable experience and expertise in the field of affordable
housing including attorneys, lenders, small property owners, academicians, managers of firms
involved in real estate design and development, etc. Many of these members also serve on
other related boards, committees, and organizations.
Next Steps: The City, through the Mayor’s Office, should formalize the role of the Housing
Partnership as the first step in the local project review process for any development that
involves affordable housing. In those projects that require Planning Board approval, the
Housing Partnership will work closely with the Director of Planning and Development in the
early stages of review and provide feedback on the project to the Planning Board and/or other
appropriate regulatory entity.
Resources Required: The donated time of Housing Partnership members and staff time from the
Housing and Community Development Planner as well as the Director of the Office of Planning
and Development from time to time.
5.1.5 Affirmatively Promote Fair Housing
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Parties: Housing Partnership
Current Status: As a requirement of receiving Federal funds, the City of Northampton must
create and annually update an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. The 5 year Consolidated
Plan and Annual Action plans required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development must include an annual assessment of the status of fair housing in the community.
The analysis must delineate barriers to fair housing, identify action steps to eliminate those
barriers and document progress towards achieving fair housing goals.
Next Steps: It is recommended that the Northampton Housing Partnership work closely with the
Massachusetts Fair Housing Center (MFHC) based in Holyoke, and/or other organizations that
work on fair housing issues, through annual CDBG contracts whenever funding allows. The
MFHC can investigate housing discrimination complaints, forward them to the Massachusetts
Commission Against Discrimination when merited and keep the City apprised of the nature of
complaints. MFHC can conduct community education workshops for renters, first time
homebuyers and public and private property owners to insure that those in search of housing in
Northampton have fair and accessible housing options.
Actions identified in prior Impediments Analyses included:
· Support systemic testing for illegal discriminatory practices in housing.
· Maintain a balance in the housing supply to accommodate the specific needs of all groups in the
community.
· Monitor unit vacancy rates as low rates tend to elevate unit costs and limit supply.
· Support education and outreach to assure fair housing rights for members of protected
categories such as recipients of housing subsidies and reduce discrimination in a market where
higher income applicants present strong competition for units.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
87
· Compare lending patterns in the community relative to ethnic/racial and socioeconomic
characteristics to assess minority concentrations, income levels and mortgage denial rates.
· Provide access to lead paint abatement resources, due to high percentage of housing stock built
prior to 1940. This will prevent landlords from discriminating against families with children in
order to avoid deleading costs.
· Provide outreach and resources for reasonable housing accommodation for the disabled (MFHC
reported 90% of complaints are related to disability issues, and 26.7% of Northampton’s
population claimed a disability as reported in the 2000 Census).
· Identify initiatives to address the obstacles and assess their effectiveness.
The Northampton Housing Partnership should work closely with the City's Human Rights
Commission to develop and monitor annual plans to affirmatively further fair housing
opportunities for the City's residents.
Resources Required: The donated time of Housing Partnership and Human Rights Commission
members and staff time from the Housing and Community Development Planner.
5.2 Regulatory Strategies
Housing production is contingent not only on actual development projects but on the planning and
regulatory tools that enable localities to make well informed decisions to strategically invest limited
public and private resources on housing creation. To most effectively and efficiently execute the
strategies included in this Plan and meet production goals, greater clarity and flexibility will be needed in
the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and new tools will be required to capture more affordable units and better
guide new development to specific “smarter” locations.
Northampton’s Ordinance already represents a progressive orientation towards promoting smart
growth principles, guiding development towards areas that are more appropriate for higher density and
more compact development. However, the Zoning Ordinance, in its current form, is unwieldy, confusing
and limiting. Moreover, some of the most prized areas of the community, where residential and
commercial values are the highest, were built years before current zoning was put in place and would
not be allowed under the existing code.
Northampton’s Planning Board has appointed a Zoning Revisions Committee (ZRC), which is a
temporary, volunteer-based committee of officials and community representatives, charged with
recommending changes to the Zoning Ordinance so that it is consistent with the land use and
development components of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan (SNCP). The ZRC
mission includes the following major tasks:
· Review current zoning and recommend revisions;
· Serve as a technical resource for the Planning Board; and
· Provide a wide range of opportunities for public input to the zoning revision process.
The ZRC has been reconciling the SNCP’s Future Land Use Map with 45 pages of goals, objectives and
strategies into a short set of summary sustainability goals that are relevant to zoning including the
following:
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
88
Concentrate development and allow for a wide range of housing types and work spaces in
walkable, mixed-use neighborhood, village and commercial centers;
Minimize development in areas that lack infrastructure or have significant environmental, open
space or agricultural uses;
Promote environmental performance, including energy and resource efficiency;
Make the zoning code more user-friendly and processes more transparent;
Promote design that fits into neighborhoods so that new development makes the city a better
place.
The ZRC and Office of Planning and Development have been working closely with the Northampton
Housing Partnership on this Housing Plan, to coordinate efforts and arrive at zoning recommendations
that will meet the sustainability goals listed above, and better promote affordable housing as well. The
ZRC held its first public forum in March 2010, and expects to make its recommendations in 2011. The
ZRC will continue to work with the Housing Partnership, the Planning Board and community at-large in
amending the Zoning Ordinance to correct these limitations with substantial technical support from the
Office of Planning and Development as well as input from the Community and Economic Development
Office.
The City of Northampton should consider the following regulatory strategies to promote the creation of
additional affordable units and to better direct new development. These actions can be considered as
tools that the City will have available to promote new housing opportunities, each applied to particular
circumstances. (Units created through the use of these bylaws are counted as part of housing
production strategies included in Section 5.3.)
5.2.1 Adopt Inclusionary Zoning
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Parties: Planning Board with support from the Housing Partnership
Current Status: Northampton’s Zoning Ordinance does not currently include city-wide inclusionary
zoning provisions. This mechanism has been adopted by more than one-third of the communities in the
state to insure that any new development project over a certain size includes a set-aside in numbers of
affordable units or funding from the developer to support the creation of affordable housing. Most of
the bylaws include mandated percentages of units that must be affordable, typically 10% to 20% and
density bonuses47. Many also allow development of affordable units off-site and/or cash in lieu of actual
units.
The Office of Planning and Development has conducted some exploratory work on inclusionary zoning.
It hired a land use attorney to review some existing language of a draft ordinance, and then contracted
with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) to collect models of existing inclusionary zoning
provision that have been effective elsewhere.
Next Steps: After receiving input from PVPC’s research, the Planning Board should prepare a zoning
amendment that is best suited to support affordable housing in Northampton. The Office of Planning
and Development might also consider reviewing other model zoning codes and related literature as it
47 Density bonuses allow increased densities beyond what is allowed under the subdivision requirements in the
Zoning Bylaw.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
89
drafts the zoning ordinance. The Executive Office of Environment and Energy’s Smart Growth Toolkit
includes a model inclusionary zoning bylaw that highlights key local decisions and makes some
commentary for consideration throughout (www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/SG-
bylaws.html). The Citizen Planner Training Collaborative’s website also has a model bylaw with
commentary and some policies as well (www.umass.edu/masscptc/examplebylaws.html).
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Planning Board and staff support from the Office
of Planning and Development and input from the Community and Economic Development Office.
Projected Number of Affordable Units Produced: 14 units
5.2.2 Ease Restrictions on Development Near City and Village Centers
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Parties: Planning Board with support from the Zoning Revisions Committee and Housing
Partnership
Current Status: Over the past decade, the City has significantly increased allowable density, significantly
expanding the URC district, the City’s densest zoning district, eliminating the minimum lot size in the CB
district, and dramatically reducing minimum lot sizes in the URC, URB, and URA districts. While the City
has made progress in increasing the number of dwelling units within walking distance of the downtown
and village, there has simultaneously been a decrease in the number of people per dwelling unit through
decreases in household size. Consequently, the numbers of residents in these areas has not increased.
It will therefore be important to increase the number of allowable units so that the City can maintain or
slightly increase its historic pattern of having a large majority on its residents living within walking
distance to downtown or one of the village centers such as Village Hill, Baystate, Florence, and Leeds
Center.
Current zoning still presents significant challenges to developing housing in existing neighborhoods on
an infill basis that would enable the City to more fully revert to historic patterns of development for
future sustainability.48 The City’s compact Victorian neighborhoods would look very different if existing
zoning had been in place more than a century ago. The combination of anxiety regarding density, a
growth mentality that focuses on new subdivision mentality and Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) attitudes
has put strangle-holds on infill development.
Current zoning is out of character with the city’s best neighborhoods. For example, a triple-decker in an
Urban Resident C Zone would require a lot of 18,000 square feet based on the 6,000 per acre zoning
requirement, while many lots in this zone are less than 5,000 square feet. A two-family house is not
allowed in the Urban Residence A zone and requires at least a 12,000 square foot lot in the Urban
Residence B district. The analysis by the Zoning Review Committee suggests that the combination of
minimum lot sizes and other zoning requirements (minimum frontage, setbacks and open space
requirements) would render most residential properties in the traditional neighborhoods of the city as
nonconforming under existing zoning and 48% of the lots would not even be buildable.
48 Infill development involves new construction of redevelopment that “fills in” empty lots or adds units or uses in
areas that are already developed.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
90
The ZRC has developed the “Three E’s” of infill that emphasizes the importance of pursuing some
development:
Environment
Reduces the need for new infrastructure
Can be more energy efficient and lower carbon emissions
Is less damaging to natural systems than “greenfield” development49
Economy
Can increase the number of shoppers walking to local businesses
Can create more commercial real estate leading to more jobs
Makes public transit more viable
Equity
Can create more housing and work spaces where people want to live and work
Can provide a wide range of housing types that meet peoples’ needs
Next Steps: The Housing Partnership and the Zoning Revisions Committee should recommend zoning
changes to the Planning Board to more appropriately develop the downtown and village centers that
will enable the City to do the following more effectively:
· Develop brown/grayfields50
· Build taller by adding stories
· Add units through additions to existing buildings
· Add units within existing buildings
· Convert outbuildings to new units
· Fill gaps in existing streets including vacant side lots
· Build a larger number of small units on a lot that would currently only allow a single large
structure (small cluster development)
· Allow multiple uses within single structures (multipurpose spaces, mixed-use development, live-
work spaces)
While all of these infill approaches have some relevance to affordable housing, one of the most
important involves the ability to add units within existing structures. These conversions help further
diversify the housing stock providing additional income to the owner and small rental units or condos for
the increasing number of small households in Northampton. Even if the units are not eligible for
inclusion in the SHI, they are likely to be priced more affordably. The conversions also create new
housing units within existing building envelopes without the need for new construction.
There are precedents for converting larger Victorian houses to multiple condos, but property owners
who have wanted to add units to their single or two-family homes have been stymied by zoning. To
make these changes, the City will need to make considerable changes in rewriting the zoning text and
maps following a major effort to obtain input from local leaders and community residents. The Zoning
Revisions Committee and Planning Board are committed to outreach efforts to better educate the public
on zoning and its ramifications on the future growth of Northampton and to insure substantial
community input. These changes will also have to be approved by City Council.
49 Greenfield development involves building on unbuilt green or open spaces.
50 Development on sites that have been developed in the past with some need to remediate environmental hazards.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
91
The Office of Planning and Development has begun this work on infill zoning changes, which it plans to
present to City Council in 2011, after it has presented recommendations to community residents
through a series of neighborhood meetings.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Planning Board and Zoning Revisions Committee
as well as staff time from the Office of Planning and Development, including input from the Community
and Economic Development Office.
5.2.3 Promote Mixed-Use Development in More Locations
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Parties: Planning Board with support from the Zoning Revisions Committee and Housing
Partnership
The Zoning Ordinance currently allows mixed-use development only in relatively small portions
of the City, which undermines the goals of increased walkability and less reliance on the
automobile. Under current zoning, mixed residential and commercial/retail or service uses are
allowed by-right in all business districts, except the PV District, and by special permit in the URC
District. Mixed-uses were also promoted for the Village Hill development that used a
Sustainable Growth Overlay District, approved through the state’s Chapter 40R program (see
Appendix 4 for details on this program). The Sustainable Northampton Plan suggests that the
Ordinance better encourage mixed-use development in both residential and commercial areas
such as Florence Center, Village of Leeds, Bay State, Village Hill and satellite commercial areas.
Next Steps: The Housing Partnership and the Zoning Revisions Committee should recommend zoning
changes to the Planning Board to allow mixed uses in more zones, rewriting the zoning text and tables
to better facilitate development with a mix of uses. These changes will ultimately have to be approved
by City Council.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Housing Partnership, ZRC and Planning Board with
staff support from the Office of Planning and Development and Community and Economic Development
Office.
5.2.4 Revise Cluster Zoning Provisions
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Parties: Planning Board with support from the Zoning Revisions Committee and Housing
Partnership
Current Status: The more rural areas of Northampton are now zoned for low-density suburban sprawl.
The Zoning Ordinance does include a number of provisions to encourage smarter, cluster development
through the Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) and Planned Unit Development (PUD)
ordinances, including some density bonuses for affordable housing in the OSRD. The requirements are
complicated, based on what type of dwelling and in what district the development is proposed.
Moreover, the minimum open space requirements create challenges to affordable housing development
as they reduce the economies of scale that are typically necessary for financial feasibility. For example,
in addition to having 50% of the initial parcel protected as open space, individual unit lots require 65 to
75% of open space that limits the number of units that can be produced. This is more open space than
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
92
is required under standard frontage lot development without a cluster OSRD. Smaller cluster
developments are also adaptable to infill parcels in existing neighborhoods but are not allowed under
current zoning.
Next Steps: The Zoning Revisions Committee, in coordination with the Housing Partnership, should make
recommendations on revising the cluster zoning regulations to make them more flexible, to better
define the open space that should be protected, to reduce the density of outlying areas that lack
infrastructure or have significant environmental or agricultural resources, and to advance smaller cluster
projects in the urban residential districts. It will also be important to insure some inclusion of affordable
units in new cluster developments. A proposed cluster ordinance was written as part of the Executive
Order 418 community planning process a few years ago, and should be revisited and updated as
appropriate.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Housing Partnership, ZRC and Planning Board with
staff support from the Office of Planning and Development and Community and Economic Development
Office.
Projected Number of Affordable Units Produced: 15 units
5.2.5 Modify Accessory Apartment Requirements
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Planning Board in coordination with the Housing Partnership and with input from the
Building Inspector
Current Status: Accessory apartments, which are defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a “self-
contained housing unit incorporated within a single-family dwelling (not within accessory
structures except with a special permit) that is a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling,51
have a number of important benefits as summarized in Section 4 of this Housing Plan.
Northampton’s Zoning Ordinance does allow the Building Commissioner to issue a permit for an
accessory apartment in an owner-occupied, single-family house and provides for accessory
apartments in detached structures by a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
based on a number of conditions. A total of 39 accessory units were approved from 2000 to
2009, including two (2) units that were created as part of the Village Hill’s Ice Pond
development.
To have accessory units counted as part of the SHI, zoning would have to require that units meet state
Local Initiative Program guidelines, which specify the use of deed restrictions. Moreover, tenants must
now be chosen through a pre-approved list of qualifying renters, a “Ready Renters List”, and family
members are not eligible based on recent changes in state requirements.
Next Steps: Because accessory apartments provide small rental units that diversify the housing stock
within the confines of existing dwellings or lots and provides other benefits as well, the City might
consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to better promote such units even if they are not eligible for
inclusion in the Subsidized Housing Inventory. For example, the Planning Board might consider
provisions for allowing existing accessory apartments that do not have the necessary permits, and are
51 Northampton Zoning Ordinance, Section 350-10.10.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
93
thus illegal, to receive the necessary permits based on specific terms and conditions. The Planning
Board might also amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory apartments in commercial structures.
Moreover, the bylaw might promote housing affordability based on Wellfleet’s Program that does not
require deed restrictions, thus the units would still be affordable although ineligible for inclusion in the
Subsidized Housing Inventory. Wellfleet has established the following process for approving Affordable
Accessory Dwelling Units:
· Property owner applies for a special permit.
· Building Inspector and Board of Health visit and inspect the unit to determine if there are any
health and safety violations that must be corrected prior to the owner obtaining the special
permit. Those whose incomes are below 100% of area median are eligible for participation in
Wellfleet’s Affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit Loan Program that provides no interest loans to
support necessary improvements.
· The ZBA reviews the application and the reports submitted by the Building Inspector and Board
of Health, holds a public hearing, and grants the special permit.
· The Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy prior to the unit being occupied.
· Prospective tenants must submit income information to the Assistant Town Administrator that
documents that they qualify for the units. Once qualified, property owners will be officially
notified of the monthly rent they are permitted to charge based on HUD Fair Market Rents. A
list of qualified tenants is available to property owners, or owners may be able to select their
own.
· The Town Assessor issues a tax abatement to the property owner based on a specified formula,
without the need for the owner to submit to a separate application process (this requires state
legislative approval).
· The property owner annually submits forms that document the continued eligibility of the
tenant and use of HUD Fair Market Rents.
If a property owner decides at some point to opt out of the special permit, s/he must inform the
Building Inspector and remove the kitchen in the accessory unit. They are allowed to convert the space
to other uses such as a “private guest house” or office.
Resources Required: The donated time of local officials including the Building Inspector with professional
support from the Office of Planning and Development or other designated municipal employee. The
Housing Partnership would be involved in working with the Planning Board to amend the Zoning
Ordinance.
5.2.6 Rewrite Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Parties: Planning Board with support from the Housing Partnership
Current Status: TDR involves the conveyance of development rights by deed, easement or other
legal instrument from one parcel of land to another as a means of encouraging development in
certain areas while preserving open space in others. The major intent of TDR provisions is to
minimize sprawl and attract more density in areas within walking distance of about one (1) mile
of transportation and commercial areas. Such zoning is responsive to smart growth principles
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
94
but has been very difficult to implement in most communities. For example, if the City allows
greater density or other regulatory credit by-right in its “walkable” neighborhoods in close
proximity to the downtown and village centers as a trade for preserving outlying land, it may
find that there is very little to offer. The challenge in implementing TDR zoning, is not in finding
the “sending” areas or areas to be preserved as open space, but in locating sufficient
development opportunities in “receiving” areas.
The Northampton ordinance allows the Planning Board to grant a property owner in the Farms,
Forests and Rivers (FFR) District a special permit to transfer the development rights of a
“sending” parcel to “receiving” parcels in the Planned Village (PV) District where higher density
is more appropriate. Development rights cannot be transferred from a property, which may not
otherwise be developed, and development rights may be transferred and put on hold pending
assignment to a receiving parcel.
Next Steps: The Planning Board should prepare amendments to the TDR ordinance that will
enhance existing provisions for reducing development in more rural areas and promote infill
development in neighborhoods within walking distance to the downtown and village centers.
The zoning amendment will require City Council approval following a series of presentations at
neighborhood meetings.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Planning Board with staff support from the Office
of Planning and Development.
5.2.7 Revise Parking Requirements
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Parties: Planning Board
Current Status: The Northampton Vision 2020 report, which was adopted by the Planning Board in 1999,
is a compilation of public responses to how the City should look in the next 20 years. This report was
meant to guide the development of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan. The report
suggested that there were discrepancies between the vision of maintaining vibrant urban and village
commercial areas and current practices related to parking. Vision 2020 indicated that the combination
of parking fee policy and relative lack of parking were the biggest disincentives for downtown
development. The current parking fee is $2,000 per space for any new development or redevelopment
project.
If the City wants both to promote infill development and create more parking, eliminating the parking
fee and/or other parking requirements might be in the public’s best interest. Another consideration
would be to exempt projects with affordable units from parking requirements.
It should be noted that neighborhood forums on development opportunities have also identified that
parking is a problem in the downtown residential areas, especially crossover parking from commercial
tenants and their customers and from downtown employees looking for free parking. Consequently, the
elimination or reduction of parking requirements should be carefully considered.
Next Steps: The Planning Board should consider the ramifications of eliminating parking requirements,
including parking fees, in areas where it wants to encourage density and development and then make
recommendations to the City Council to revise parking policy. The City might consider reduced parking
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
95
requirements in tandem with parking that is restricted to residents only, by additional meters, or with
time of the day limits.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Planning Board with technical support from the
Office of Planning and Development.
5.2.8 Explore Form-based Zoning
Timeframe: Years 6-10
Responsible Parties: Planning Board
Current Status: A form-based zoning code controls the specific urban form of growth and development
as opposed to the traditional zoning focus on controlling land uses. Form-based zoning was developed
largely in response to urban sprawl, the deterioration of historic neighborhoods, and lack of focus on
walkability. The regulations and standards in form-based codes designate the appropriate form,
character and scale of development based on a community vision as opposed to the type of use and the
control of development intensity through abstract and uncoordinated parameters such as floor area
ratios, number of units per acre, setback requirements, parking ratios, etc.
Form-based zoning has gathered greater attention during the last several decades with the arrival of the
New Urbanism movement and has been applied to many scales, from a two-block Main Street to a
county. A significant amount of form-based zoning has been accomplished in Florida but there are now
examples in most areas of the country. In Massachusetts, a form-based code and design guidelines were
developed as part of the Downtown Buzzards Bay Redevelopment Plan in Bourne that provided new
opportunities for higher density, mixed-use development. In essence, this is what currently exists in
Northampton’s Central Business District, where there are few restrictions on use but rather on the form
of the buildings.
Next Steps: The Zoning Revisions Committee should obtain feedback on the prospects for converting
Northampton’s zoning to a form-based code at some point in the future, most likely focusing initially at
those areas of the city where higher density, mixed uses, including infill development, should occur. It
will be up to the Planning Board to implement such new zoning, obtaining City Council approval.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Planning Board and Zoning Revisions Committee
with technical support from the Office of Planning and Development and potentially a consultant with
specific expertise in form-based codes.
5.2.9 Establish a New Mixed-Use Innovations Zone
Timeframe: Years 6-10
Responsible Parties: Planning Board with support from the Housing Partnership
Current Status: The City of Boston is exploring the creation of a new “innovation district” along the
South Boston waterfront. The district, sometimes referred to as “Geekville”, calls for new zoning to
create new housing for young professionals within easy walking distance of the City-owned Marine
Industrial Park, where science-based start-up businesses (such as web developers, manufacturers of
green products, pharmaceutical researchers, bio-tech industries, etc.) will be lured to settle. As these
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
96
knowledge-based industries invest in the area, local leaders believe that university labs and satellite
campuses will follow.
This plan is based on the success of a former industrial neighborhood in Barcelona and further informed
by the work of Richard Florida who suggested that successful cities are shaped by an especially creative
group of young professionals. He indicates that members of this young creative class seek out each
other’s company and are drawn to dynamic environments with plenty of public space and
entertainment options that are close to jobs and housing. Housing types such as cohousing or other
more nontraditional models, might meet the needs of these highly-educated people living on small
budget.
A mixed-use innovation zone might be particularly responsive to the needs and resources of
Northampton given the significant population of young adults, proximity of five world-class colleges and
universities, interest in attracting new economic development opportunities, and benefits of upgrading
particular parts of the City.
Northampton has introduced a somewhat comparable concept through Village Hill, a major
redevelopment effort of the former Northampton State Hospital. The Master Plan for the Village
includes 476,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial space, live-work studios, a childcare center, a
potential community center and museum, a 60 to 80-unit assisted living facility as well as 207 residential
units. Fifty percent of the housing units are planned to be affordable. The first couple of phases have
been completed.
Next Steps: The Planning Board, with support from the Housing Partnership, should further explore the
opportunities for redeveloping parts of Northampton, focusing more on introducing new technology-
based industries and providing associated congregate living options to house employees. . The City
should monitor progress in developing such a zone in Boston or elsewhere and determine how best to
adapt such a district to meet local priorities. The Planning Board should also reach out to area colleges,
universities, hospitals and science-based industries to register their interest in investing in the
development of the district, participating in public-private partnerships.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Planning Board with technical support from the
Office of Planning and Development and Community and Economic Development Office, potentially
with the help of a consultant.
Other possible strategies that were recommended in interviews, other existing plans, and public
forums include the following for future consideration:
Increase maximum building height in the downtown from 55 feet to 65 feet if affordable housing is
included or consider by-right for all uses;
Eliminate the Residential Incentive Zone52 and replace it with other provisions that promote greater
density in appropriate places;
52 This zoning district, north of Bridge Road, enables the Planning Board to issue a special permit that allows housing
development at somewhat higher density if 33% of the total number of units are affordable and the development
conforms to use regulations and dimensional/density regulations and, in all other respects, meets the requirements
for an open space (cluster) residential development (Section 350-10.5) in URB districts (Urban Residence B). Two (2)
projects have been permitted but neither was built.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
97
Map changes to the Zoning Ordinance by expanding various districts including the Central Business
District and Urban Residence B and C districts; and
Up-zone parts of the Urban Residence A district to URB in non-environmentally sensitive areas and
down-zone to WP, RR or SC in areas that are environmentally sensitive as appropriate.
5.3 New Housing Production Strategies
To accomplish the actions included in this Housing Plan and meet production goals, it will be essential
for the City of Northampton to continue to reach out to the development community and sources of
public and private financing. While some of the units produced may rely on the participation of existing
property owners, most of the production will continue to rely on joint ventures with developers to
create affordable units, which the City continues to actively pursue. The City should reach out to local
developers who have been active in producing affordable housing in the area to discuss the City’s
interest in promoting these types of development, possible opportunities for new development, and
local guidelines and priorities. CPA funding and Housing Trust Funds to support preliminary feasibility
analyses, some acquisition costs or other subsidies are good investments towards meeting production
goals and local needs. As mentioned in strategy 5.1.4, to effectively guide development, the City should
also establish a formal process for reviewing local affordable housing proposals in their early conceptual
stages through its Housing Partnership.
In this context of reaching out to the development community, the Housing Partnership sponsored a
meeting on March 11, 2010 to get input into this Housing Plan, asking both non-profit and for profit
developers to specify what actions that City might take to better support affordable housing
development and what potential new projects might be added to the Subsidized Housing Inventory in
the future. The City should continue to foster this communication with developers, ultimately
establishing a ritual of at least annual meetings with the development community (see strategy 5.3.1).
In addition to the participation of the development community, it will be important for Northampton to
actively seek continued support from state and federal agencies. In addition to the state’s Department
of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), other state and quasi-public agencies that have
resources to support affordable and special needs housing include MassHousing, MassDevelopment,
Department of Developmental Services, Department of Mental Health, Community Economic
Development Assistance Corp. (CEDAC), Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund, and Massachusetts
Housing Investment Corporation (MHIC). Regional resources, both financial and technical, should be
sought out as well. Because affordable housing is rarely developed without private financing,
developments also remain reliant on private lenders.
The following strategies provide the basic components for the City to meet its housing production goals:
5.3.1 Continue to pursue nontraditional housing models that respond to diverse needs
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: The priority housing needs described in Section 3.3 suggest the need to produce new
housing for low-income individuals and families to rent as well as opportunities for first-time
homebuyers while also addressing the special needs of the disabled and homeless. As the All Roads
Lead Home: The Pioneer Valley’s Plan to End Homelessness so clearly states, “No one housing model can
work for all vulnerable individuals and families. The region must use and develop an array of housing
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
98
types, which may include public housing, single person occupancy units, boarding houses, shared living
arrangements, safe haven models and respite facilities.”
While traditional models of rental and ownership housing tend to be the norm in most communities,
largely in response to zoning and financing constraints, Northampton has been on the cutting edge of
some more innovative housing types that have addressed particular housing needs, including
affordability. In fact, Florence was originally settled as an “intentional community” for those looking for
alternative living options. The book, From Utopia to Florence: The Story of a Transcendentalist
Community in Northampton, Massachusetts,53 describes the formation of the Northampton Association
of Education and Industry, which was a utopian, socialist living experiment rooted in transcendentalism
and Fourierism, that flourished in the mid-19th Century.
While the Association itself has long since disappeared, the thriving community of Florence remains,
including its spirit of religious tolerance and racial brotherhood. This experiment has also inspired other
“intentional communities” including the cohousing developments in Northampton discussed below.
Northampton has successfully implemented other types of “intentional” living situations that fall outside
of traditional rental apartments and fee simple homeownership, which are also described below, in
addition to some other approaches that are currently being explored.
· Cohousing: The cohousing concept originated in Denmark with a focus on knowing
one’s neighbors and providing a safe and nurturing environment for children and harks
back to the “intentional communities” concept that was introduced in Northampton
through the Northampton Association of Education and Industry back into the mid-19th
Century. These developments are cooperative neighborhoods, typically with homes
clustered around a common building with facilities that are shared by all residents
(dining room, kitchen, play rooms, library).
Northampton has a couple of these developments including Pathways Cohousing and
Rocky Hill Cohousing. As the site plan for the Homes at Pathways Cohousing
demonstrates, these developments tend to be clustered with a common house in the
center or at the apex of the development. The common house supports the community
with dining facilities, sometimes guest rooms, children’s play space and meeting and
living areas. Parking is located in lots, leaving the interior of the site car-free and
providing a safe and supportive place for children to play. Most such developments
tend to be more affordably priced, and in Northampton almost three-quarters of the
units are valued within the $200,000 to $300,000 range. Cohousing can also be readily
adapted to mixed-income housing, with several income tiers, and integrate smaller
starter housing.
53 McBee, Alice Eaton, From Utopia to Florence: The Story of a Transcendentalist Community in Northampton,
Massachusetts 1830-1852, A Smith College publication, 1947.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
99
· Adaptive reuse: Adaptive reuse involves the conversion of nonresidential properties –
such as institutional, commercial and even industrial properties – into housing.
Northampton has
several schools that
were converted to
condominiums
including the Old School
Commons property,
which involved the
conversion of the
Hawley Junior High
School to
condominiums in the
1980’s as seen in the
photo, and St. Michaels
High School into
subsidized units at
Michaels House Apartments. Other such adaptive reuse efforts have included
Everybody’s Market and the Silk Mill in Florence, the Herrick Mill, and the conversion of
dormitories at the former Northampton Junior College. It should also be noted that the
entire downtown did not have housing until the 1970’s when the upper stories of
commercial buildings began to be converted to residential use.
· Mixed-use, “above the shop” type housing: The Zoning Ordinance does allow housing
above commercial or retail space which conforms to all Building and Life Safety Codes
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
100
by-right in the Central Business, General Business and Neighborhood Business Districts
and by special permit in the URC and Highway Business Districts. Such development
provides a number of benefits for the city such as creating housing opportunities in
close proximity to services and transportation, thus reducing the reliance on the
automobile; directing housing to areas that can accommodate greater growth and
density; promoting the vitality of business areas after store hours; and providing smaller
units for individuals and smaller households. Northampton has a considerable number
of these “above the shop” type housing units, particularly in the downtown.
· Group homes: Groups homes provide small settings for special needs groups in existing homes
in residential neighborhoods. Each bedroom in a group home is eligible for counting in the
Subsidized Housing Inventory. Northampton has 45 such units, 25 in homes sponsored by the
state’s Department of Developmental Services and another 20 in homes sponsored by the
Department of Mental Health.
· Congregate settings: Congregate housing can take many forms and other names for such
housing have included supported housing, life-care homes, congregate retirement housing,
congregate senior communities, residential care, sheltered housing, enriched housing, single
room occupancy (SRO) housing, enhanced single room occupancy (ESRO), safe havens,54 and
even assisted living. Cohousing and group homes, described above, also share elements of
congregate living.
In the United States, the term appeared in a 1978 federal law that was intended to provide
subsidized housing with supportive services for seniors or the disabled. The original form of
congregate housing typically included some meal preparation and housekeeping. Those living in
these settings usually did not have their own kitchens and sometimes shared bathrooms. Some
congregate housing has been among the most affordable senior or special needs housing
because of available subsidies.
Unfortunately, there has been a shortage of such housing and limited funding for new projects
in Northampton and elsewhere.
Section 3.3 of this Plan points out that Northampton has lost more than half of its SRO housing
stock over the past few decades. It further mentions that a typical SRO rents for about $300 to
$400 per month, many offering weekly rates as well. Consequently such housing serves as
valuable sources of affordable housing for low-income individuals, an identified priority housing
need. This type of housing, with supportive services, is particularly responsive to the Housing
First approach to meeting the needs of chronically homeless individuals. Examples of congregate
settings in Northampton include Go West SRO, Yvonne’s House, Earle Street, Hampshire Inn,
Florence Inn, etc.
54 Safe Haven Programs are directed to providing service-enriched housing for the chronically homeless mentally ill.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
101
· Cottage-style or bungalow type housing clusters: This type of housing has been popular in the
West Coast of the country
where there is an intense
focus on smart growth
development principles.
The model involves the
development of small
cottages or bungalows that
are clustered around a
community green space.
This housing type targets
empty nesters, single
professionals, and young
couples. Such development
provides opportunities for
the ownership of small,
detached dwellings within or on the fringe of existing neighborhoods, often enhancing
affordability while simultaneously encouraging the creation of more useable open space for the
residents through flexibility in density. This model also provides an infill housing option in areas
with reasonable proximity to transportation and businesses. The Village Hill development has
proposed a similar bungalow design option but with a traditional road configuration.
MassDevelopment selected a developer, who is preparing site plans for submission to the
Planning Board in late 2011. It is worth noting that some of the projects elsewhere have shared
parking lots or on-street parking, reducing the costs of each unit having its own driveway and
parking garage, which for small projects can end up being a real cost and land consumer.
Photo above: Town of Easton Department of Planning and Community Development
· Live-work space: Live-work space, sometimes referred to as zero commute housing, are spaces
where artists combine their residence with their work area, typically in an open floor plan
offering large, flexible work areas. Such spaces are allowed under Northampton’s Zoning
Ordinance in the Special Industrial districts (in living space above the first floor), Urban
Residence C, Highway Business, Downtown (CB), and General Business. In some cases these
spaces require a special permit from the Planning Board. There is wide recognition that artists
help make Northampton a more livable city, contributing to the cultural and commercial vitality
of the community, but the availability of affordable studio space and living space continues to
be an issue for local artists.
The only official live/work space, with three (3) units, is currently under construction on
Nonotuck Street in Florence. The units include 2000 square feet, half on the first floor as studio
space and the remainder above it for living. The units are for sale, priced between $189,000 to
$243,000. Other possible units include:
o An existing building on Pleasant Street that is marketed for possible conversion to
live/work space;
o A project to convert the old creamery building on Prospect Street to five (5) 1,400
square foot live/work units was permitted but is not going ahead;
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
102
o Eight (8) proposed units in the North Employees Home, a structure that is to be
rehabilitated and converted to live/work units as part of a later phase of the Village Hill
development;
o The Arts and Industry Building in Florence meets existing zoning requirements for live-
work space, but the developer has not moved forward on the project, and as a practical
matter, life-safety building code issues make this project very difficult if not impossible
in this particular building; and
o Purstorp building permitted for live/work space.
There are likely other live/work spaces that exist informally but do not have appropriate
regulatory approvals.
· Over 55 Infill Condos: A local developer built two (2) condo projects in Northampton, Deep
Woods and Wildwood, for those in the “in between market” with prices between subsidized
housing levels and market rates. These units were not restricted to older adults but were
particularly attractive to older women looking to downsize from their larger single-family
homes, thus freeing these units for families. The units were priced in the low 100’s when they
were built about a decade ago, and are now price at approximately $225,000. Opportunities to
replicate this model to serve the moderate-income needs of seniors should be promoted, with
particularly attention to zoning changes to make permitting less costly and time-consuming.
Many of these models can be developed on an infill basis as mixed-income housing, serving a range of
needs (see strategy 5.3.4 below). The approaches, with only a couple of exceptions, can also be adapted
as rental or ownership, depending upon the goals of the project sponsor and available financing.
Next Steps: The Housing Partnership, with support from the Community and Economic Development
Office, should continue to forge partnerships with developers and service providers to produce diverse
housing types to meet the identified range of housing needs in Northampton as summarized in Section
3.3 of this Housing Plan. There are specific models for these developments, as mentioned above, that
can be tweaked and replicated.
The Housing Partnership sponsored a meeting with developers, non-profit and for profit, on March 11,
2010, and should formalize such meetings on at an annual basis to promote the continued exchange of
information on potential opportunities and ultimately the production of affordable housing through the
models listed above.
Resources Required: The promotion of affordable housing through more innovative and “smart”
development to meet priority housing needs will involve the following types of City support:
· Rezoning: The zoning changes described in Section 5.2 of this Plan should help encourage the
development of these housing models, incorporating affordability. Zoning amendments to
better promote infill housing and ultimately form-based zoning in particular should significantly
help diversify the housing stock in locations that are most appropriate.
· Predevelopment funding: CPA and CDBG funding as well as potential funding from the Housing
Trust could provide resources to support preliminary feasibility analyses for new developments.
Such funds could be offered as a grant if it is ultimately found that the project is infeasible and
as a loan to be repaid if the project is developed.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
103
· Permit fee waivers for affordable housing: The City of Northampton already waives a portion of
permit fees for subdivisions, which resulted in fee increases for all other applicants. Because
permit staff are largely funded by these fees, further reductions, in this case for affordable
housing, would require a greater staffing subsidy or higher fees for everyone else.
· Community outreach and advocacy: Efforts will need to be made to provide information on new
developments to the community to help bolster local support. Approaches to conducting this
outreach are described in strategy 5.1.1. Also, it will be important for local leaders such as
members of the Housing Partnership, Mayor and City Council to get behind affordable housing
developments, help fine-tune development proposals to best meet local needs, and advocate
for their support in the community, and ultimately insure sufficient funding and necessary
regulatory approvals.
· Gap financing: Local funding – including CPA, CDBG, Smith Housing Fund, and potentially
Housing Trust Funds – would also be needed as “gap fillers” to help reduce the gap between the
total costs of development and the affordable rent or purchase price of the unit. This local
commitment is often critical to leveraging other public and private funding.
· Supportive services: To meet the needs of special populations, including seniors, the disabled,
chronically homeless, housing is not enough. Supportive services are also required to allow
occupants to remain safe, independent and thrive as contributing members of the community.
City funding to continue to support such services is essential.
The process of committing these resources will involve donated time and oversight from members of
the Housing Partnership, Planning Board, Community Preservation Committee, and potentially the
Housing Trust with significant staff time from the Community and Economic Development Office and
Office of Planning and Development.
Projected # Affordable Units Produced: 185 units
5.3.2 Fund Small Infill Affordable Housing Development
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: Smaller, infill development has occurred in the community, some including affordable
units. For example, the Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity has completed or is in the process of
developing affordable units, and continues to look for donated public and private land on which to build.
Housing has been built through the Smith Affordable Housing Fund to replace units that were
demolished as part of the College’s campus expansion. Local housing organizations – including the
Valley CDC, Northampton Housing Authority, ServiceNet, and HAPHousing have developed or
redeveloped infill housing that supports priority housing needs. In fact, many of the housing efforts
summarized above in strategy 5.3.1 were developed on an infill basis.
As indicated in strategy 5.2.3, zoning reforms are needed to better promote infill development
that will allow housing that is more in line with the character of Northampton’s traditional
neighborhoods. Once new zoning is in place, it will make infill development more cost-effective
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
104
as it will allow for greater economies of scale leading to increased financial feasibility. New
zoning should also reduce the possibility that community opposition can derail an important
housing initiative.
Next Steps: The City should continue to work with for profit and non-profit developers as well as
with abutters of vacant land to develop new infill housing on available vacant sites scattered
throughout the already built areas of town in line with new zoning that would allow for more
flexibility in regard to density and housing types. The Housing Partnership can play a helpful
role in supporting developers in applying for subsidies to insure that at least some of the units
are affordable and can be included in the Town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory; can negotiate
limited development, “friendly” Chapter 40B projects through DHCD’s Local Initiative Program
as has been done in Habitat projects; and can encourage abutters to create affordable housing
on vacant adjacent lots. Additional resources to support such development can be accessed
through the state and federal governments.
Resources Required: The Housing Partnership, with support from the Community and Economic
Development Office, should continue to forge partnerships with developers to develop infill housing
that will include some affordable units and perhaps include other income tiers as well such as
community or workforce housing. Funding from CDBG, CPA or even a recapitalized Affordable Housing
Trust would be needed to create affordable units and leverage other public and private financing. The
Subsidy Guarantee Program suggested in strategy 5.3.3 could also become an effective tool for
promoting affordable infill development.
Projected # Affordable Units Produced: 7 units (5 of these units also counted under strategy
5.3.4)
5.3.3 Establish a Subsidy Guarantee Program
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: The City has been funding new affordable housing units primarily through CPA funds
directed to specific projects, helping to fill the gap between the total costs of development and the
affordable rents or purchase prices. This subsidy has helped project sponsors leverage other important
funding from the state and federal governments to make projects financially feasible.
While this is still an essential approach for producing affordable housing, the City might also consider an
incentive program to attract further interest in developing affordable housing by offering a specific
amount per affordable unit to those interested in creating such units. The City could further offer a
lesser amount per unit in an effort to also promote “community” housing units for homeownership
projects.55 Such a subsidy could also be adapted to promoting green and sustainable design options (see
strategy 5.4.4).
55 “Community housing” typically refers to units targeted to those earning between 80% and 100% of area median
income, still eligible for CPA funds.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
105
Next Steps: The Housing Partnership should prepare a program design that specifies terms and
conditions, including administrative procedures, and present the program to the Community
Preservation Program for funding.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Housing Partnership and staff time from the
Housing and Community Development Planner. CPA funding would be required to launch the program.
Projected # of Affordable Units Produced: Units that are assisted through this program are counted in
other development strategies.
5.3.4 Continue to Make Suitable Public Land Available for Affordable Housing
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership with support form the Mayor and City Council
Current Status: As mentioned in Section 4, major obstacles to developing affordable housing in
Northampton include the limited availability of developable property, publicly-owned property in
particular. While the major thrust of many communities’ proactive housing agendas has been the
development of City-owned properties that are suitable for some amount of affordable housing, this is
more difficult to do in Northampton where there are fewer options available. Under preliminary
consideration for possible development of housing, including affordable housing, is a parcel on Prospect
Street that was formerly designated as the Town Farm to provide support for the poor, and has been
recently used by the City’s Department of Public Works (DPW). Another potential opportunity is a 5.26-
acre parcel on Oak Street in Florence.
The City of Northampton may decide to acquire other privately owned sites at some time in the future
for the purposes of protecting open space, providing for some municipal use, and/or developing some
amount of housing, including affordable housing, through cluster development on a portion of the sites.
Additional smaller sites may be available as well to build affordable new starter homes on in infill basis.
There is actually a precedent for this as the City has acquired property for limited development,
involving open space preservation as well and the use of the comprehensive permit process. These sites
were conveyed to Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity, which has completed or is in the process of
developing three (3) projects including:
· Six (6) new homes on Westhampton Road that provide a neighborhood housing buffer from a
planned landfill expansion as well as a tot-lot and walking trails. Another market rate lot was
sold to help defray project costs.
· Two (2) condo units on Ryan Road.
· Five (5) single-family homes are being built on Garfield Avenue.
Some limited opportunities may also be available through the taking of tax-foreclosed
properties for affordable housing. As the City becomes alert to opportunities for acquiring
property that would be suitable for some amount of affordable housing, such properties would
ideally meet a number of “smart growth” principles such as:
· The redevelopment of existing structures,
· Infill site development including small home development as starter housing,
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
106
· Development of cluster housing in underutilized locations with some existing or planned
infrastructure, and
· Mixed-use properties in the downtown, village areas or along commercial corridors.
Next Steps: The Housing Partnership should continue to work with other City boards and committees to
identify and pursue surplus municipal property or acquire private property for the development of
affordable housing. For such properties, when identified, the City should focus on providing the
following types of support:
· Where appropriate, the City should support the costs of preliminary feasibility analyses of
existing City-owned parcels or on sites identified on the open market, through negotiations with
interested sellers for reduced prices or through tax foreclosures that might potentially include
some amount of affordable housing. Such analyses could be funded through Community
Preservation funds or a recapitalized Housing Trust Fund.
· As discussed in strategy 5.1.1, neighborhood outreach to inform residents about the potential
for developing properties in the area, to obtain their feedback, and address local concerns to
the greatest extent possible.
· Following the necessary approvals for the conveyance of City-owned properties, the Housing
Partnership, in concert with the Community and Economic Development Office, should prepare
a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit interest from developers based on the City’s specific
project requirements. They should then select a developer based also on identified criteria
included in the RFP.
· Additionally, the City will need to be involved in attracting the necessary financial, technical and
political support. Evidence of municipal support is often critical when seeking financial or
technical assistance from regional, state or federal agencies.
· Also, additional local subsidies to fill the gap between total development costs and affordable
purchase prices or rents, through CPA funding or Housing Trust Funds, are very helpful in
leveraging limited and competitive state and federal funding and making projects financially
feasible.
Resources Required: Resources will be required to help determine initial project feasibility and subsidize
the development. Comprehensive permits typically do not involve external public subsidies but use
internal subsidies by which the market units in fact subsidize the affordable ones. Many communities,
like Northampton, have used the “friendly” comprehensive permit process to take advantage of these
internal subsidies, to create the necessary densities to make development feasible, and/or to make it
easier to navigate the existing regulatory system. Other developments require public subsidies to cover
the costs of affordable or mixed-income residential development and need to access public subsidies
through the state and federal government and other financial institutions to accomplish these
objectives. Because the costs of development are typically significantly much higher than the rents or
purchase prices that low- and moderate-income households can afford, multiple layers of subsidies are
often required to fill the gaps. Even Chapter 40B developments are finding it useful to apply for external
subsidies to increase the numbers of affordable units, to target units to lower income or special needs
populations, or to fill gaps that market rates cannot fully cover. A mix of financial and technical
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
107
resources will be required to continue to produce affordable units in Northampton. Appendix 4 includes
summaries of most of these programs.
The development of publicly-owned land will require local oversight from members of the Housing
Partnership and other City boards and committees (such as Assessing, ZBA, the Planning Board, and
Community Preservation Committee) as well as coordination from CEDO’s Housing and Community
Development Planner.
Projected # Affordable Units Produced: 50 units (5 of these units also counted under strategy 5.3.2 and
10 under strategy 5.3.1)
5.3.5 Provide Down Payment and Closing Cost Assistance
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: Given the economic climate and the current foreclosure crisis, lenders have established
more rigorous mortgage lending criteria including down payments of as much as 20% of the purchase
price. This substantial amount of up-front cash, including closing costs, places an enormous financial
burden on those who do not have equity from a former purchase or significant savings. Even those who
can qualify for special mortgage programs with down payment requirements of less than 5%, such as
the state’s Soft Second Loan Program and MassHousing’s First Time Homebuyer Program, are finding it
difficult to come up with the necessary up-front cash.
HAPHousing has been administering federal funding through the American Dream Downpayment
Assistance Program to help first-time homebuyers with down payments and closing costs. Such funding
has been available for qualifying Northampton purchasers. Deferred loans for the down payment and
closing costs of up to 5% of the purchase price to a maximum of $10,000 were made at no interest and
with a five-year term, to be forgiven after five years. Another loan can be made through the program to
cover deleading in addition to the down payment and closing costs, but with a ten-year term instead
and with at least 2.5% of the purchase price covering the down payment. Unfortunately, the federal
government is no longer funding this program. However, federal HOME Program funds can be used to
subsidize down payments and closing costs if such funding can be accessed by HAPHousing or the City of
Northampton. It should be noted that DHCD will not accept the required federal deed rider in place of
its approved LIP deed rider. Therefore, units that blend CPA funding with HOME Program assistance are
not currently eligible for inclusion in the SHI.
Many cities offer down payment and closing cost assistance to qualifying households. For example, the
City of Salem provides a no-interest, deferred payment loan to first-time homebuyers to use toward the
down payment and closing costs on a condo, single-family, or multi-family (2-4 units) home. The
program, with CDBG funds, will match a first-time homebuyer’s down payment up to $6,500. Applicants
who complete a CHAPA-certified homebuyer counseling course prior to closing are eligible for an
additional $1,000 in matching funds. Repayment of the loan, in full, is due upon sale or transfer of the
property or if the owner ceases to occupy the property as his/her permanent residence.
Another regional resource that has helped households obtain some of the up-front cash that is needed
to purchase their first home is the CommonCents Program administered by Community Action of the
Franklin, Hampshire and North Quabbin Regions. CommonCents enables participants to establish an
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
108
Individual Development Account (IDA) that is a matched savings account designed to help families invest
in assets such as education, homeownership, and small business development. Key components of the
program include:
· Matched savings based on a 3:1 match such that every dollar that participants save through
their account is matched by $3.00 through the program;
· Extensive financial education opportunities; and
· Ongoing one-on-one counseling on a monthly basis.
Next Steps: Northampton provided down payment and closing cost assistance in the past through CDBG
funding, and has the opportunity to offer it once again. The Housing Partnership should prepare a
program design that specifies terms and conditions, including administrative procedures, and present
the program to the Community Preservation Program for funding or determine to use CDBG funds.
It should be noted, that there appears to be some difference in opinion regarding the provision of CPA
funds for the acquisition, creation, preservation and support of deed-restricted units versus directly to
income-eligible individuals. Consequently, the use of CPA funding is clearly incontrovertible when the
unit is deed restricted and becomes a long-term community asset, affordable in perpetuity. Without the
deed restriction, the term “support” is subject to interpretation by local counsel and leadership. In this
regard, it is probably safer to combine CPA-funded down payment and closing cost assistance with an
existing housing program or development that requires the deed restriction at this time. In the 2010-
2011 legislative session, specific legislation to eliminate any concern about using CPA funding for direct
assistance to individuals, referred to as Senate Bill 90, was proposed but time ran out before the
legislation could be adopted. The 2011-2011 legislative session is introducing identical legislation
through Housing Bill 765 and Senate Bill 1841, which has considerable support.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Housing Partnership and staff time from the
Housing and Community Development Planner. CPA or CDBG funding would be required annually.
Projected # of Affordable Units Produced: Units that are assisted through this program are counted in
other development strategies.
GOAL #2: Preserve and Sustain Existing Affordable Housing
5.4 Promote the Affordability and Sustainability of Existing Housing
In addition to creating new affordable housing units, the City should focus on opportunities for
generating greater affordability from its existing housing stock including sustaining the affordability of its
subsidized housing.
5.4.1 Monitor and Maintain SHI Units
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: Based on how housing was financed, how long the affordability requirements
were established, and other stipulations in affordability agreements, the affordable status of
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
109
housing units can be in jeopardy in the future. As indicated in Section 4 of this Plan, there are a
number of affordable housing developments in Northampton where affordability requirements
are due to expire in the near future or long-term that could result in the City losing units in the
Subsidized Housing Inventory.
Northampton has been successful in insuring the continued affordability of units that involved
affordability restrictions that were due to expire. For example, the City was instrumental in
brokering the purchase and refinancing of 252 rental units at Meadowbrook Apartments by
Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH). The City was also involved in extending the
affordability of units at Hathaway Farms through the creation of the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund, which was funded through both public and private commitments. The Fund was
established to provide rental subsidies to households earning at or below 60% of AMI to
continue affordability after the conversion to market rates. Although the Fund is now
exhausted, it yielded an additional eight (8) years of affordability for 55 households.
The affordability of units at Hathaway Farms is due to expire in 2014, and 19 units at Leeds
Village Apartments are due to expire in 2018. A Valley CDC project is due to have its
affordability restrictions expire in 2016.
Next Steps: It is important to insure that all affordable housing units that are produced remain a
part of the City’s Subsidized Housing Inventory for as long as possible. The Housing Partnership
should continue to closely monitor developments with affordable units and work with existing
project sponsors to maintain affordability into the long-term. It should intervene to maintain
the units as affordable through providing support for refinancing, attracting a new purchaser
and refinancing if necessary, and even going through the court system if appropriate.
Resources Required: Donated time of members of the Housing Partnership and staff time form
the Housing and Community Development Planner.
5.4.2 Convert Existing Housing to Affordability
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: Given somewhat sluggish market conditions, programs that are directed to acquiring,
improving and converting existing housing to long-term affordable ones make considerable sense as
acquisition prices are a bit more reasonable. There are a variety of program strategies that provide
affordability by focusing on existing dwelling units rather than new ones including:
· Homebuyer Assistance Programs: Homebuyer Assistance Programs (also referred to as
Mortgage Assistance Programs) provide subsidies to qualified first-time homebuyers to fill the
gap between the market purchase price and the affordable price that is allowed under the
state’s Local Initiative Program (LIP). Such programs have been adopted in a number of
municipalities in the state. For example, Brookline’s Homebuyer Assistance Program is funded
through CDBG funds and provides subsidies ranging from $100,000 to $175,000, depending on
type of unit. Assistance is provided through a 0% interest rate loan with no monthly payments
on a first-come, first-served basis. The loans are secured with a 30-year second mortgage and a
promissory note, which requires repayment of the loan and in some cases a deed restriction (for
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
110
condos in associations with six or more units) that provides the Town with the right of first
refusal when and if the property is resold. The program does not require any repayment of the
loan for at least the first 30 years of occupancy, and refinancing is not allowed without the
Town’s permission. The Town provides the minimum subsidy necessary to make the purchase
possible, and refers applicants to other sources of financing instead or in conjunction with its
funding such as the Soft Second Program and MassHousing’s First Time Homebuyer Program.
The amount of the subsidy is based on the participant’s income and savings, the cost of the
property, and the amount and terms of other (first mortgage) financing available.
Newton’s First Time Homebuyer Program provides a deferred loan of up to $100,000 through a
combination of federal HOME funding and local CPA funds. The funds need not be paid back,
provided that the homebuyer has complied with the deed restrictions and other program terms
and conditions including that the property be used as the owner’s principal residence. No
payments are required unless the property is refinanced or conveyed. Funding assistance may
also include a forgivable grant of up to a maximum of $15,000 in CDBG funding that can be used
toward either the good faith offer made on a Purchase and Sale Agreement or for closing costs.
The town of Chatham has introduced the First Time Homebuyers Assistance Program that uses
up to $60,000 in CPA funds per household to fill the gap between the market price of a home
and the affordable purchase price as allowed under the state’s Local Initiative Program (LIP).
Purchasers are pre-qualified through the Program before they are able to search in the private
housing market for a qualifying home and deed restrictions are required. Purchasers are also
required to attend first-time homebuyer classes and encouraged to explore more affordable
mortgage financing such as loans through the state’s Soft Second Loan Program. The Chatham
Housing Authority administers the Program. Comparable programs are also available in
Marshfield, Acton, Cambridge, and Bourne, largely subsidized through Community Preservation
funding. Most of these efforts have been implemented during the last several years.
· Buy-down Programs: This approach involves the purchase of one or two-family structures or
other housing types, renting or reselling one (or possibly both/several) of the units subject to a
deed restriction that assures permanent affordability. There is also some precedent in
Northampton in dividing larger Victorian homes into condos that could also be adapted to a
buy-down initiative.
Buy-down programs have proven to be viable strategies in a number of communities including
the Sandwich Home Ownership Program (SHOP) implemented several years ago that produced
seven (7) affordable housing units under the coordination of the Housing Assistance Corporation
(HAC), the Cape’s regional non-profit housing organization. Buy-down programs are usually
coordinated by a non-profit housing organization and have also been implemented in
Cambridge, Newton, Bedford and Arlington, for example. A number of communities – including
Sandwich, Barnstable and Lexington – have had their Housing Authorities or another non-profit
organization acquire properties that they continue to own and manage as rentals.
· Hybrid Programs: Some communities have combined the above two approaches such that the
program sponsor identifies the properties for acquisition, places an option on the property,
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
111
identifies the purchaser from the prepared Ready Buyers List56, and offers its subsidy at the
mortgage closing. For example, the Sudbury Housing Trust searches the market for a property
within its “price point”, at about $350,000, which is at the lowest end of the market in this
community. This market price, plus consideration for some repairs, creates a gap of
approximately $200,000 given the maximum affordable purchase price of about $175,000 when
using state LIP requirements. Thus $200,000 has been the maximum per unit subsidy for the
program. The Housing Trust has also subsidized additional units in private comprehensive
permit projects to create more affordable units in these developments.
Next Steps: The City, through the Northampton Housing Partnership, should further explore these
models and design a program that best addresses the needs, available resources, and priorities of
Northampton. It may decide to prepare a Request for Proposals to select a non-profit entity to manage
the program.
The focus of such an initiative should be those housing units that are most affordable in Northampton’s
private housing market to minimize the amount of subsidy required to fill the gap between the purchase
price and any costs of improvements and the affordable rents or purchase prices. Smaller homes and
condos are reasonable targets. Community Preservation funding could be used to subsidize the
Program, and a funding request would have to be submitted to the Community Preservation Committee
at some point.57
Resources Required: The donated time of members of the Housing Partnership and staff time from the
Housing and Community Development Planner and potentially some professional time from a
consultant to prepare an implementation strategy.
Projected # Affordable Units Produced: 16 units
5.4.3 Rehabilitate the Grove Street Inn
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: The City of Northampton owns the Grove Street Inn, an emergency shelter with about
20 to 24 beds for both men and women. This property was originally a farmhouse that was part of the
Northampton State Hospital.
The shelter is an important component of the City’s effort to provide housing for the homeless. It is
always full, with an average of 40 to 50 people on the wait list. Open to all homeless adults, it is the only
such shelter in Hampshire County. Approximately 25% of the guests are young adults, many of whom
have “aged-out” of the state’s foster care system, and many others suffer long-term disabilities with
56 A Ready Buyers List, as well as a Ready Renters List for rental developments, involves the implementation of a
state-approved Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan that results in a list of eligible applicants ranked according to
a lottery and some preference criteria.
57 It should be noted that a problem has emerged in blending the HOME or previously funded American Dream Downpayment
Assistance Program and CPA funds as DHCD will not accept the HOME Program deed rider since they require the Fannie Mae
Universal deed rider for all Local Action Units. Consequently, if HOME or ADDI funding is used that require their own deed
restrictions, the units would not be eligible for inclusion in the SHI.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
112
extremely low incomes. Some others work full or part-time but are still unable to afford the costs of
housing in Northampton.
The Grove Street Inn has no permanent base of funding and a unique collaboration of sponsors share
the responsibilities of administering the Inn with ServiceNet taking the lead in operations.
Unfortunately, the Inn has fallen into some disrepair given that it has been in operation since 1990 and
serves an average of 250 homeless individuals per year. Repair needs include new windows, front porch
improvements, an upgraded kitchen including a commercial dishwasher, siding and a major update of
the men’s bathroom.
Next Steps: The City’s Community and Economic Development Office, has determined that the
necessary improvements will total approximately $100,000, of which $36,000 in CPA funding has been
made available to begin work through an initial phase. Funding to complete the work will be required.
The City should also consider opportunities for additional development by completing a Master Plan for
the site.
Resources Required: It is expected that the rehabilitation will involve approximately $100,000, most
likely to be subsidized by CPA funding. Staff time from the Community and Economic Development
Office will be necessary to coordinate the funding and improvements.
5.4.4 Promote Sustainable Energy Conservation Measures
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: Affordable housing should be affordable to rent or purchase but also affordable to
operate. To reduce energy expenses during this time of rising costs and to help foster the use of cleaner
energy sources, the City of Northampton should continue to find opportunities to promote the use of
sustainable energy conservation measures. This issue is particularly important for housing as efforts to
reduce the costs of utilities leads directly to greater housing affordability.
The City has in fact made significant progress in the area of energy conservation including the following:
· On June 2008, the City established the Energy and Sustainability Commission to “assist and
ensure that the City identify, develop, implement, and manage programs and policies that
achieve high levels of energy efficiency and energy resource sustainability and guard against
effects of energy resource disruption/depletion and climate change in all of Northampton’s
public and private sectors consistent with the goals of the Sustainable Northampton Plan, the
City’s climate change protection commitments, and other City plans/goals.”
· The City hired an Energy and Sustainability Officer to support the City’s energy conservation
efforts.
· In June 2010, the City earned official Green Community status from the state and thus received
a $198,500 grant for a 51 kilowatt solar power project. To qualify for the Green Community
designation, the City had to meet a number of clean energy benchmarks including:
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
113
· Local zoning that allows as-of-right siting of renewable energy projects and an expedited
permitting
process
related to
these as-
of-right
facilities;
· A
municipal
energy
use
baseline
and
program
designed
to reduce
energy
use by
20%
within five (5) years;
· The purchase of only fuel-efficient vehicles for municipal use when available; and
· Requirements that all new residential, commercial and industrial property construction
reduce lifecycle energy costs such as through the adoption of an energy-saving building
“stretch code”.
· Adoption of the energy stretch code to improve building energy efficiency.
· Investments in renewable energy through solar panels on the JFK Middle School, the conversion
of landfill gases to electricity, solar powered parking meters, geothermal heat pumps at the
Senior Center, and biodiesel-operated City vehicles, for example.
· The development of the GreenUp Program that has enabled hundreds of residents and
businesses to use renewable energy, enabling the City to earn over $140,000 to support clean-
energy projects.
· Investments in promoting greater energy efficiency through Silver LEED rating on the
construction of the Senior Center, high efficiency LED traffic lights, more efficient vehicles for
meter-reading, high efficiency hybrid vehicles for DPW, etc.
· Ongoing efforts to better plan and promote energy conservation including the upgrading of
buildings, expanding bike and pedestrian pathways, increasing community energy literacy, and
supporting private sector energy conservation measures.
In addition to basic efforts to weatherize existing units, there are other green design models that have
been created in Northampton and the region that deserve attention and replication. For example,
Kraus-Fitch Architects, Inc. designed renovations to an historic home that included super-insulation,
solar panels and other measures that have created a net-zero energy consumption level (see photo
above). The owners have reported that even with snow on the solar panels, they are on target to
generate more power than they use.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
114
The architects also designed the Homes at Pathways Cohousing (see photo below) to be solar tempered
and energy efficient. The buildings were sited with respect to solar access, and other energy
conservation measures were
utilized. Materials and systems
were selected to minimize
ecological impact and maximize
air quality (see photo below).
Another recent development
that has gained some attention
is the Wisdom Way Solar
Village, a 20-unit, solar-
powered condominium
complex in Greenfield. The
project was developed by Rural
Development Incorporated, a
non-profit developer of
affordable housing. The three-
bedroom condos sold for
$140,000. One of the
purchasers stated, “We love
being able to tell people we
have an earth-friendly home that is efficient, affordable, and LEED platinum certified. By living here we
have a very low carbon footprint, which is very important to us.” A key ingredient of the project’s
affordability was a $10,000 grant that purchasers received from the Federal Home Loan Bank of
Boston’s Equity Builder Program (EBP) through member Florence Savings Bank and the use of the state
Soft Second Program, among other subsidies.
Village Hill also includes a successful model of effective green building for 40 units of subsidized rental
housing at the Hillside Place Apartments. This development also incorporated solar panels and other
insulation materials, designed by Dietz & Company Architects, Inc. (see Section 3.2.6 for a photo).
Another noteworthy “green” project is the Solar Circle Condominium development off of Laurel Road in
Haydenville. As seen in the photo below, this project involved the construction of 11 single-family
detached condos, each superinsulated with many “green” materials including cement board siding,
direct vent room heaters, and photovoltaic panels. The 11units are clustered on four (4) acres, reserving
the remaining18 acres of forested open space.
The project was developed by the Hilltown CDC, designed by Peter Frothingham, and built by Teagno
Construction, Inc. The units include both two- and three-bedroom units, ranging from 1,100 to 1,235
square feet with an additional 200 square feet of unfinished second-floor space that can be finished by
the homeowners in the future. Total development costs averaged about $270,000 and were subsidized
down to the affordable purchase prices of $140,000 and $150,000 through a number of sources
including the HOME Program, state Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and special energy grants or
incentives from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (through the HAP Green Affordable
Housing Program), National Grid, Energy Star rebates, the Home Depot Foundation, the Community
Foundation of Western Massachusetts, and the Community Economic Development Assistance Corp.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
115
Florence Savings Bank provided the construction financing, and some purchasers also received CDBG
down payment assistance and Soft Second Loan Program mortgage financing.
Photo courtesy of PRFA & LDa Architects, LLP. Solar Circle Condominium Development
Next Steps: The City should pursue efforts to bring attention to these exemplary projects and to better
promote green and sustainable building methods. To accomplish this the City might explore the
following approaches:
· Opportunities to present information on this issue and success stories through the cable
programming recommended in strategy 5.1.1;
· A rebate or grant program for energy conservation measures funded by CDBG or CPA;
· A series of public service announcements on energy conservation;
· Continued implementation of the City’s energy and sustainability programs; and
· Northampton’s Energy and Sustainability Committee are interested in moving forward on this
opportunity. While upgrading all existing SHI units would be a local priority for the use of PACE,
complications with respect to financing these units are likely to arise.58
Resources Required: The donated time of members of the Housing Partnership and staff time from the
Housing and Community Development Planner. CPA and/or CDBG funding, as well as other potential
funding sources, to help subsidize energy conservation measures in existing properties and new
residential development.
58 Massachusetts recently adopted PACE, as more than 20 states have done, and Northampton now potentially has
another innovative tool to promote investment in clean energy and create jobs. The program allows property owners
to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements using low-interest bonds that generally have no
recourse to the municipality. Through this program, interested residential and commercial property owners can
receive long-term financing for up to 20 years to conduct these improvements, repaid through an assessment on
property taxes. However, thus far Fannie Mae and other secondary market sources have been reluctant to purchase
mortgages with such financing.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
116
5.5 Help Preserve Affordable Market Units
The following strategies involve support that is needed to assist owners of non-subsidized affordable
housing to keep the units affordable and in compliance with building codes.
5.5.1 Sustain and Expand Housing Rehab Programs
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: In the past the City funded a Housing Rehab Loan Program with annual CDBG
allocations, and most cities in Massachusetts provide such assistance. The Council on Aging administers
a home improvement program for income-eligible seniors age 60 and over. Up to $1,500 in grants are
offered for repairs (one to three are provided per year), including code violations and handicapped
accessibility modifications. Low interest (2.5%) deferred loans are also provided for up to $8,000 (four
to six issued per year) with repayment due when the property is refinanced or sold. Whether one
receives a grant or loan depends largely on the costs of the repairs.
Most cities use CDBG funding to support Housing Rehab Programs that provide assistance for moderate
rehabilitation projects in order to eliminate existing or potential health and safety hazards, to promote
greater handicapped accessibility, and sometimes to also undertake historic preservation. Technical
assistance is typically in the form of a housing inspection and work write-up that is used to solicit bids
from qualified contractors. Financial assistance is usually in the form of zero percent interest loans.
Repayment options depend on the applicant’s income and ability to repay and loans are typically
forgiven after 15 years or upon sale or transfer of the property.
Some cities also extend financial assistance to landlords with low- and moderate-income tenants in one
to seven-unit properties.
Next Steps: The Housing Partnership, with support from the Community and Economic Development
Office, should reintroduce the Housing Rehab Program, revisiting program terms and conditions and
revising as appropriate.
Resources Required: The Program would require staff time from the Community and Economic
Development Office for administration and CDBG or CPA funding annually.
5.5.2 Sustain and Improve Existing SRO Units
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: As indicated in Section 3.3 of this Plan, Northampton has lost more than half of its SRO
housing stock over the past few decades as older rooming houses and small hotels were converted to
market housing units or other uses. It further mentions that a typical SRO rents for about $300 to $400
per month, many offering weekly rates as well. Consequently such housing serves as a valuable source
of affordable housing for low-income individuals, an identified priority housing need. In order to save
some of these units and make necessary improvements, the Valley CDC, HAPHousing and ServiceNet, for
example, have acquired these properties, rehabilitated them and subsidized them as affordable for as
long a period as possible.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
117
The City has also been partnering with the Center for Human Development on the SRO Outreach
Project. This project was created in response to the deinstitutionalization that occurred in the 1980’s,
forcing many disabled residents into the community, into SRO type housing in particular. The project
funds a service provider coordinator who works to connect SRO residents to necessary resources. The
City’s Community and Economic Development Office continues to provide technical assistance as part of
this program.
Financing for the redevelopment of SRO’s is extremely limited, and it is unlikely that there will be
sufficient resources available to subsidize all of the existing supply of such units. While it is important to
continue to make progress in acquiring and subsidizing such housing for low-income individuals, it also
makes sense to preserve existing SRO units to the greatest extent possible to maintain this very
important housing type in Northampton. There are properties that come onto the market now and then
that might be acquired, refinanced, rehabilitated and maintained as affordable in perpetuity. Some
owners of such properties may also find the Subsidy Guarantee Program described in strategy 5.3.2 of
some benefit.
Next Steps: The City should continue to work with Valley CDC, ServiceNet, HAP, etc. on affordable
development projects involving SRO’s and maintain its connection to the SRO Outreach Project.
Additionally, it was recently determined that affordable units that were rehabilitated under the Section
8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program would integrate supportive services for residents as was the initial
intention when these projects were developed. The City is working with the Valley CDC in particular on
this effort.
Resources Required: Continued financial support through CDBG, McKinney funds and/or CPA for
projects involving affordable SRO units including advocacy on the part of the Housing Partnership for
necessary local approvals and other necessary financing.
5.5.3 Create a Climate of Public Support for Landlords
Timeframe: Years 3-5
Responsible Party: Mayor and City Council with Input from the Housing Partnership
Current Status: While the City can currently count approximately 1,300 units as part of its Subsidized
Housing Inventory, these are only units that meet all of the rigorous standards of the state – the big “A”
affordable units. Most actual affordable units – what is commonly referred to as little “a” affordable
units – are unsubsidized and part of the private housing stock. In fact, private landlords are the greatest
provider of affordable housing in Northampton and many keep rents at artificially low levels to maintain
good tenants. Efforts to help property owners maintain these little “a” affordable units should be a
priority of the City.
Next Steps: The Mayor, working with the City Council, should establish a climate of support for
landlords within all departments of City government. Such efforts might include the following:
· Workshops for landlords on relevant real estate and property management issues such as
tenant/landlord relations, the use of rental subsidies, how new zoning might affect their
properties, cost control and energy conservation measures, etc. Such sessions were held in the
past and should be reintroduced.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
118
· Assistance with code compliance issues.
· Opportunities to showcase landlord issues through the cable programming recommended in
strategy 5.1.1.
· An annual award from the City that acknowledges contributions of selected landlords in serving
the community.
· A coordinated effort on the part of all City departments that deal with small landlords to
simplify the process of receiving permits and other local approvals.
· Resources to help landlords make improvements (see strategies 5.3.3, 5.4.4 and 5.5.1).
Resources Required: Coordinated efforts on the part of all City departments to cultivate relationships
with owners of privately held, market rate yet affordable rental units with some monitoring from the
Housing Partnership.
GOAL #3: Work to End Homelessness
5.6 Continue Active Support for Local and Regional Efforts to End Homelessness
As discussed in Section 3.3, homelessness prevention as well as shelters and rapid re-housing efforts are
all components of the City approach to addressing the continuing problem of homelessness in
Northampton and the Pioneer Valley. As the All Roads Lead Home plan indicates, “solutions to
homelessness must be housing-focused”. As such, it is essential that this Housing Plan include varied,
flexible, and accessible supports for preventing and ending homelessness. Key organizational and
programmatic strategies for solving the homeless crisis are summarized below.
5.6.1 Continue to Facilitate and Support the Three County Continuum of Care
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: The City of Northampton, through its Community and Economic Development
Office, serves as the Lead Agent for the Three County Continuum of Care, which is the regional
entity created to provide a continuum of support from emergency shelters to transitional
housing and ultimately to permanent housing serving those exiting homelessness. The
Continuum of Care involves a collaboration of representatives from all of the major housing
service providers in the three-county area. Over $1.3 million in HUD McKinney funding was
provided to the Continuum in FY10 to fund a wide range of programs and services. The City
initiated the Continuum in 1997 and has applied for and secured, on average, a million dollars of
HUD McKinney funding for local and regional programs each year since. The Continuum of Care
comprises Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden Counties with the exception of the City of
Springfield.
Next Steps: The City’s Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO) will continue in its capacity
of the administrator of the Continuum of Care. In addition to submitting the application and
administering the program, the next year will focus on creating a Homeless Management Information
System to meet HUD data requirements and track performance outcomes.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
119
Resources Required: The Housing and Community Development Planner will continue to staff the
Continuum of Care with oversight by the Director of CEDO. The McKinney Program administration fee
provided by HUD is insufficient to cover staffing costs. Annual contributions made from the cities of
Westfield, Holyoke, Chicopee, and Easthampton, and the town of Amherst support the City’s work on
behalf of the region.
5.6.2 Continue to Participate in the Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness
(WMNEH)
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: In 2008, Massachusetts executive and legislative leaders declared a bold vision:
ending homelessness in the Commonwealth. In response, local community leaders formed the
Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness to turn that vision into a reality. In
conjunction with Mayor Sullivan from Holyoke and Mayor Ryan from Springfield, Northampton
Mayor Higgins spearheaded the effort to create a regional plan to end homelessness. All Roads
Lead Home, the Pioneer Valley’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, compliments Berkshire
County’s and the City of Springfield’s 10 year plans. In addition, Northampton was involved in a
regional collaboration to secure a million dollar grant from the state Inter-Agency Council on
Housing and Homelessness to form a regional network – the Western Massachusetts Network
to End Homelessness. This effort is geared towards solidifying a western Massachusetts, four-
county system to address homelessness. One year after the Network’s founding, with dozens of
active members from every sector of our community and a new level of collaboration and
innovation, the Network is thriving and its impact is already lasting.
The ICHH grant concludes in June of 2011, but was successful in administering funding for pilot
projects and furthering the regional dialogue. Committees met and will continue to meet
regularly, coordinated case management is occurring and system change is being achieved. The
current co-chair of the Leadership Council for the Network is a Northampton Housing
Partnership member. The Director of the Regional Network also serves on the Northampton City
Council. Additional funding has been secured through local foundations to fund the Network
Coordinator position into the new fiscal year.
The key strategy for ending homelessness is a model called Housing First. Where the old system
offered shelter, the new model offers housing. The old model dictated that a person address
barriers to stability before housing; the new model recognizes that people in housing are much
more likely to get jobs, or treatment, or whatever they need to maintain stability. Services are
best provided to people when they are in housing—not shelter. In its first year of formal
existence, the WMNEH has demonstrated the extraordinary power of collaboration. Time,
money, commitment, data collection and evaluation: all have been provided in abundance to
exchange and develop new strategies; to scrutinize success and failure so it is only the success
that gets duplicated; to build the relationships across providers, business, faith, academic and
political leaders so that trust and shared goals ensure maximum impact.
Next Steps: The City, as a local municipality and the Lead Agent for the Three County Continuum
of Care, will continue to support the regional efforts by participating on the Steering Committee
of the Leadership Council for the Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness and the
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
120
Leadership Council for the Western Massachusetts Inter-Agency Council on Housing and
Homelessness. Locally, the City will continue to provide staffing and support to the
Northampton Housing Partnership and the Next Step Collaborative, a monthly gathering of local
housing and homeless service providers. The City will also take a lead role in the
implementation of an HMIS data collection system to insure optimum program operation and
guide program design across the region.
Moreover, as the City makes progress in the implementation of this Housing Plan, it will need to
rely upon a wide range of resources for support. In its efforts to reduce homelessness, the
WMNEH is an important connection to maintain. The Network is focused on prevention,
diversion, and rapid re-housing, providing a collaboration between service providers, housing
providers, the Housing Courts, and funding service agencies, all in an effort to find the right
housing resources for those at-risk of homelessness at the most opportune time. The
organization has also recently prepared a directory on resources to fight homelessness that will
reinforce its efforts to promote collaborations in pursuit of ending homelessness.
Resources Required: The annual federal CDBG entitlement allocation pays for staffing to administer the
CDBG program, facilitate local service coordination, support work on affordable housing and the
submission of the McKinney grant for the region. The McKinney administration fee, along with
contributions from area municipalities, covers staff costs for the management of the Continuum of Care.
Two (2) grants have been secured from the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts in
partnership with the Hampshire County Friends of the Homeless to implement the HMIS project and
cover staff time spent on regional collaboration. The Community and Economic Development Office
consists of three (3) people. The Housing and Community Development Planner performs the duties
described above. Additionally, resources include the donated time of members of the Housing
Partnership.
5.6.3 Support Homelessness Prevention Programs
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: As indicated in Section 3.3.1, the City recognizes the importance of prevention
and housing stabilization activities in the service delivery system. Rather than addressing
people’s needs once they enter emergency shelter, it is more humane and cost effective to
maintain their current housing, if possible. The Regional Network, created through a state Inter-
Agency Council on Housing and Homelessness grant, is very focused on prevention and diversion
efforts across the four (4) counties of Western Massachusetts. The Tenancy Preservation
Program, special federal funding such as the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing
Program (HPRP), tenant and landlord mediation, and the State’s RAFT Program59 that provides
assistance for families are highly effective programs that work to preserve housing for at-risk
populations. Other resources to prevent homelessness include some rental assistance funding
from the Unitarian Church, special private funds raised through the Friends of the Homeless,
support from the Salvation Army, as well as counseling from the Housing Consumer Education
Centers, such as the one based in Springfield through HAPHousing.
59 While still a program “on the books”, the RAFT Program did not receive any appreciable funding in FY 2010.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
121
Next Steps: The City will advocate for state funding to support the Tenancy Preservation
Program. The expansion from Hampden to Hampshire and Franklin counties and then
statewide, indicates the success of the model program and it needs to be sustained. The City will
advocate, through the Three County Continuum of Care and Regional Network, for the
continuation of the federal HPRP funds. Now that the federal stimulus funds have come to an
end, those families that have been able to secure and maintain housing through these programs
are cycling back into homelessness. Additionally, there will be a push to ensure the funds are
flexible to accommodate different household needs across the region. Cash assistance for
rental arrearages is a critical component to a homelessness prevention effort. The City supports
the regional goal of providing the “right resources at the right time”.
Resources Required: In the next year the City will allocate CDBG funding to the following
programs engaged in homelessness prevention:
· Massachusetts Fair Housing Center for activities that affirmatively further fair housing. An
annual scope of services will be devised to remove barriers to finding and maintaining
affordable housing.
· Valley CDC’s Homeownership Counseling Program which assists housed families with
financial literacy and budgeting skills.
· Survival Center and MANNA Soup Kitchen to ensure needy residents have food options if
they are faced with the challenge of paying their housing costs vs. eating.
· Casa Latina and the Center for New Americans to provide information and outreach to
marginalized populations that may have economic, cultural and language challenges.
· SRO Outreach Program for the coordinator to provide service linkages to the residents of
SRO’s which may facilitate their ability to maintain their housing.
· Council on Aging Home Repair Program to accomplish handicap accessibility and home
improvements that may permit a person to remain in their home longer with an improved
quality of life.
Through its’ administration of federal McKinney funding for the Three County Continuum, the
City will support existing and new projects that enhance self-sufficiency and life skills necessary
to maintain and stabilize housing. Community Preservation Act funding will be utilized for
eligible projects that create suitable and affordable housing opportunities for local residents and
enhance self-sufficiency. WMNEH will also continue to be an important resource for this work.
5.6.4 Support Housing First Efforts
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: Homelessness prevention is the most cost-effective response to those who are
at-risk of homelessness. However, when losing ones home cannot be avoided, the next best
response is a “rapid rehouse” approach of moving households into housing. The Housing First
model of moving homeless individuals and families into permanent affordable housing with
supportive services is an extremely effective approach for stabilizing those confronted with
chronic homelessness. It is in fact far less costly than the alternative of providing emergency
services if homelessness continues.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
122
Photo courtesy of ServiceNet, Inc. Yvonne’s House
Progress has in fact already been made in Northampton with the development of Yvonne’s
House made possible by CPA funding and private fundraising. As a result of seeing some of the
same individuals cycle in and out of the winter emergency shelter year after year, Yvonne
Freccero, Chair of the Board of the Friends of Hampshire County Homeless launched the project.
The Board purchased an existing duplex in a residential neighborhood, and men and women,
some homeless for years, are now living independently. Service Net, Inc., an area mental health
agency with a shelter and housing division, provides case management support. Program
operations have been so successful that the Friends submitted a second request to the
Community Preservation Committee in the fall 2010 funding round to create a second home in
the community. Funding has been received and a second home was purchased in April 2011.
The duplex is currently being renovated and will house six (6) formerly homeless adults
committed to sober living.
Next Steps: The City needs to continue to work with developers and service providers to produce deeply
subsidized permanent housing units for both homeless individuals and families that include wrap-
around supportive services (e.g., case management, health and mental health care, drug and alcohol
counseling, job counseling and placement, life skills classes, financial literacy training, parent classes,
children’s program and support groups, etc.). Strategy 5.3.1, which focuses on alternative housing types
to meet diverse needs, provides some examples of housing types that are particularly responsive to the
needs of the chronically homeless such as congregate settings.
Springfield has led the way with Housing First Pilot projects for individuals and has reduced the numbers
of unsheltered chronic homeless in that city. One of the major goals of the Pioneer Valley 10 Year Plan
to End Homelessness is to have several more cities and towns institute Housing First Programs.
Resources Required: In the annual McKinney applications, HUD provides bonus funding for permanent
supportive housing projects. There is an opportunity to craft local Housing First programs to access this
funding. Local CDBG and Community Preservation Act funding will also continue to be possible
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
123
resources. The challenge is finding deep subsidies through the federal or state government. Yvonne’s
House has secured some rental subsidies, but most residents are able to pay rent with their incomes,
which makes program operation possible without property debt. WMNEH will also continue to be an
important resource for this work.
5.6.5 Work on Economic Development and Poverty Issues
Timeframe: Years 1-2
Responsible Party: Housing Partnership
Current Status: As the All Roads Lead Home plan indicates, “Homelessness is a surprisingly frequent
occurrence for people living in poverty.”60 The plan further states, “The causes of homelessness are
complex, and include both societal factors – such as housing costs that have outpaced income growth
and the loss of manufacturing jobs – and individual factors. At the individual level, the causes of
homelessness are most often associated with poverty and disability”.61
While this Housing Plan focuses on housing-related solutions to ending homelessness, it also
recognizes that the City must also address the other roots of homelessness, especially the need
for jobs, education and training. The Sustainable Northampton Plan identifies the following
goals and strategies to address economic development, education, and social equity:
· Encourage business development for job creation and retention, and living wages that support
the cost of living in the City.
· Reinvigorate the manufacturing base and actively seek resources for workplace language and
skills training in the workplace.
· Provide entrepreneurial training and startup business assistance, especially for low-income and
limited English-speaking residents.
· Address ESL, literacy, adult basic education, and social equity needs of the workforce.
· Support job creation, job training and career ladder opportunities for youth, unemployed,
under-employed, under-educated, and limited English speakers.
· Ensure quality education and academic achievement for all segments of the community via
providing a continuum of educational options and seek collaborations to increase access to
higher education and career/education ladders, providing programs for dual language learners,
reducing the achievement gap for at risk students, and increase support for dropout prevention
programs.
· Invest in all segments of the community to retain a population with diverse demographic and
income levels via improved affordable housing, outreach to marginalized populations to ensure
all feel welcome in the City, ensure safe and equitable workplaces and housing for all workers
including undocumented workers, and promote an environment of tolerance, diversity, and
fairness in public schools so all children and families feel valued.
Next Steps: Continue to support service programs to assist low-income residents in achieving
success in education and careers including the James House Community Learning Center’s adult
basic education, Community Action’s Individual Development Account (IDA) Program
60 All Roads Lead Home: The Pioneer Valley’s Plan to End Homelessness, supported by the cities of Holyoke,
Northampton and Springfield, MA and funding from One Family, Inc., February 2008, page 3.
61 Ibid.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
124
(CommonCents), English language programs (ESOL), job training programs, college transition
resources, etc. Collaborate with CEDO, the School Department, other municipal departments,
and community organizations to assist in implementation of the Sustainable Northampton
strategies.
Resources Required: Staff support from the Office of Community and Economic Development,
School Department as well as CDBG and other funding.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
125
6. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION GOALS
This Housing Plan is prepared according to the requirements of the state’s Housing Production Program
should the City decide to submit it to the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) for approval under those guidelines. Many communities that have less than 10%
of their housing stocks defined as affordable by the state have opted to participate in the Housing
Production Program. This allows them to not only prepare a plan that addresses their specific housing
needs, but to also potentially be in a position to deny unwanted comprehensive permit projects should
the municipality be able to meet annual production goals.
The state introduced the Planned Production Program in December 2002, a forerunner to Housing
Production, in accordance with regulations that were meant to provide municipalities with this greater
local control over housing development. Under the Program, cities and towns had the option of
preparing and adopting a Housing Plan that demonstrated the production of an increase of .75% over
one year or 1.5% over two-years of its year-round housing stock eligible for inclusion in the Subsidized
Housing Inventory.62 If DHCD certified that the locality had complied with its annual goals or that it had
met two-year goals, the municipality could, through its Zoning Board of Appeals, potentially deny what it
considered inappropriate comprehensive permit applications for one or two-years, respectively.63
Changes to Chapter 40B established some new rules for this Program.64 For example, Planned
Production Plans are now referred to as Housing Production Plans. Moreover, annual goals changed
from 0.75% of the community’s year-round housing stock to 0.50%, meaning that Northampton would
now have to produce at least 61 affordable units annually to meet annual production goals, still a
daunting challenge. Moreover, this goal is likely to increase to about 63 units65 after the next decennial
census count for year-round units becomes available and future housing growth will continue to drive-
up the 10% goal as well as annual production goals.66
62 Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B, 760 CMR 31.07 (1)(i).
63 If a community has achieved certification within 15 days of the opening of the local hearing for the comprehensive
permit, the ZBA shall provide written notice to the applicant, with a copy to DHCD, that it considers that a denial of
the permit or the imposition of conditions or requirements would be consistent with local needs, the grounds that it
believes have been met, and the factual basis for that position, including any necessary supportive documentation. If
the applicant wishes to challenge the ZBA’s assertion, it must do so by providing written notice to DHCD, with a copy
to the ZBA, within 15 days of its receipt of the ZBA’s notice, including any documentation to support its position.
DHCD shall review the materials provided by both parties and issue a decision within 30 days of its receipt of all
materials. The ZBA shall have the burden of proving satisfaction of the grounds for asserting that a denial or approval
with conditions would be consistent local needs, provided, however, that any failure of the DHCD to issue a timely
decision shall be deemed a determination in favor of the municipality. This procedure shall toll the requirement to
terminate the hearing within 180 days.
64 Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B, 760 CMR 56.00.
65 This is calculated by applying the same level of seasonal or occasional units in 2000 (1% or 128 units) to the number
of total housing units in 2010 of 12,728 units (based on 2010 Census Redistricting data), then subtracting 128 units
from 12,728 and then taking .5% of that amount (12,728-128 units = 12,600 x 0.5% or 63 units).
66 In a rental development, if at least 25% of units are to be occupied by Income Eligible Households earning
80% or less than the area median income, or alternatively, if at least 20% of units are to be occupied by
households earning 50% or less of area median income, and meet all criteria outlined in Section 2.2, then all of
the units in the rental development shall be eligible for inclusion on the SHI. In determining the number of
units required to satisfy either percentage threshold, fractional numbers shall be rounded up to the nearest
whole number (e.g.: in a 51 units development, one would restrict 13 units in order to meet the 25% standard.)
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
126
Because Northampton already has more than 10% of its year-round housing defined as affordable under
state guidelines and has been more than open to work with developers on Chapter 40B comprehensive
permits, the incentives for participating in Housing Production are significantly less compelling.
Nevertheless, having such a Housing Production Plan in place could provide a number of benefits to the
City including:
· While Northampton has more than 10% of its housing defined as affordable, the City will be
losing affordable units from its Subsidized Housing Inventory, potentially coming very close or
even under the 10% threshold. Meeting annual production goals might offer some interim
protection from inappropriate 40B developments until the City can produce sufficient units to
go beyond the 10% level.
· While Northampton has a very high score under the state’s Commonwealth Capital Program,
and is thus more competitive for a wide range of state discretionary funding, the completion
and approval of a Housing Production Plan and any “certification” of this Plan (meeting the
annual production goal) will significantly increase the City’s score.
· The Plan will assist the City in making funding decisions for affordable housing including CDBG
funds, CPA funding and any potential funding from the Affordable Housing Trust (see strategy
5.1.2).
· The Plan will serve as a local resource on a wide range of housing issues including demographic
and housing characteristics and trends, existing and proposed affordable units, priority needs,
available resources, current and proposed initiatives, etc. that provides a blueprint for the City’s
housing agenda.
· The Plan establishes a framework and accountability for the implementation of the strategies as
information is provided on next steps towards implementation, what entity or entities are
responsible and what resources are required.
· The Plan will help the City and developers obtain grant and loan funds for affordable housing,
particularly the back-up documentation in the Housing Needs Assessment.
· The Plan represents an updated and comprehensive compilation of the housing components of
various City planning documents including the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan,
the HUD Consolidated Plan, Grow Smart Northampton, All Roads Lead Home, the Pioneer Valley
Plan to End Homelessness, the Community Preservation Plan, the Northampton Community
Indicator Report, etc.
Using the strategies summarized under Section 5 and priority needs established in Section 3.3, the City
of Northampton has developed a Housing Production Program to chart affordable housing activity over
the next five (5) years. The projected goals are best guesses at this time, and there is likely to be a great
deal of fluidity in these estimates from year to year. Moreover, given the existing and planned pipeline
of affordable housing projects through the City’s local and regional developers, it is unlikely that
production goals can be achieved within the first couple years. However, given progress in the next
couple of years, it is projected that the City might be in a position to achieve housing certification later
in the Five-Year period.
The production goals are based largely on the following criteria:
· At a minimum, at least fifty percent (50%) of the units that are developed on publicly-owned
parcels should be affordable to households earning at or below 80% of area median income –
the affordable units – and at least another 10% affordable to those earning up to 120% of area
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
127
median income – moderate-income “workforce” units – depending on project feasibility. The
rental projects will also target some households earning at or below 60% of area median income
and lower based on priority housing needs of providing rental housing for very low-income
individuals and families. It should also be noted that the City can provide CPA assistance to
subsidize units for those earning up to 100% of area median income, commonly referred to as
“community housing” units, however these units cannot be counted as part of the Subsidized
Housing Inventory.
· Projections are based on no fewer than eight (8) units per acre. However, given specific site
conditions and financial feasibility it may be appropriate to decrease or increase density as long
as projects are in compliance with state Title V and wetlands regulations.
· Because housing strategies include development on privately owned parcels, production will
involve projects sponsored by private developers through the standard regulatory process or
even potentially the “friendly” comprehensive permit process. The City will continue to work
with these private developers to fine-tune proposals to maximize their responsiveness to
community interests and to increase affordability to the greatest extent feasible, potentially
infusing funding from CDBG, CPA, or a newly capitalized Affordable Housing Trust Fund where
appropriate.
· The projections involve a mix of rental and ownership opportunities that reflect the priority
housing needs in the Housing Needs Assessment (see Section 3.3). The City will work with
developers to promote a diversity of housing types directed to different populations with
housing needs including families, seniors and other individuals with special needs to offer a wide
range of housing options for residents.
The strategies also reflect state Housing Production requirements that ask communities to address all of
the following major categories of strategies to the greatest extent applicable:67
Identification of zoning districts or geographic areas in which the municipality proposes to modify
current regulations for the purposes of creating affordable housing developments to meet its
housing production goal;
Adopt inclusionary zoning (strategy 5.2.1)
Ease restrictions on development near city and village centers (strategy 5.2.2)
Promote mixed-use development in more locations (strategy 5.2.3)
Establish a new mixed-use innovation zone (strategy 5.2.9)
Identification of specific sites for which the municipality will encourage the filing of comprehensive
permit projects;
Make suitable public property available for affordable housing (strategy 5.3.4)
As mentioned above, the City has been interested in working with developers of
comprehensive permit projects. It has also used this process on its “limited development
projects”68 despite being beyond the 10% affordability threshold.
See Table 6-1
Characteristics of proposed residential or mixed-use developments that would be preferred by the
municipality;
Ease restrictions on development near city and village centers (strategy 5.2.2)
67 Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B, 760 CMR 56.03.4.
68 Projects where the City acquired property for some amount of affordable housing.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
128
Revise cluster zoning provisions (strategy 5.2.4)
Modify accessory apartment requirements (strategy 5.2.5)
Continue to pursue nontraditional housing models (strategy 5.3.1)
Municipally owned parcels for which the municipality commits to issue requests for proposals to
develop affordable housing.
Make suitable public property available for affordable housing (strategy 5.3.4)
Participation in regional collaborations addressing housing development
Continue to facilitate and support the Three County Continuum of Care (strategy 5.6.1)
Continue to participate in the Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness
(strategy 5.6.2)
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
129
Table 6-1
Year One to Five (2011 to 2015)
Strategies by Year**
Affordable
Units< 80%
AMI
Workforce Units
80%-120% AMI
or ineligible for SHI
Total # units*
Year 1 – 2011
5.3.1/King Street SRO/Valley CDC/rental 10 0 10
5.3.2 and 5.3.4/Verona-Garfield Habitat
for Humanity/homeownership
1 0 1
5.3.1/Yvonne’s House #2/sober rental
housing
6 0 6
5.2.5/Accessory apartments/rentals 0 4 0
Nothing else pending
Subtotal 17 4 17
Year 2 – 2012
5.3.1/Soldier On -- Leeds Veteran Village/
sober rentals
25 0 25
5.3.1 and 5.3.4/DDS housing/NHA/
special needs rental
10 0 10
5.3.2 and 5.3.4/Verona-Garfield Habitat
for Humanity/homeownership
2 0 2
5.4.2/Convert existing housing to
affordability/homeownership
4 0 4
5.2.1/Inclusionary zoning /homeownership 4 0 25
5.2.5/Accessory apartments/rentals 0 4 0
5.5.1/Housing rehab program 0 6 0
5.2.4/Private development through revised
cluster zoning with additional subsidy to
increase affordability/ homeownership
15 4 40
Subtotal 60 14 106
Year 3 – 2013
5.3.1/Mixed-use development/rentals 4 0 16
5.4.2/Convert existing housing to
affordability/homeownership
4 0 4
5.3.4/City-owned property development
/Oak Street/rentals through “friendly”
40B
25 5 25
5.3.2/Infill housing/Habitat for Humanity/
homeownership
4 0 4
5.3.1/SRO housing/Valley CDC/rental 20 0 20
5.5.1/Housing rehab program 0 6 0
5.2.1/Private development through
inclusionary zoning with additional
subsidy through CPA/homeownership
10 3 30
Subtotal 67 14 99
Year 4 – 2014
5.3.4/Laurel Street/NHA/homeownership 12 0 12
5.3.1/Group home/special needs rental 4 0 4
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
130
5.4.2/Convert existing housing to
affordability/homeownership
4 0 4
5.2.5/Accessory apartments/rentals 0 4 0
5.3.1/Yvonne’s House #3/sober rental
housing
6 0 6
5.5.1/Housing rehab program 0 6 0
5.3.1/Bungalow or cottage-style housing/
homeownership through “friendly” 40B with
CPA funds to increase affordability
10 3 30
5.3.1/Artist live/work development/
ownership
10 3 25
5.3.1/Adaptive reuse/rental 20 2 20
Subtotal 66 18 101
Year 5 – 2015
5.3.1/Soldier On – Veteran Permanent
Housing – Leeds Campus/limited equity
cooperative units
60 0 60
5.4.2/Convert existing housing to
affordability/homeownership
4 0 4
5.2.5/Accessory apartments/rentals 0 4 0
5.5.1/Housing rehab program 0 6 0
Subtotal 64 10 64
Total 274 60 387
* The totals include market rate units in addition to the affordable and workforce units.
** Number refers to subsection of Section 5 of this Housing Plan on specific housing strategies.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
131
APPENDIX 1
Summary of Demographic and Housing Characteristics for
CDBG Eligible Census Blocks
The following table summarizes key demographic and housing data by those six (6) census blocks that
are determined by HUD to be “impacted”, as having more than half of their population at or below 80%
of area median income, and therefore eligible to receive CDBG funding. These areas have been housing
the largest concentrations of Northampton’s most vulnerable residents, those who are having the
greatest difficulty in finding safe, decent and affordable housing and are most vulnerable to
homelessness.
Demographic and Housing Characteristics for
CDBG Eligible Census Blocks, 2000
Source: Data for the above table is derived from the 2000 census; no sources of updated data by census block. * Not applicable
as 97.4% of population living in this block group resides at the Leeds Veterans Hospital. ** 87% of residents in area were Smith
College students, and the information included in most of the categories, except those related to age, reflect remaining 280
residents.
Characteristics 8216011 8216025 8217003 8219022 8219023 8219024 8220001
Demographic Characteristics
Total population 1,805 1,446 308 1,909 1,825 1,211 2,150
% less than 18 years 25.4% 21.4% 6.2% 8.8% 12.2% 9.6% 2.1%
% 18 and 19 years 2.8% 2.8% 1.0% 1.7% 1.2% 1.6% 38.1%
% 20 to 34 years 25.3% 16.7% 3.6% 45.0% 47.5% 45.2% 52.7%
% 35 to 44 years 16.5% 22.3% 14.6% 14.8% 17.3% 15.5% 2.8%
% 45 to 54 years 14.4% 15.0% 35.7% 12.5% 14.9% 12.8% 2.1%
% 55 to 64 years 6.2% 7.8% 11.4% 5.6% 7.6% 6.3% 0.9%
% 65 years or more 9.4% 14.4% 27.6% 10.6% 16.2% 9.8% 0.6%
Median age (years) 32.7 39.5 52.5 32.2 38.3 32.5 20.5
% non-family
households
46.6% 32.5% * 77.6% 72.3% 78.3% 67.5%
Average household
size (persons)
2.28 2.07 * 1.76 1.71 1.67 1.60
Median income $32,348 $30,526 * $31,667 $29,952 $26,902 $29,732
%individuals in poverty 23.4% 13.4% * 21.7% $13.2% 18.7% 16.6%
% earning less than
$25,000
41.5% 42.1% * 42.2% 38.7% 47.4% 39.5%
% earning more than
$100,000
9.5% 6.4% * 5.4% 4.5% 8.5% 14.0%
Housing Characteristics
Total housing units 864 714 5 1,120 1,111 735 178
% occupied housing 91.3% 96.7% * 93.2% 96.3% 95.2% 94.9%
% owner-occupied 31.9% 51.2% * 20.3% 26.0% 14.3% 8.3%
% renter-occupied 68.1% 48.8% * 79.7% 74.0% 85.7% 91.7%
% in single-family,
detached structures
22.0% 33.0% * 10.5% 15.0% 7.4% 20.0
Median sales price $143,500 $134,200 * $148,400 $129,600 $221,300 $144,200
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
132
A map of these census blocks is included on page 133, but in general the tracts lie in and near the
downtown area with the following somewhat irregular boundaries, as noted below, with an
accompanying summary of area demographic and housing data:
· Census Block #8216011
Location: In the north King Street area in and around Barrett Street and Damon Road, West of
King Street and east of Jackson Street.
Summary Description: This area has a significantly higher population of children, 25.4% as
opposed to 17% for Northampton as a whole, which is also much higher than a number of the
other census blocks. Conversely its proportion of seniors over 65 was relatively small, 9.4%
versus 13.8% for Northampton and even lower than the other blocks. Correlated to the higher
levels of children is a higher household size and lower median age. Median income is well below
the City’s as a whole, similar to the other census blocks, $32,348 versus $41,808. Particularly
noteworthy is the poverty level for this block – 23.4% as opposed to 9.8% for the City. Also
those earning less than $25,000 was 41.5%, further confirming the higher concentration of
lower income households. There were also more housing vacancies in this area and more than
two-thirds of the housing stock was renter-occupied, much higher than the 46.5% level for the
City. Only 22% of the units were single-family detached units, less than half the amount for the
City, confirming a higher housing density in this area.
· Census Block #8216025
Location: Bounded by Bridge Street to the north, North Elm to the east, and North Main to the
west in Florence.
Summary Description: This census block also had more children, 21.4% of the population as
opposed to 17% for the City, fewer young adults who represented 16.7% of all residents versus
24.4% for the City, but more middle-aged residents with 22.3% at 35 to 44 than Northampton as
a whole at 15.8%. The block had 13.4% living in poverty with 42.1% with incomes of less than
$25,000, clear signals of a lower income population. The balance of rental to owner-occupied
property was almost half and half, but the percentage of units in single-family dwellings was
only one-third, suggesting some owner-occupied multi-family properties and condos.
· Census Block #8217003
Location: Leeds Veterans Administration Hospital
Summary Description: This census block primarily involves residents at the Leeds Veterans
Hospital.
· Census Block #8219022
Location: Core of the downtown area west of Williams, above Main and Pleasant, and east of
King and Bedford Terrace.
Summary Description: Children comprised only 8.8% of all residents, but were 17% citywide.
Particularly noteworthy was that those 20 to 34 years of age represented 45% of the population,
substantially higher than the citywide level of 24.4%, suggesting that younger people were
attracted to the downtown, likely also including students. All Roads Lead Home, the Pioneer
Valley’s Plan to end homelessness, indicated that Northampton appeared to be a particular
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
133
draw for homeless youth.69 More than three-quarters of the households involved non-family
households, related to an average household size of only 1.76 persons. The median age was
relatively low at 32.2 years, also reflective of the predominance of young adults. Almost 80% of
the housing stock was renter-occupied with only 10.5% in single-family detached homes. Many
of the rental ads summarized in Section 3.2.4 were in fact in this area, targeted to students or
young professionals. Nevertheless, poverty was high, at 21.7%, as was the level of those earning
less than $25,000, at 42.2%.
· Census Block #8219023
Location: Lower part of the downtown with boundaries including Dike Road, East Street, Olive
Street, South Street, Old South Street, Conz Street, Hampton Avenue and Pleasant Street.
Summary Description: This area, also right in the downtown, shares a great deal of
characteristics with Block 8219022 above, although it has a higher level of children, 12.2%, and
much higher level of seniors, 16.2%, likely correlated to the amount of subsidized housing for
seniors in the area. It is therefore not surprising to see a higher median age of 38.3 years as
well. It also had a high level of those 21 to 34 (47.5%), higher percentage of non-family
households (72.3%), small average household size (1.71 persons), high level of rentals (74%),
and small level of single-family homes (15%). The poverty level was somewhat lower at 13.2%,
but still higher than the City as a whole. Households earning less than $25,000 were also higher
than the City’s at 38.7% versus 28.2%.
· Census Block #8219024
Location: North of South Street and south of Main, Green and the Mill River and the
area east of where Burts Pit Road begins on the former Northampton State Hospital site.
Summary Description: The profile of this census tract is also quite similar to that of
Block 8219022 given the distribution of ages, high level of non-family households, but it
had an even higher level of rental units, at 85.7%, and fewer single-family homes, only
7.4% of the housing stock. The median household income was the lowest among the
census blocks examined, $26,902, and those earning less than $25,000 was the highest
at 47.4%.
· Census Block #8220001
Location: Area west of State Street, Green Street and West Street, north of Mill River, East of
Kensington Avenue, and South of Elm Street, including the area bounded by Prospect Street and
Trumbull Road.
Summary Description: This census block primarily involves residents at Smith College, who
comprise 87% of all the residents in this block group. The remaining 280 residents tend to be
largely renters. There were only 20 owner-occupied housing units in the area.
There is clearly a great deal of variation among these census blocks as levels of children ranged
from 8.8% to 25.4% of all residents, average household size varied from 1.67 persons to 2.28,
those earning under $25,000 ranged from 26.6% to 47.4%, and the portion of the rental housing
stock was as low as 39.3% to almost 80%. Nevertheless, all of these areas, with the exception of
Block 8216022, included higher levels of rental units, and more non-family households and
69 “All Roads Lead Home: The Pioneer Valley’s Plan to End Homelessness”, supported by the cities of Holyoke,
Northampton and Springfield, MA, and funding from One Family, Inc. for the Pioneer Valley Committee to End
Homelessness (PVCEH), February 2008.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
134
lower income households. The census tracts were located in or near the downtown, where
there is greater housing density, more subsidized housing, and a greater concentration of
poverty.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
135
APPENDIX 2
Local and Regional Organizations/Resources
Northampton is fortunate to have a number of important resources including City government,
local non-profit organizations and regional entities that have made substantial contributions to
the promotion of affordable housing in Northampton including:
City Government
· Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO):
CEDO is responsible for developing and managing community and economic
development policies, plans, and programs. The mission of the department is to foster
economic vitality, equity and opportunity; enhance housing opportunities, affordability,
and fairness; and to build community, support public services, and improve public
infrastructure. CEDO responsibilities are as follows:
1. Administration of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program,
which provides funding for public services, housing, economic development,
and public infrastructure, programs as well as preparation of the 5-year
Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans.
2. Serves as the Lead Agent for the Three County Continuum of Care regional
collaboration and administers federal McKinney funding. Participated in the
creation of All Roads Lead Home, the region’s 10-year plan to end homelessness
and provides staff support to the Northampton Housing Partnership.
3. Administers Economic Development programs including workforce
development, business assistance and development, incentives, site selection,
brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, marketing,
commercial/industrial/mixed-use site development, and staff support to the
Redevelopment Authority.
Contact Info: City Hall, 210 Main Street, Northampton, MA 01060, 413-587-1286,
www.northamptonma.gov/cedo
· Office of Planning and Development (OPD):
OPD is responsible for strategic and long-range planning and provides permitting and
regulatory oversight of land use development in the City. OPD is responsible for the
following:
1. Comprehensive and strategic planning to guide growth and development,
conserve natural and built resources, provide for multi-modal transportation
and open space protection.
2. Development and implementation of comprehensive plans, study plans, the
Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space and
Recreation Plan. This includes plans and multi-purpose limited development
projects that include housing in a range of affordability.
3. Historic Preservation programs.
4. Staff support to the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation
Commission, Historic Commission, Central Business Architecture, Agricultural
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
136
Commission, and Community Preservation Committee, including writing and
implementing regulations and permits that encourage a range of affordable
housing types.
5. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and database development to support
planning information needs.
Contact Info: 210 Main Street; 413/587-1266
· Northampton Housing Partnership
The Northampton Housing Partnership (NHP) was established in 1991 to help articulate
the City’s housing needs and assist in the preservation and promotion of affordable
housing.70 The Housing Partnership is overseeing the preparation of this Housing Needs
Assessment and Strategic Housing Plan, and is thus continuing to pursue their mission to
identify the range of local housing needs and find solutions to address them. The
Partnership includes up to 15 members who are appointed by the Mayor, subject to
confirmation by the City Council.
Contact Info: CEDO. 210 Main Street; 413/587-1288
· Northampton Affordable Housing Trust
The Northampton Affordable Housing Trust was created in 1998 by local ordinance in
connection with the expiring use at Hampton Gardens (now Hathaway Farms) to
oversee public and private funds used to subsidize low- and moderate-income housing
units as they gradually transitioned to market rate. The Trust was created for the
following purposes:
1. For the acquisition, renovation, construction, financing or refinancing of real
property in Northampton for low- and moderate-income residents.
2. For rental subsidies and loans and/or guarantees to make housing more
affordable (first and/or last month’s rent, security deposits, mortgage
payments, utility or other expenses that threaten a household’s ability to
remain in their unit).
3. For temporary consulting services that allow the City to provide or preserve
affordable housing.
The Mayor is designated in the Ordinance as a member of the Trust and the remaining
four (4) Trustees are appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City
Council, and must include two (2) members of the Housing Partnership. Despite the
exhaustion of funds being directed to assisting Hathaway Farms families, the Fund itself
will continue to exist. Due to the generic nature of its statutory design, if new resources
are found, the Fund can continue to operate and assist new projects and efforts.
Contact Info: CEDO. 210 Main Street; 413/587-1288
70 The ordinance to establish the Housing Partnership was adopted on November, 21, 1991, and amended in 1996
with the following purpose: “To articulate the short- and long-term housing needs of the Northampton community, as
part of the larger region, and, with the support of City Government and the community, to advocate and accomplish
their resolution; to help educate the community about the full range of housing needs, actively encouraging citizens,
government, institutions, business and civic leaders, and the housing industry to participate in their solution; and to
assist in the preservation and development of the low- and moderate-income housing stock”.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
137
· Northampton Community Preservation Committee
In September of 2000, the Community Preservation Act (CPA) was enacted to provide
Massachusetts cities and towns with another tool to conserve open space, preserve historic
properties and provide affordable housing. This enabling statute established the authority for
municipalities in the Commonwealth to create a Community Preservation Fund derived from a
surcharge of up to 3% of the property tax with a corresponding state match of up to 100%
funded through new fees at the Registry of Deeds and Land Court. Once adopted the Act
requires at least 10% of the monies raised to be distributed to each of the three categories
(open space, historic preservation and affordable housing), allowing flexibility in distributing the
majority of the money to any of the three uses as determined by the community. The Act
further requires that a Community Preservation Committee of five to nine members be
established, representing various boards or committees in the community, to recommend to the
legislative body, in this case City Council, how to spend the Community Preservation Fund.
In November 2005, Northampton residents voted by ballot referendum to adopt the
Community Preservation Act. A Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was formed
in 2007. The CPC has nine (9) members including representatives of the Housing
Authority, Conservation Commission, Historical Commission, Planning Board, Recreation
Commission, appointments of both the Mayor and City Council, and two elected
representatives, each appointed for three-year terms. In its first year of operation (in
2007) the surcharge raised $702,467, which was matched 100% by the state. The state
match has been reduced since then, largely the result of the depressed housing market.
The fees from the Registry of Deeds are the main source of the state’s match. In FY09
Northampton is projected to raise $767,021 in its property tax surcharge and receive
$338,552 from the state, representing a 44.4% match.
Contact Info: OPD. 210 Main Street; 413/587-1263
· Three County Continuum of Care
The Three County Continuum of Care is designated as the regional entity to provide a
continuum of support from emergency shelters to transitional housing and ultimately to
permanent housing serving those exiting homelessness. The Continuum of Care is
staffed by Northampton’s Community and Economic Development Office and includes
representatives from all of the major housing service providers in the three-county area.
Over $1.3 million in HUD McKinney funding was provided to the Continuum in FY10 to
fund a wide range of programs and services.
Contact Info: CEDO. 210 Main Street; 413/587-1288
Local Agencies and Organizations
· Northampton Housing Authority
The Northampton Housing Authority (NHA) is a quasi-public agency that was established
in 1946 to produce housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income residents.
The NHA manages 618 units in 13 separate developments, including units for seniors,
families, and those with special needs. The Housing Authority also manages more than
300 rental subsidies/vouchers that enable those who are priced out of the housing
market to rent housing in privately-owned units, paying only a specified portion of their
income on housing costs. For more information on NHA, see Section 3.2.6.
Contact Info: 49 Old South Street; 413/584-4030
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
138
· Valley CDC
The Valley CDC is a non-profit organization that was established in 1988 by Casa Latina,
to address the growing shortage of affordable housing and the shrinkage of job numbers
in the Pioneer Valley. The CDC provides services to Easthampton, Amherst and Hadley,
in addition to Northampton. The goals of the organization are to develop and preserve
housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and families; to offer counseling
regarding homeownership and financial stability, including foreclosure prevention; and
to educate and support people seeking to start or sustain their own business.
Thus far the organization has developed more than 160 units of housing, including 93
completed rental units in Northampton, four (4) homeownership units. Ten (10)
Enhanced SRO units are in the process of development, and an existing 11-unit SRO will
be rehabilitated. For more information on these projects, see Section 3.2.6.
In regard to counseling services, the Valley CDC provides monthly homebuyer classes
that typically reach their 40-person capacity. Those who attend these classes come
largely from Hampshire County. Financial support for these classes comes from banks
and registration fees. The CDC has also been providing foreclosure prevention
counseling that has been supported by CPA funding as well as small grants from the
state’s Department of Banks and the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts
(CFWM). Of a total 211 persons who received counseling services from the CDC last
year, 101 were at risk of foreclosure with another 47 were first-time homebuyers.71 The
Homeownership Director noted that the CDC was able to effectively intervene and
resolve many of the problems related to potential foreclosure by pressing for
refinancing or loan modifications.
With support from Florence Savings Bank, they have been able to continue a small
financial literacy program, providing a couple of classes per year. Last year they had 26
participants, up from about half that amount the previous year. The organization has
also offered post-purchase counseling on a one-to-one basis. Many of the inquiries
involved needs related to home repairs and budgeting. The CDC typically refers
homeowners to state home improvement programs as the City’s housing rehab
program was discontinued this past year. The Council on Aging still offers an Elder
Home Repair Program to its clients.72
Contact Info: Valley CDC, 30 Market Street; 413/586-5855
Northampton Council on Aging, 413-587-1228
· Casa Latina
Casa Latina is an educational and cultural center that was established more than 38
years ago to represent, celebrate, and advocate for the Latino community. The
organization provides services throughout Hampshire County including information and
referrals to programs and services related to health care, housing, employment
opportunities, adult education, child care resources, legal services, transportation
resources, public assistance offices, food pantries, domestic violence support, and
71 Not all wanted to buy but were interested in credit counseling.
72 It should be noted that counseling services are also offered at Jessie’s House and Grace House to women with
children in the shelter system with typically devastated credit and limited job skills.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
139
immigration resources. They also train and support a network of community medical
interpreters who help local hospitals, clinics, and private practitioners provide culturally-
and linguistically-competent care to Spanish-speaking patients. A hallmark of their
services has been the empowerment of the local Latino community through group
facilitation and education that promotes positive social change. Casa Latina was
instrumental in founding the Valley CDC.
Contact Info: 140 Pine Street in Florence; 413/586-1569
· ServiceNet, Inc.
ServiceNet, Inc. is a private non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance the
quality of life for people in need, through the provision of effective and responsive
clinical, residential and rehabilitative services. They operate throughout the Pioneer
Valley, providing services that include outpatient behavioral health services; adolescent
support programs; an employee assistance program; early intervention for young
children; home health care; rehabilitation and residential programs for those with
mental health issues, developmental disabilities or head injuries; and shelter and
housing services for the homeless. They provide services in a number of housing
shelters and developments including the Florence Inn, Grove Street Inn, the Hampshire
Inter-Faith Cot Program, and the homeless drop-in center.
Contact Info: 129 King Street; 413/585-1300
· Soldier On
Soldier On is a non-profit organization that has been assisting homeless veterans since
1994, getting them off the streets into shelter and permanent housing, including a range
of services such as meals, health care, food and clothing, substance abuse aftercare and
mental health counseling. They operate an emergency shelter and transitional and
permanent housing for veterans who are transitioning from homelessness on the VA
campus in Leeds, They are also in the process of developing a limited equity housing
project, Leeds Veterans Village, modeled on their successful development in Pittsfield at
Berkshire Veterans Village.
Contact Info: 421 North Main Street in Leeds; 413/582-3059
· Community Action
Community Action is the region’s largest anti-poverty agency and social service
provider, serving 25,000 people each year in Franklin and Hampshire Counties and the
North Quabbin Region. The non-profit organization was founded in 1965 and has grown
throughout the years, now providing 40 programs and serving 30 separate locations.
These programs range from food pantries, to fuel assistance, child care, financial literacy
and first-time homebuyer courses, among many more. The organization also provides a
program to help owners weatherize their homes.
Contact Info: 56 Vernon Street; 413/582-4230
· Safe Passage, Inc.
Since 1977, Safe Passage has provided nonjudgmental support and services to survivors
of domestic violence. Services are free of charge, confidential and accessible to those
with disabilities. They are also available in English, Spanish and other languages. The
organization can house up to six (6) families at a time and besides transitional housing,
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
140
support services for women and their children including a hotline, individual counseling
and advocacy, and support groups.
Contact Info: 43 Center Street, Suite304; 413/586-1125
· Tenancy Preservation Project
The Tenancy Preservation Project connects supportive services to tenants with
behavioral problems that interfere with tenancy. Working in Housing Court, the project
provides tenants who are at risk of eviction with intensive case management and other
resources.
Contact Info: 99 Main Street, #103; 413/584-2003
Regional Agencies and Organizations
· HAPHousing (formerly known as HAP, Inc.)
HAPHousing has been providing a wide range of housing programs and services since
1973 to communities in Hampden and Hampshire Counties, referring to itself as the
“Regional Housing Partnership”. Key components of their work include the following:
o The Housing Consumer Education Center provides information about housing
services and offers counseling and workshops for tenants, homebuyers,
homeowners and rental property owners.
o The Residential Assistance to Families (RAFT) program offers short-term
financial help or other assistance to families who are homeless or seriously at-
risk of homelessness.
o The Western Massachusetts Foreclosure Prevention Center involves a
collaboration of 15 non-profit agencies including HAP in Hampden, Hampshire,
Franklin and Berkshire Counties, working together to help homeowners avoid
foreclosure.
o With a grant from HUD, HAP is working with the Mass Fair Housing Center on a
Fair Housing Initiatives Program to increase the understanding of fair housing
rights among members of protected classes and housing providers in Hampden
and Hampshire Counties.
o Rental assistance programs including Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and
other related programs that allow lower income households to rent decent
housing that they can afford in the private housing market.
o The operation of Prospect House, an emergency shelter for homeless families.
o The Safe Step Program provides transitional housing and supportive services to
victims of domestic violence.
o The Turning Point Program has nine (9) units of transitional housing for
pregnant and parenting teens.
o The management of more than 460 affordable apartments in Hampden and
Hampshire Counties.
o Housing improvement resources including the administration of the Get the
Lead Out Program, Home Modification Program (accessibility improvements for
the physically disabled), and post-purchase workshops in addition to the
homebuyer and foreclosure prevention counseling mentioned above.
o The Green Affordable Housing Initiative, funded by the Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative and the Home Depot Foundation, in partnership with
Rural Development, Inc. to promote and finance alternative energy technology
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
141
and “green building” techniques in affordable housing projects developed by
HAP or other non-profit organizations in western Massachusetts.
o Property management training for rental property owners.
o The development of 39 completed projects and a total of almost 900 units
including The Lorraine development as well as the Paradise Pond Apartments,
both in Northampton. They also manage units that have been developed by the
Valley CDC (see Section 3.2.6 for more details).
Contact Info: 20 Hampton Avenue, Suite 185 in Northampton; 413/584-8495 and 322
Main Street in Springfield; 413/233-1500
· Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity
Habitat for Humanity is an ecumenical, non-profit Christian ministry dedicated to
building simple, decent homes in partnership with families in need that has grown over
the past two decades into one of the largest private homebuilders in the world. The
organization has almost 1,600 U.S. affiliates and over 2,000 affiliates worldwide,
including one based in Northampton that serves communities in the Pioneer Valley.
Affiliates are operated by multi-denominational and multi-racial local leadership and
with community volunteers who construct or rehabilitate houses that are sold without
profit and interest to selected families in the area. Thus far the Pioneer Valley Habitat
has provided permanent housing to 24 families including the following homes in
Northampton:
o A duplex (2 condo units) on Pine Brook Curve in 1993
o A single-family home on Cahillane Terrace in 1999
o A duplex on Vernon and Forbes Avenue in 2000
o A duplex on Ryan Road in 2002
o Three (3) duplexes or six (6) units on Westhampton Road in 2005-2007
The organization is in the process of building five (5) single-family homes on Garfield
Avenue in Florence.
Contact Info: 140 Pine Street in Florence; 413/586-5430
· Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness (WMNEH)
WMNEH is a collaboration of multiple service providers and agencies as well as civic and
business leaders throughout Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin and Berkshire Counties, led
by a Leadership Council and funded by a $1.1 million grant from the Massachusetts
Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness (ICHH). The organization represents
a regional public health approach to ending homelessness for both individuals and
families that prioritizes prevention and the rapid response provision of permanent
housing with supportive services, including economic opportunity. The network seeks to
change the traditional response to homelessness by adopting a Housing First model (see
Section 3.3 for more details). This strategy introduces the meaningful assessment of the
needs of the homeless at key locations where those at risk of homelessness or the
homeless seek help, the coordination of appropriate services to meet their needs, and
the provision of housing. WMNEH is currently compiling a regional directory of all
homelessness-related resources in the region. It should be noted that Mayor Higgins has
been a Co-Chair of the Pioneer Valley’s 10-year Plan to End Homelessness, which has
helped guide WMNEH efforts.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
142
Contact Info: Pamela Schwartz, Director of Regional Coordination; 413/219-5658
· Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC)
PVPC is the regional planning agency for the 43 towns and cities in the Pioneer Valley
region. It provides a wide range of planning services to municipalities and sponsors
regional planning efforts on issues related to transportation, housing, economic
development, energy, and infrastructure. PVPC is also the fiscal agent for the Western
Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness (WMNEH), described above.
Contact Info: 60 Congress Street in Springfield; 413/781-6045
· Center for Human Development (CHD)
CHD provides a broad range of community-based human services dedicated to
promoting, enhancing and protecting the dignity and welfare of people in need. The
Center serves more than 6,000 individuals annually in Massachusetts and Connecticut,
specializing in community initiatives for preventing violence in schools and
neighborhoods and mediation and training to families, schools and community
organizations. CHD’s programs include clinical and outreach therapeutic services,
emergency and long-term foster care, shelter and supportive services to the homeless,
and community-based residential, supported housing, day treatment and vocational
programs. CHC also provides administrative services at Grace House.
Contact Info: 332 Birnie Avenue in Springfield; 413/733-6624
· Hampshire County Jail and House of Corrections/Reintegration
The Hampshire County Jail goes to unusual lengths to connect inmates released from jail
(including those with mental illness) to community-based services. Case managers
typically carry a caseload of 30 inmates, with whom they meet within the first 72 hours
following their intake, and meetings continue throughout an inmate’s incarceration to
help plan for any necessary treatment and for discharge. Obtaining housing is a key
issue for inmates’ successful reentry to the community.
Contact Info: 205 Rocky Hill Road, Northampton; 413/584-5911
· Mass Fair Housing Center
The Mass Fair Housing Center (MFHC) is a private, non-profit organization working to
eliminate illegal housing discrimination in Central and Western Massachusetts. The
organization provides education and community outreach on fair housing issues,
investigates fair housing complaints, and provides legal advice and representation to
victims of discrimination.
Contact Info: 57 Suffolk Street in Holyoke; 413/539-9796 ext. 101
· South Middlesex Opportunity Council (SMOC)
SMOC is a private, non-profit organization that serves as a community action agency as well as
regional housing agency, providing a wide range of programs and services for the greater Metro
West and Blackstone Valley areas with an office in Northampton. The corporation’s goal has
been to improve the quality of life for low-income people by working with the community to
affect social, individual and family change. Programs include day care and preschool education,
employment training and placement, housing, addiction, mental health, women’s protective
services, nutrition, energy and weatherization, legal services, services for the elderly, emergency
shelter, as well as community organizing around health care, housing, rising energy cost and
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
143
banking services. The organization also has a mobile resource team that assists homeless single
adults in becoming independent.
Contact Info: 16 Armory Street, Suite 4A; 413/587-0429
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
144
APPENDIX 3
Glossary of Housing Terms
40R/40S
State legislation that provides cash incentives to municipalities that adopt smart growth overlay districts
that also increase housing production, including affordable housing (see Appendix 4 for details).
Affordable Housing
A subjective term, but as used in this Plan, refers to housing available to a household earning no more
than 80% of area median income at a cost that is no more than 30% of total household income.
Area Median Income (AMI)
The estimated median income, adjusted for family size, by metropolitan area (or county in
nonmetropolitan areas) that is adjusted by HUD annually and used as the basis of eligibility for most
housing assistance programs. Sometimes referred to as “MFI” or median family income.
Chapter 40B
The state’s comprehensive permit law, enacted in 1969, established an affordable housing goal of 10%
for every community. In communities below the 10% goal, developers of low- and moderate-income
housing can seek an expedited local review under the comprehensive permit process and can request a
limited waiver of local zoning and other restrictions, which hamper construction of affordable housing.
Developers can appeal to the state if their application is denied or approved with conditions that render
it uneconomic, and the state can overturn the local decision if it finds it unreasonable in light of the
need for affordable housing.
Chapter 44B
The Community Preservation Act Enabling Legislation that allows communities, at local option, to
establish a Community Preservation Fund to preserve open space, historic resources and community
housing, by imposing a surcharge of up to 3% on local property taxes. The state provides matching
funds from its own Community Preservation Trust Fund, generated from an increase in certain Registry
of Deeds’ fees.
Cluster Development
A site planning technique that concentrates buildings in specific areas on the site to allow the remaining
land to be used for other uses, most typically open space preservation. Some provisions allow density
bonuses for certain conditions of development, including affordable housing.
Comprehensive Permit
Expedited permitting process for developers building affordable housing under Chapter 40B “anti-snob
zoning” law. A comprehensive permit, rather than multiple individual permits from various local boards,
is issued by the local zoning boards of appeals to qualifying developers (see Appendix 4 for details).
Conservation Development
A project that conserves open space, protects site features and provides flexibility in the siting of
structures, services and infrastructure.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
145
Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
DHCD is the state’s lead agency for housing and community development programs and policy. It
oversees state-funded public housing, administers rental assistance programs, provides funds for
municipal assistance, and funds a variety of programs to stimulate the development of affordable
housing.
Design Guidelines
A set of discretionary standards, including design and performance criteria, developed as a
public policy to guide the planning and land development.
Easements
The right to use property for specific purposes or to gain access to another property.
Energy Star
A voluntary labeling program of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US
Department of Energy that identifies energy efficient products.
Enhanced Single Room Occupancy (ESRO)
A single person room with a private bath and/or kitchen rather than shared facilities.
Expedited Permitting
The state’s Chapter 43D Program allows a community to gain state incentives for projects
meeting certain criteria and permitted within a 180-day regulatory process.
Fair Housing Act
Federal legislation, first enacted in 1968, that provides the Secretary of HUD with investigation and
enforcement responsibilities for fair housing practices. It prohibits discrimination in housing and lending
based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or familial status. There is also a
Massachusetts Fair Housing Act, which extends the prohibition against discrimination to sexual
orientation, marital status, ancestry, veteran status, children, and age. The state law also prohibits
discrimination against families receiving public assistance or rental subsidies, or because of any
requirement of these programs.
Form-based Zoning
Zoning regulations that define desired building and site characteristics but do not strictly
regulate the uses.
Green Building
A term used to describe buildings that have been designed or retrofitted to reduce energy consumption.
Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary zoning is a zoning ordinance or bylaw that requires a developer to include affordable
housing as part of a development or contribute to a fund for such housing.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
146
Infill Development
Infill development is the practice of building on vacant or undeveloped parcels in dense areas, especially
urban and inner suburban neighborhoods. Such development promotes compact development, which
in turn allows undeveloped land to remain open and green.
Jobs/Housing Balance
A measure of the harmony between available jobs and housing in a specific area.
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a voluntary standard for developing high
performance, sustainable buildings that significantly reduce energy consumption. There are various
standards, including silver, gold and platinum, which are awarded to particular properties through a
certification process.
Local Initiative Program (LIP)
LIP is a state program under which communities may use local resources and DHCD technical assistance
to develop affordable housing that is eligible for inclusion on the state Subsidized Housing Inventory
(SHI). LIP is not a financing program, but the DHCD technical assistance qualifies as a subsidy and
enables locally supported developments that do not require other financial subsidies to use the
comprehensive permit process. At least 25% of the units must be set-aside as affordable to households
earning less than 80% of area median income (see Appendix 4 for more details).
MassHousing (formerly the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, MHFA)
MassHousing is a quasi-public agency created in 1966 to help finance affordable housing programs.
MassHousing sells both tax-exempt and taxable bonds to finance its many single-family and multi-family
programs.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
The term, MSA, is also used for CMSAs (consolidated metropolitan statistical areas) and PMSAs (primary
metropolitan statistical areas) that are geographic units used for defining urban areas that are based
largely on commuting patterns. The federal Office of Management and Budget defines these areas for
statistical purposes only, but many federal agencies use them for programmatic purposes, including
allocating federal funds and determining program eligibility. HUD uses MSAs as its basis for setting
income guidelines and fair market rents.
Mixed-Income Housing Development
Mixed-income development includes housing for various income levels.
Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-use projects combine different types of development such as residential, commercial, office,
industrial and institutional into one project.
Overlay Zoning
A zoning district, applied over one or more other districts that contains additional provisions for special
features or conditions, such as historic buildings, affordable housing, or wetlands.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
147
Planned Development
A district or project designed to provide an alternative to the conventional suburban development
standards that promote a number of important public policy benefits, often including a variety of
housing, including affordable housing, and creative site design alternatives.
Public Housing Agency (PHA)
A public entity that operates housing programs: includes state housing agencies (including DHCD),
housing finance agencies and local housing authorities. This is a HUD definition that is used to describe
the entities that are permitted to receive funds or administer a wide range of HUD programs including
public housing and Section 8 rental assistance.
Regional Non-profit Housing Organizations
Regional non-profit housing organizations include nine private, non-profit housing agencies, which
administer the Section 8 Program on a statewide basis, under contract with DHCD. Each agency serves a
wide geographic region. Collectively, they cover the entire state and administer over 15,000 Section 8
vouchers. In addition to administering Section 8 subsidies, they administer state-funded rental
assistance (MRVP) in communities without participating local housing authorities. They also develop
affordable housing and run housing rehabilitation and weatherization programs, operate homeless
shelters, run homeless prevention and first-time homebuyer programs, and offer technical assistance
and training programs for communities. HAP, Inc. serves as Northampton’s regional non-profit housing
organization.
Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs)
These are public agencies that coordinate planning in each of thirteen regions of the state. They are
empowered to undertake studies of resources, problems, and needs of their districts. They provide
professional expertise to communities in areas such as master planning, affordable housing and open
space planning, and traffic impact studies. With the exception of the Cape Cod and Nantucket
Commissions, however, which are land use regulatory agencies as well as planning agencies, the RPAs
serve in an advisory capacity only. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission serves as Northampton’s
Regional Planning Agency.
Request for Proposals (RFP)
A process for soliciting applications for funding when funds are awarded competitively or soliciting
proposals from developers as an alternative to lowest-bidder competitive bidding.
Section 8
Refers to the major federal (HUD) program – actually a collection of programs – providing rental
assistance to low-income households to help them pay for housing. Participating tenants pay 30% of
their income (some pay more) for housing (rent and basic utilities) and the federal subsidy pays the
balance of the rent. The Program is now officially called the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
A single room occupancy (more commonly SRO, sometimes called single resident occupancy) is a
multiple tenant building that houses one or two people in individual rooms (sometimes two rooms, or
two rooms with a bathroom or half bathroom), or to the single room dwelling itself. SRO tenants
typically share bathrooms and /or kitchens, while some SRO rooms may include kitchenettes,
bathrooms, or half-baths. Although many are former hotels, SROs are primarily rented as permanent
residences.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
148
Smart Growth
The term used to refer to a rapidly growing and widespread movement that calls for a more
coordinated, environmentally sensitive approach to planning and development. A response to the
problems associated with unplanned, unlimited suburban development – or sprawl – smart growth
principles call for more efficient land use, compact development patterns, less dependence on the
automobile, a range of housing opportunities and choices, and improved jobs/housing balance.
Subsidy
Typically refers to financial assistance that fills the gap between the costs of any affordable housing
development and what the occupants can afford based on program eligibility requirements. Many
times multiple subsidies from various funding sources are required, often referred to as the “layering” of
subsidies, in order to make a project feasible. In the state’s Local Initiative Program (LIP), DHCD’s
technical assistance qualifies as a subsidy and enables locally supported developments that do not
require other financial subsidies to use the comprehensive permit process. Also, “internal subsidies”
refers to those developments that do not have an external source(s) of funding for affordable housing,
but use the value of the market units to “cross subsidize” the affordable ones.
Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI)
This is the official list of units, by municipality, that count toward a community’s 10% goal as prescribed
by Chapter 40B comprehensive permit law.
Sustainability
Development that includes a balanced set of integrated principles such as social equity, environmental
respect, and economic viability, which preserves a high quality of life for current occupants and future
generations.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
A program that coordinates the relocation of development from environmentally sensitive areas that
should be preserved as open space to areas that can accommodate higher densities.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Development that occurs within walking distance of public transportation, usually bus or trains, to
reduce the reliance on the automobile and typically accommodate mixed uses and higher densities.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
The primary federal agency for regulating housing, including fair housing and housing finance. It is also
the major federal funding source for affordable housing programs.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
149
APPENDIX 4
Summary of Housing Regulations and Resources
I. SUMMARY OF HOUSING REGULATIONS
A. Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit Law73
The Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law, Chapter 40B Sections 20-23 of the General Laws, was
enacted as Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 to encourage the construction of affordable housing
throughout the state, particularly outside of cities. Often referred to as the Anti-Snob Zoning Act, it
requires all communities to use a streamlined review process through the local Zoning Board of Appeals
for “comprehensive permits” submitted by developers for projects proposing zoning and other
regulatory waivers and incorporating affordable housing for at least 25% of the units. Only one
application is submitted to the ZBA instead of separate permit applications that are typically required by
a number of local departments as part of the normal development process. Here the ZBA takes the lead
and consults with the other relevant departments (e.g., building department, planning department,
highway department, fire department, sanitation department, etc.) on a single application. The
Conservation Commission retains jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act and Department of
Environmental Protection, the Building Inspector applies the state building code, and the Board of
Health enforces Title V.
For a development to qualify under Chapter 40B, it must meet all of the following requirements:
· Must be part of a “subsidized” development built by a public agency, non-profit organization, or
limited dividend corporation.
· At least 25% of the units in the development must be income restricted to households with
incomes at or below 80% of area median income and have rents or sales prices restricted to
affordable levels income levels defined each year by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
· Restrictions must run for minimum of 30 years or longer for new construction or for a minimum
of 15 years or longer for rehabilitation. Alternatively, the project can provide 20% of the units to
households below 50% of area median income. Now new homeownership must have deed
restrictions that extend in perpetuity.
· Development must be subject to a regulatory agreement and monitored by a public agency or
non-profit organization.
· Project sponsors must meet affirmative marketing requirements.
According to Chapter 40B regulations, the ZBA decision to deny or place conditions on a comprehensive
permit project cannot be appealed by the developer if any of the following conditions are met74:
· The community has met the statutory minimum by having at least 10% of its year-round housing
stock affordable as defined by Chapter 40B, at least 1.5% of the community’s land area includes
73 Because Northampton has more than 10% of its year-round housing stock approved as affordable by the state
under the Chapter 40B guidelines, it is not currently subject to overrides of local zoning. However, if when the 2010
census becomes available, the City’s percentage dips below 10% due to a loss of affordable units (expiring use
projects), these 40B regulations would come into effect.
74 Section 56.03 of the new Chapter 40B regulations.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
150
affordable housing as defined again by 40B, or annual affordable housing construction is on at
least 0.3% of the community’s land area.
· The community has made “recent progress” adding SHI eligible housing units during the prior 12
months equal at least to 2% of its year-round housing.
· The community has a one- or two-year exemption under Housing Production.
· The application is for a “large project” that equals at least 6% of all housing units in a community
with less than 2,500 housing units.
· A “related application” for the site was filed, pending or withdrawn within 12 months of the
application.
If a municipality does not meet any of the above thresholds, it is susceptible to appeals by
comprehensive permit applicants of the ZBA’s decision to the state’s Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).
This makes the Town susceptible to a state override of local zoning if a developer chooses to create
affordable housing through the Chapter 40B comprehensive permit process.75 Recently approved
regulations add a new requirement that ZBA’s provide early written notice (within 15 days of the
opening of the local hearing) to the application and to DHCD if they intend to deny or condition the
permit based on the grounds listed above that make the application appeal proof, providing
documentation for its position. Under these circumstances, municipalities can count projects with
approved comprehensive permits that are under legal approval, but not by the ZBA, at the time.
Applicants wishing to appeal the ZBA decision based on appeal-proof grounds must notify the ZBA and
DHCD in writing within 15 days of receipt of the ZBA notice. If the applicant appeals, DHCD will review
materials from the ZBA and applicant and issue a decision within 30days of receipt of the appeal (failure
to issue a decision is a construction approval of the ZBA’s position). Either the ZBA or application can
appeal DHCD’s decision by filing an interlocutory appeal with the Housing appeals Committee (HAC)
within 20 days of receiving DHCD’s decision. If a ZBA fails to follow this procedure, it waives its right to
deny a permit on these “appeal-proof” grounds.
Recent changes to Chapter 40B also address when a community can count a unit as eligible for inclusion
in the SHI including:
· 40R
Units receiving Plan Approval under 40R now count when the permit or approval is filed with
the municipal clerk provided that no appeals are filed by the board or when the last appeal is
fully resolved, similar to a Comprehensive Permit project.
· Certificate of Occupancy
Units added to the SHI on the basis of receiving building permits become temporarily ineligible if
the C of O is not issued with 18 months.
75 Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 established the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Law (Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40B) to facilitate the development of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households
(defined as any housing subsidized by the federal or state government under any program to assist in the
construction of low- or moderate-income housing for those earning less than 80% of median income) by permitting
the state to override local zoning and other restrictions in communities where less than 10% of the year-round
housing is subsidized for low- and moderate-income households.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
151
· Large Phased Projects
If the comprehensive permit approval or zoning approval allows a project to be built in phases
and each phase includes at least 150 units and average time between the start of each phase is
15 months or less, then the entire project remains eligible for the SHI as long as the phasing
schedule set forth in the permit approval continues to be met.
· Projects with Expired Use Restrictions
Units become ineligible for inclusion in the SHI upon expiration or termination of the initial use
restriction unless a subsequent use restriction is imposed.
· Biennial Municipal Reporting
Municipalities are responsible for providing the information on units that should be included in
the SHI through a statement certified by the chief executive officer.
Towns are allowed to set-aside up to 70% of the affordable units available in a 40B development for
those who have a connection to the community as defined within the parameters of fair housing laws
and Section III.C of the Comprehensive Permit Guidelines including residents, employees of the City of
Northampton (including the school district) or employees of businesses located in the city.
While there are ongoing discussions regarding how the state should count the affordable units for the
purpose of determining whether a community has met the 10% goal, in a rental project if the subsidy
applies to the entire project, all units are counted towards the state standard. For homeownership
projects, only the units made affordable to those households earning within 80% of median income can
be attributed to the affordable housing inventory.
There are up to three stages in the 40B process – the project eligibility stage, the application stage, and
at times the appeals stage. First, the applicant must apply for eligibility of a proposed 40B project/site
from a subsidizing agency. Under Chapter 40B, subsidized housing is not limited exclusively to housing
receiving direct public subsidies but also applies to privately-financed projects receiving technical
assistance from the State through its Local Initiative Program (LIP) or through MassHousing (Housing
Starts Program), Federal Home Loan Bank Board (New England Fund), MassDevelopment, and
Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund. The subsidizing agency then forwards the application to the
local City Council/Board of Selectmen for a 30-day comment period. The City Council/Board of
Selectmen solicits comments from Town officials and other boards and based on their review the
subsidizing agency typically issues a project eligibility letter. Alternatively, a developer may approach
the City Council/Board of Selectmen for their endorsement of the project, and they can make a joint
application to DHCD for certification under the Local Initiative Program (for more information see
description in Section I.E below).
Recent changes to 40B regulations expands the items a subsidizing agency must consider when
determining site eligibility including:
· Information provided by the municipality or other parties regarding municipal actions previously
taken to meet affordable housing needs, including inclusionary zoning, multi-family districts and
40R overlay zones.
· Whether the conceptual design is appropriate for the site including building massing,
topography, environmental resources, and integration into existing development patterns.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
152
· That the land valuation, as included in the pro forma, is consistent with DHCD guidelines
regarding cost examination and limitations on profits and distribution.
· Requires that LIP site approval applications be submitted by the municipality’s chief executive
officer.
· Specifies that members of local boards can attend the site visit conducted during DHCD’s 30-day
review period.
· Requires that the subsidizing agency provide a copy of its determination of eligibility to DHCD,
the chief executive officer of the municipality, the ZBA and the applicant.
If there are substantial changes to a project before the ZBA issues its decision, the subsidizing agency
can defer the re-determination of site/project eligibility until the ZBA issues its decision unless the chief
executive officer of the municipality or applicant request otherwise. New 40B regulations provide
greater detail on this re-determination process. Additionally, challenges to project eligibility
determinations can only be made on the grounds that there has been a substantial change to the
project that affects project eligibility requirements and leaves resolution of the challenge to the
subsidizing agency.
The next stage in the comprehensive permit process is the application phase including pre-hearing
activities such as adopting rules before the application is submitted, setting a reasonable filing fee,
providing for technical “peer review” fees, establishing a process for selecting technical consultants, and
setting forth minimum application submission requirements. Failure to open a public hearing within 30
days of filing an application can result in constructive approval. The public hearing is the most critical
part of the whole application process. Here is the chance for the Zoning Board of Appeals’ consultants
to analyze existing site conditions, advise the ZBA on the capacity of the site to handle the proposed
type of development, and to recommend alternative development designs. Here is where the ZBA gets
the advice of experts on unfamiliar matters – called peer review. Consistency of the project with local
needs is the central principal in the review process.
Another important component of the public hearing process is the project economic analysis that
determines whether conditions imposed and waivers denied would render the project “uneconomic”.
The burden of proof is on the applicant, who must prove that it is impossible to proceed and still realize
a reasonable return, which cannot be more than 20%. Another part of the public hearing process is the
engineering review. The ZBA directs its consultants to analyze the consistency of the project with local
bylaws and regulations and to examine the feasibility of alternative designs.
New Chapter 40B regulations now add a number of requirements related to the hearing process that
include:
· The hearing must be terminated within 180 days of the filing of a complete application unless
the applicant consents to extend.
· Allows communities already considering three (3) or more comprehensive permit applications
to stay a hearing on additional applications if the total units under consideration meet the
definition of a large project (larger of 300 units or 2% of housing in communities with 7,500
housing units as of the latest Census, 250 units in communities with 5,001 to 7,499 total units,
200 units in communities with 2,500 to 5,000 units, and 150 units or 10% of housing in
communities with less than 2,500 units).
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
153
· Local boards can adopt local rules for the conduct of their hearings, but they must obtain an
opinion from DHCD that there rules are consistent with Chapter 40B.
· Local boards cannot impose “unreasonable or unnecessary” time or cost burdens on an
applicant and bans requiring an applicant to pay legal fees for general representation of the
ZBA or other boards. The new requirements go into the basis of the fees in more detail, but as
a general rule the ZBA may not assess any fee greater than the amount that might be
appropriated from town or city funds to review a project of a similar type and scale.
· An applicant can appeal the selection of a consultant within 20 days of the selection on the
grounds that the consultant has a conflict of interest or lack minimum required qualifications.
· Specify and limit the circumstances under which ZBA’s can review pro formas.
· Zoning waivers are only required under “as of right” requirements, not from special permit
requirements.
· Forbids ZBA’s from imposing conditions that deviate from the project eligibility requirements or
that would require the project to provide more affordable units that the minimum threshold
required by DHCD guidelines.
· States that ZBA’s cannot delay or deny an application because a state or federal approval has
not been obtained.
· Adds new language regarding what constitutes an uneconomic condition including requiring
applicants to pay for off-site public infrastructure or improvements if they involve pre-existing
conditions, are not usually imposed on unsubsidized housing or are disproportionate to the
impacts of the proposed development or requiring a reduction in the number of units other
than on a basis of legitimate local concerns (health, safety, environment, design, etc.). Also
states that a condition shall not be considered uneconomic if it would remove or modify a
proposed nonresidential element of a project that is not allowed by right.
After the public hearing is closed, the ZBA must set-aside at least two sessions for deliberations within
40 days of the close of the hearing. These deliberations can result in either approval, approval with
conditions, or denial.
Subsidizing agencies are required to issue final project eligibility approvals following approval of the
comprehensive permit reconfirming project eligibility, including financial feasibility, and approving the
proposed use restriction and finding that the applicant has committed to complying with cost
examination requirements. New Chapter 40B regulations set forth the basic parameters for insuring that
profit limitations are enforced, while leaving the definition of “reasonable return” to the subsidizing
agency in accordance with DHCD guidelines. The applicant or subsequent developer must submit a
detailed financial statement, prepared by a certified public accountant, to the subsidizing agency in a
form and upon a schedule determined by the DHCD guidelines.
If the process heads into the third stage – the appeals process – the burden is on the ZBA to
demonstrate that the denial is consistent with local needs, meaning the public health and safety and
environmental concerns outweigh the regional need for housing. If a local ZBA denies the permit, a
state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) can overrule the local decision if less than 10% of the locality’s
year round housing stock has been subsidized for households earning less than 80% of median income,
if the locality cannot demonstrate health and safety reasons for the denial that cannot be mitigated, or
if the community has not met housing production goals based on an approved plan or other statutory
minima listed above. The HAC has upheld the developer in the vast majority of the cases, but in most
instances promotes negotiation and compromise between the developer and locality. In its 30-year
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
154
history, only a handful of denials have been upheld on appeal. The HAC cannot issue a permit, but may
only order the ZBA to issue one. Also, any aggrieved person, except the applicant, may appeal to the
Superior Court or Land Court, but even for abutters, establishing “standing” in court is an uphill battle.
Appeals from approvals are often filed to force a delay in commencing a project, but the appeal must
demonstrate “legal error” in the decision of the ZBA or HAC.
B. Housing Production Regulations
As part of the Chapter 40B comprehensive permit regulations, the Massachusetts Department of
Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is administering the Housing Production Program in
accordance with regulations that enable cities and towns to do the following:
· Prepare and adopt an Housing Production Plan that demonstrates production of an increase of
.05% over one year or 1.0% over two-years of its year-round housing stock eligible for inclusion
in the Subsidized Housing Inventory (61 units and 123 units, respectively, for Northampton until
the new census figures are available in 2011) for approval by DHCD.76
· Request certification of compliance with the plan by demonstrating production of at least the
number of units indicated above.
· Through local ZBA action, deny a comprehensive permit application during the period of
certified compliance, which is 12 months following submission of the production documentation
to DHCD, or 24 months if the 1.0% threshold is met.
For the plan to be acceptable to DHCD it must meet the following requirements:
· Include a comprehensive housing needs assessment to establish the context for municipal
action based on the most recent census data. The assessment must include a discussion of
municipal infrastructure include future planned improvements.
· Address a mix of housing consistent with identified needs and market conditions.
· Address the following strategies including -
o Identification of geographic areas in which land use regulations will be modified to
accomplish affordable housing production goals.
o Identification of specific sites on which comprehensive permit applications will be
encouraged.
o Preferable characteristics of residential development such as infill housing, clustered areas,
and compact development.
o Municipally owned parcels for which development proposals will be sought.
o Participation in regional collaborations addressing housing development.
Plans must be adopted by the City Council and Planning Board, and the term of an approved plan is five
(5) years.
C. Chapter 40R/40S
In 2004, the State Legislature approved a new zoning tool for communities in recognition that escalating
housing prices, now beyond the reach of increasing numbers of state residents, are causing graduates
from area institutions of higher learning to relocate to other areas of the country in search of greater
affordability. The Commonwealth Housing Task Force, in concert with other organizations and
institutions, developed a series of recommendations, most of which were enacted by the State
76 Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B, 760 CMR 31.07 (1)(i).
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
155
Legislature as Chapter 40R of the Massachusetts General Laws. The key components of these
regulations are that “the state provide financial and other incentives to local communities that pass
Smart Growth Overlay Zoning Districts that allow the building of single-family homes on smaller lots and
the construction of apartments for families at all income levels, and the state increase its commitment
to fund affordable housing for families of low and moderate income”.77
The statute defines 40R as “a principle of land development that emphasizes mixing land uses, increases
the availability of affordable housing by creating a range of housing opportunities in neighborhoods,
takes advantage of compact design, fosters distinctive and attractive communities, preserves opens
space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas, strengthens existing communities,
provides a variety of transportation choices, makes development decisions predictable, fair and cost
effective and encourages community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.”78 The
key components of 40R include:
· Allows local option to adopt Overlay Districts near transit, areas of concentrated development,
commercial districts, rural village districts, and other suitable locations;
· Allows “as-of-right” residential development of minimum allowable densities;
· Provides that 20% of the units be affordable;
· Promotes mixed-use and infill development;
· Provides two types of payments to municipalities; and
· Encourages open space and protects historic districts.
The incentives prescribed by the Task Force and passed by the Legislature include an incentive payment
upon the passage of the Overlay District based on the number of projected housing units as follows:
Incentive Payments
Incentive Units Payments
Up to 20 $10,000
21-100 $75,000
101-200 $200,000
210-500 $350,000
501 or more $600,000
There are also density bonus payments of $3,000 for each residential unit issued a building permit. To
be eligible for these incentives the Overlay Districts need to allow mixed-use development and densities
of 20 units per acre for apartment buildings, 12 units per acre for two and three-family homes, and at
least eight units per acre for single-family homes. Communities with populations of less than 10,000
residents are eligible for a waiver of these density requirements, however significant hardship must be
demonstrated. The Zoning Districts would also encourage housing development on vacant infill lots and
in underutilized nonresidential buildings. The Task Force emphasizes that Planning Boards, which would
enact the Zoning Districts, would be “able to ensure that what is built in the District is compatible with
and reflects the character of the immediate neighborhood.”79
77 Edward Carman, Barry Bluestone, and Eleanor White for The Commonwealth Housing Task Force, “A Housing
Strategy for Smart Growth and Economic Development: Executive Summary”, October 30, 2003, p. 3.
78 Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40R, Section 11.
79 “A Housing Strategy for Smart Growth and Economic Development: Executive Summary,” p. 4.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
156
The principal benefits of 40R include:
· Expands a community’s planning efforts;
· Allows communities to address housing needs;
· Allows communities to direct growth;
· Can help communities meet production goals and 10% threshold under Chapter 40B;
· Can help identify preferred locations for 40B developments; and
· State incentive payments.
The formal steps involved in creating Overlay Districts are as follows:
· The Town holds a public hearing as to whether to adopt an Overlay District per the
requirements of 40R;
· The Town applies to DHCD prior to adopting the new zoning;
· DHCD reviews the application and issues a Letter of Eligibility if the new zoning satisfies the
requirements of 40R;
· The Town adopts the new zoning through a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting subject to any
modifications required by DHCD;
· The Town submits evidence of approval to DHCD upon the adoption of the new zoning; and
· DHCD issues a letter of approval, which indicates the number of incentive units and the amount
of payment.
The state also enacted Chapter 40S under the Massachusetts General Law that provides additional
benefits through insurance to towns that build affordable housing under 40R that they would not be
saddled with the extra school costs caused by school-aged children who might move into this new
housing. This funding was initially included as part of 40R but was eliminated during the final stages of
approval. In effect, 40S is a complimentary insurance plan for communities concerned about the
impacts of a possible net increase in school costs due to new housing development.
D. Local Initiative Program (LIP) Guidelines
The Local Initiative Program (LIP) is a technical assistance subsidy program to facilitate Chapter
40B developments and locally produced affordable units. The general requirements of LIP
include insuring that projects are consistent with sustainable or smart growth development
principles as well as local housing needs. LIP recognizes that there is a critical need for all types
of housing but encourages family and special needs housing in particular. Age-restricted
housing (over 55) is allowed but the locality must demonstrate actual need and marketability.
DHCD has the discretion to withhold approval of age-restricted housing if other such housing
units within the community remain unbuilt or unsold or if the age-restricted units are
unresponsive to the need for family housing within the context of other recent local housing
efforts.
There are two types of LIP projects, those using the comprehensive permit process, the so-called
“friendly” 40B’s, and Local Action Units, units where affordability is a result of some local action
such as inclusionary zoning, Community Preservation funding, other regulatory requirements,
etc.
Specific LIP requirements include the following by category:
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
157
Income and Assets
· Must be affordable to those earning at or below 80% of area median income adjusted
by family size and annually by HUD. Applicants for affordable units must meet the
program income limits in effect at the time they apply for the unit and must continue to
meet income limits in effect when they actually purchase a unit.
· For homeownership units, the household may not have owned a home within the past
three years except for age-restricted “over 55” housing.
· For homeownership projects, assets may not be greater than $75,000 except for age-
restricted housing where the net equity from the ownership of a previous house cannot
be more than $200,000.
· Income and asset limits determine eligibility for lottery participation.
Allowable Sales Prices and Rents80
· Rents are calculated at what is affordable to a household earning 80% of area median
income adjusted for family size, assuming they pay no more than 30% of their income
on housing. Housing costs include rent and payments for heat, hot water, cooking fuel,
and electric. If there is no municipal trash collection a trash removal allowance should
be included. If utilities are separately metered and payed by the tenant, the LIP rent is
reduced based on the area’s utility allowance. Indicate on the DHCD application
whether the proposed rent has been determined with the use of utility allowances for
some or all utilities.
· Sales prices of LIP units are set so a household earning 70% of area median income
would have to pay no more than 30% of their income for housing. Housing costs include
mortgage principal and interest on a 30-year fixed term mortgage at 95% of purchase
price, property taxes, condo fees81, private mortgage insurance (if putting less than 20%
of purchase price down), and hazard insurance.
· The initial maximum sales price or rent is calculated as affordable to a household with a
number of household members equal to the number of bedrooms plus one (for example
a two-bedroom unit would be priced based on what a three-person household could
afford).
Allowable Financing and Costs
· Allowable development costs include the “as is” value of the property based on existing
zoning at the time of application for a project eligibility letter (initial application to
DHCD). Carrying costs (i.e., property taxes, property insurance, interest payments on
acquisitions financing, etc.) can be no more than 20% of the “as is” market value unless
the carrying period exceeds 24 months. Reasonable carrying costs must be verified by
the submission of documentation not within the exclusive control of the applicant.
· Appraisals are required except for small projects of 20 units or less at the request of the
City Council/Board of Selectmen where the applicant for the LIP comprehensive permit
submits satisfactory evidence of value.
80 DHCD has an electronic mechanism for calculating maximum sales prices on its website at www.mass.gov/dhcd.
81 DHCD will review condo fee estimates and approve a maximum condo fee as part of the calculation of maximum
sales price. The percentage interests assigned to the condo must conform to the approved condo fees and require a
lower percentage interest assigned to the affordable units as opposed to the market rate ones. DHCD must review
the Schedule of Beneficial Interests in the Master Deed to confirm that LIP units have been assigned percentage
interests that correspond to the condo fees.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
158
· Profits are limited to no more than 20% of total allowable development costs in
homeownership projects.
· In regard to rental developments, payment of fees and profits are limited to no more
than 10% of total development costs net of profits and fees and any working capital or
reserves intended for property operations. Beginning upon initial occupancy and then
proceeding on an annual basis, annual dividend distributions will be limited to no more
than 10% of the owner’s equity in the project. Owner’s equity is the difference between
the appraised as-built value and the sum of any public equity and secured debt on the
property.
· For LIP comprehensive permit projects, DHCD requires all developers to post a bond (or
a letter of credit) with the municipality to guarantee the developer’s obligations to
provide a satisfactory cost certification upon completion of construction and to have
any excess profits, beyond what is allowed, revert back to the municipality. The bond is
discharged after DHCD has determined that the developer has appropriately complied
with the profit limitations.
· No third party mortgages are allowed for homeownership units.
Marketing and Outreach (refer to state Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan guidelines
dated June 25, 2008.)
· Marketing and outreach, including lottery administration in adherence with all Fair
Housing laws.
· LIP requires that the lottery draw and rank households by size.
· If there are proportionately less minority applicants in the community preference pool
than the proportion in the region, a preliminary lottery must be held to boost, if
possible, the proportion of minority applicants to this regional level.
· A maximum of 70% of the units may be local preference units for those who have a
connection to the community as defined under state guidelines (Section C: Local
Preference section of the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan Guidelines (dated
June 25, 2008).
· The Marketing Plan must affirmatively provide outreach to area minority
communities to notify them about availability of the unit(s).
· Marketing materials must be available/application process open for a period of
at least 60 days.
· Marketing should begin about six (6) months before occupancy.
· Lottery must be held unless there are no more qualified applicants than units
available.
Regulatory Requirements
· The affordable units design, type, size, etc. must be the same as the market units and
dispersed throughout the development.
· Units developed through LIP as affordable must be undistinguishable from market units
as viewed from the exterior (unless the project has a DHCD-approved alternative
development plan that is only granted under exceptional circumstances) and contain
complete living facilities.
· For over 55 projects, only one household member must be 55 or older.
· Household size relationship to unit size is based on “households” = number of bedrooms
plus one – i.e., a four-person household in a three-bedroom unit (important also for
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
159
calculating purchase prices of the affordable units for which LIP has a formula as noted
above).
· Must have deed restrictions in effect in perpetuity unless the applicant or municipality
can justify a shorter term to DHCD.
· All affordable units for families must have at least two or more bedrooms and meet
state sanitary codes and these minimum requirements –
1 bedroom – 700 square feet/1 bath
2 bedrooms – 900 square feet/1 bath
3 bedrooms – 1,200 square feet/ 1 ½ baths
4 bedrooms – 1,400 square feet/2 baths
· Appraisals may take into account the probability of obtaining a variance, special permit
or other zoning relief but must exclude any value relating to the possible issuance of a
comprehensive permit.
The process that is required for using LIP for 40B developments – “friendly” comprehensive
permit projects – is largely developer driven. It is based on the understanding that the developer
and Town are working together on a project that meets community needs. Minimum
requirements include:
1. Written support of the municipality’s chief elected official, and the local housing
partnership, trust or other designated local housing entity. The chief executive officer is
in fact required to submit the application to DHCD.
2. At least 25% of the units must be affordable and occupied by households earning at or
below 80% of area median income or at least 20% of units restricted to households at or
below 50% of area median income.
3. Affordability restrictions must be in effect in perpetuity, to be monitored by DHCD
through a recorded regulatory agreement.
4. Project sponsors must prepare and execute an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan
that must be approved by DHCD.
5. Developer’s profits are restricted per Chapter 40B requirements.
The process that is required for using LIP for 40B developments – “friendly” comprehensive permit
projects – is as follows:
1. Application process
· Developer meets with Town
· Developer and Town agree to proposal
· Town chief elected officer submits application to DHCD with developer’s input
2. DHCD review involves the consideration of:
· Sustainable development criteria (redevelop first, concentrate development, be fair, restore and
enhance the environment, conserve natural resources, expand housing opportunities, provide
transportation choice, increase job opportunities, foster sustainable businesses, and plan
regionally),
· Number and type of units,
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
160
· Pricing of units to be affordable to households earning no more than 70% of area median
income,
· Affirmative marketing plan,
· Financing, and
· Site visit.
3. DHCD issues site eligibility letter that enables the developer to bring the proposal to the ZBA for
processing the comprehensive permit.
4. Zoning Board of Appeals holds hearing
· Developer and Town sign regulatory agreement to guarantee production of affordable units that
includes the price of units and deed restriction in the case of homeownership and limits on rent
increases if a rental project. The deed restriction limits the profit upon resale and requires that
the units be sold to another buyer meeting affordability criteria.
· Developer forms a limited dividend corporation that limits profits.
· The developer and Town sign a regulatory agreement.
5. Marketing
· An Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan must provide outreach to area minority
communities to notify them about availability of the unit(s).
· Local preference is limited to a maximum of 70% of the affordable units.
· Marketing materials must be available/application process open for a period of at least 60 days.
· Lottery must be held.
6. DHCD approval must include
· Marketing plan, lottery application, and lottery explanatory materials
· Regulatory agreement (DHCD is a signatory)
· Deed rider (Use standard LIP document)
· Purchase arrangements for each buyer including signed mortgage commitment, signed purchase
and sale agreement and contact information of purchaser’s closing attorney.
As mentioned above, in addition to being used for “friendly” 40B projects, LIP can be used for counting
those affordable units as part of a Town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory that are created as a result of
some local action. Following occupancy of the units, a Local Action Units application must be submitted
to DHCD for the units to be counted as affordable. This application is on DHCD’s web site.
The contact person at DHCD is Janice Lesniak of the LIP staff (phone: 617-573-1309; fax: 617-
573-1330; email: Janice.lesniak@state.ma.us. For resale questions contact Elsa Campbell,
Housing Specialist (phone: 617-573-1321; fax: 617-573-1330; email:
elsa.campbell@state.ma.us).
E. Commonwealth Capital82
The state established Commonwealth Capital as a policy that encourages communities to
implement smart growth by utilizing the smart growth consistency of municipal land use
82 This program was created by the Romney administration and coordinated by the Office of Commonwealth
Development. While OCD has been disbanded, applications are still being accepted
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
161
regulations as part of the evaluation of proposals for state funding under a number of state
capital spending programs. Those municipalities with higher scores, will be in a more
competitive position for receiving state discretionary funding, not just for housing, but for other
purposes including infrastructure, transportation, environment, economic development, etc.
The state’s goal is to invest in projects that are consistent with Sustainable Development
Principles that include:
1. Redevelop first;
2. Concentrate development;
3. Be fair;
4. Restore and enhance the environment;
5. Conserve natural resources;
6. Expand housing opportunities;
7. Provide transportation choice;
8. Increase job opportunities;
9. Foster sustainable businesses; and
10. Plan regionally.
Applications can be submitted at any time and will be valid for the programs listed above
throughout the current fiscal year. Communities should submit applications prior to the
deadline for any Commonwealth Capital program to which they are applying to ensure that their
score will count. Applications should be submitted electronically, and each community is
assigned its own login and password.
Programs which are affected by Commonwealth Capital include the following that are operated
by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance (EOAF), Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development
(EOHED), Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOTPW), Coastal Zone
Management (CZM), Massachusetts Office of Business Development (MOBD), Massachusetts
Office of Relocation and Expansion (MORE), and the Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD):
· Public Works Economic Development Program (EOTPW)
· Bike and Pedestrian Program (EOTPW)*
· Transit Oriented Development Bond Program (EOTPW)
· Community Development Action Grant Program (EOHED and DHCD)
· State Revolving Fund (EOEEA and DEP)
· Urban Brownfields Assessment Program (EOEEA)*
· Urban Self-Help Program (EOEEA and DCS)
· Drinking Water Supply Protection Grant Program (EOEEA)
· Urban River Visions Program (EOEEA)*
· Coastal Pollutant Remediation Grant Program (EOEEA and CZM)
· Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant Program (EOEEA and CZM)
· Off-Street Parking Program (EOAF)
· Smart Growth Technical Assistance Program (for this program EOEEA will use inverse
Commonwealth Capital scores. Unlike the other 13 programs, a primary goal of this
program is to help communities with low scores improve.)
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
162
* Indicates programs that are eliminated in proposed program changes.
Changes to Commonwealth Capital have added the following programs:
· Small Town Road Assistance Program (EOTPW)
· MA Opportunity Relocation and Expansion (MORE)
· Jobs Capital Program (MOBD)
· Water Transportation Capital Funding Program (EOTPW)
· Alternative Energy Property Program (EOEEA-DOER)
The application involves a maximum score of 140 points, including bonus points. The
Commonwealth Capital score will account for 30% of the possible application points for any of
the Commonwealth Capital programs, the other 70% points related to the purpose of the
particular program and the merits of the proposed project. Communities receive points for
zoning, planning, housing, environmental, energy, transportation, and other measures that
already exist as well as measures they commit to implement by the end of 2009 (for this year’s
application). Additionally, communities can receive bonus points for successfully implementing
commitments made in their 2008 applications.
The major components of the proposed Commonwealth Capital application and corresponding
total point allocations are provided below:
· Plan for and promote livable communities and plan regionally (19)
· Zone for and permit concentrated development and mixed use (26)
· Expand housing opportunities (21)
· Make efficient decisions and increase job and business opportunities (12)
· Protect land and ecosystems (21)
· Use natural resources wisely (7)
· Promote clean energy (9)
· Provide transportation choice (9)
· Advance equity (6)
· Promote sustainable development via other actions (10)
· Bonus points for every prior fiscal year commitment implemented
A greater number of points are granted for actions that are already in place but points are also
issued for commitments that have not yet been implemented. It should be noted that
Northampton has among the highest Commonwealth Capital scores in the state.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
163
II. SUMMARY OF HOUSING RESOURCES
Those programs that may be most appropriate to development activity in Northampton are described
below.83
A. Technical Assistance
1. Priority Development Fund84
A relatively new state-funded initiative, the Priority Development Fund, provides planning assistance to
municipalities for housing production. In June 2004, DHCD began making $3 million available through
this Fund on a first-come, first-served basis to encourage the new production of housing, especially
mixed-income rental housing. PDF assistance supports a broad range of activities to help communities
produce housing. Applications must demonstrate the community’s serious long-term commitment and
willingness to increase its housing supply in ways that are consistent with the Commonwealth’s
principles of sustainable development.
Eligible activities include community initiated activities and implementation activities associated with
the production of housing on specific sites. Community initiated activities include but are not limited to:
Zoning activities that support the program objectives include:
· Incentive zoning provisions to increase underlying housing density;
· Smart Growth Zoning Overlay Districts;
· Inter- and intra-municipal Transferable Development Rights proposals;
· Zoning that promotes compact housing and development such as by right multi-family housing,
accessory apartment units, clustered development, and inclusionary zoning;
· Zoning provisions authorizing live-and-work units, housing units for seasonal employees, mixed
assisted living facilities and the conversion of large single-family structures, vacant mills,
industrial buildings, commercial space, a school or other similar facilities, into multi-family
developments; and
· Other innovative zoning approaches developed by and for an individual community.
Education and outreach efforts that support the program objectives include:
· Establishment of a local or regional affordable housing trust;
· Development of a plan of action for housing activities that will be undertaken with Community
Preservation Act funds; and
· Efforts to build local support (grass-root education) necessary to achieve consensus or approval
of local zoning initiatives.
Implementation activities associated with the production of housing in site-specific areas include but
are not limited to:
· Identification of properties, site evaluation, land assembly and financial feasibility analysis; and
· Development of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the disposition of land.
83 Program information was gathered through agency brochures, agency program guidelines and application materials
as well as the following resources: Verrilli, Ann. Housing Guidebook for Massachusetts, Produced by the Citizen’s
Housing and Planning Association, June 1999.
84 Description taken from the state’s program description.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
164
The PDF assistance is not available to serve as a substitute for pre-development assessment of
alternative development scenarios for parcels already controlled by an identified private developer or to
supplant municipal funds to pay staff salaries.
Eligible applicants consist of cities and towns within the Commonwealth. Municipalities may enter into
third party agreements with consultants approved by DHCD, however only a municipality will be allowed
to enter into a contract with MassHousing regarding the distribution of funds. Municipalities will be
responsible for attesting that all funds have been expended for their intended purposes.
Joint applications involving two or more communities within a region or with similar housing challenges
are strongly encouraged as a way to leverage limited resources, however, one municipality will be
required to serve as the lead.
MassHousing and DHCD reserve the right to screen applications and to coordinate requests from
communities seeking similar services. For example, rural communities may be more effectively served
by an application for a shared consultant who can work with numerous towns to address zoning
challenges that enhance housing production. Likewise, it may be more effective to support an
application for a consultant to review model zoning bylaws or overlay districts with a number of
interested communities with follow-up at the community level to support grassroots education, than it
is to support the separate development of numerous zoning bylaws. Communities submitting multiple
applications must prioritize their applications.
In exchange for the assistance, municipalities must agree to share the end product of the funded
activities with DHCD and MassHousing and with other communities in the Commonwealth through
reports, meetings, workshops, and to highlight these activities in print, on the web or other media
outlets.
The agencies will focus the evaluation of applications to determine overall consistency with program
goals and the principles of sustainable development. Applications will be evaluated based on:
· Eligibility of activity;
· Public support;
· Demonstrated need for funds;
· Likelihood activity will result in production of housing;
· Reasonableness of the timeline;
· Readiness to proceed with proposed project;
· Capacity to undertake activity;
· Cost estimates and understanding of the proposed project cost;
· Proposed activity having clearly defined benefits that will result in the production of housing;
and
· Benefits being realized within a 2-3 year-timeframe.
Applications for funding will be accepted and evaluated on a rolling review basis. In order to deploy this
assistance as effectively and efficiently as possible, or in the event the planning funds are
oversubscribed, communities that have relatively greater planning capacity and/or resources may be
requested to provide some matching funds. Additional consideration and flexibility for the assistance
will be made for communities with little or no planning staff capacity or resources.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
165
Communities may apply to DHCD for assistance of up to $50,000. The amount of funds awarded will be
a reflection of the anticipated impact on housing production. DHCD and MassHousing reserve the right
to designate proposals as “Initiatives of Exceptional Merit,” in order to increase the amount of
assistance and scope of services for certain projects.
2. Peer to Peer Technical Assistance
This state program utilizes the expertise and experience of local officials from one community to provide
assistance to officials in another comparable community to share skills and knowledge on short-term
problem solving or technical assistance projects related to community development and capacity
building. Funding is provided through the Community Development Block Grant Program and is limited
to grants of no more than $1,000, providing up to 30 hours of technical assistance.
Applications are accepted on a continuous basis, but funding is limited. To apply, a municipality must
provide DHCD with a brief written description of the problem or issue, the technical assistance needed
and documentation of a vote of the City Council/Board of Selectmen or letter from the Mayor/Town
Administrator supporting the request for a peer. Communities may propose a local official from another
community to serve as the peer or ask DHCD for a referral. If DHCD approves the request and once the
peer is recruited, DHCD will enter into a contract for services with the municipality. When the work is
completed to the municipality’s satisfaction, the municipality must prepare a final report, submit it to
DHCD, and request reimbursement for the peer.
3. MHP Intensive Community Support Team
The Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund is a quasi-public agency that offers a wide range of
technical and financial resources to support affordable housing. The Intensive Community Support
Team provides sustained, in-depth assistance to support the development of affordable housing.
Focusing on housing production, the Team helps local advocates move a project from the conceptual
phase through construction, bringing expertise and shared lessons from other parts of the state. The
team can also provide guidance on project finance. Those communities, which are interested in this
initiative, should contact the MHP Fund directly for more information.
4. MHP Chapter 40B Technical Assistance Program
Working with DHCD, MHP launched this program in 1999 to provide technical assistance to those
communities needing assistance in reviewing comprehensive permit applications. The Program offers
up to $10,000 in third-party technical assistance to enable communities to hire consultants to help them
review Chapter 40B applications. Those communities that are interested in this initiative should contact
the MHP Fund directly for more information.
MHP recently announced new guidelines to help cities and towns review housing development
proposals under Chapter 40B including:
· State housing agencies will now appraise and establish the land value of 40B sites before issuing
project eligibility letters.
· State will put standards in place for determining when permit conditions make a 40B
development “uneconomic”.
· There will be set guidelines on determining related-party transactions, i.e., when a developer
may also have a role as contractor or realtor.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
166
· Advice on how to identify the most important issues early and communicate them to the
developer, how informal work sessions can be effective, and how to make decisions that are
unlikely to be overturned in court.
5. Smart Growth Technical Assistance Grants
The state recently announced the availability of Smart Growth Technical Assistance Grants from the
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs that provides up to $30,000 per community to implement
smart growth zoning changes and other activities that will improve sustainable development practices
and increase scores on the Commonwealth Capital application. Eligible activities include:
· Zoning changes that implement planning recommendations;
· Development of mixed-use zoning districts;
· Completion of Brownfields inventory or site planning;
· Implementation of stormwater BMPs;
· Completion of Open Space Residential Design bylaws/ordinances;
· Implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) bylaws/ordinances; and
· Development of a Right-to-Farm bylaw/ordinance or zoning protections for agricultural
preservation.
The state requires that localities provide a match of 15% of this special technical assistance fund and
encourages communities that are interested in the same issues to apply jointly. Preference will be given
to applications that improve sustainable development practices, realize a commitment from a
community’s Commonwealth Capital application, and implement a specific Community Development or
Master Plan action. Additional preference will be offered those communities with lower
Commonwealth Capital scores to support towns that have the greatest need for improved land use
practices. For FY 2006, applications were due in mid-August for projects that must be completed by
June 30, 2006, but no applications were required in FY 2006 if one had been submitted previously.
Nevertheless, communities are able to submit supplemental information that will likely help boost their
scores and competitiveness for state discretionary resources.
B. Housing Development
While comprehensive permits typically do not involve external public subsidies but use internal
subsidies by which the market units in fact subsidize the affordable ones, communities are finding that
they also require public subsidies to cover the costs of affordable or mixed-income residential
development and need to access a range of programs through the state and federal government and
other financial institutions to accomplish their objectives and meet affordable housing goals. Because
the costs of development are typically significantly higher than the rents or purchase prices that low-
and moderate-income tenants can afford, multiple layers of subsidies are often required to fill the gaps.
Sometimes even Chapter 40B developments are finding it useful to apply for external subsidies to
increase the numbers of affordable units, to target units to lower income or special needs populations,
or to fill gaps that market rates cannot fully cover.
The state requires applicants to submit a One Stop Application for most of its housing subsidy programs
in an effort to standardize the application process across agencies and programs. A Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) is issued by the state usually twice annually for its rental programs and
homeownership initiatives. Using the One Stop Application, applicants can apply to several programs
simultaneously to support the funding needs of a particular project.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
167
1. HOME Program
HUD created the HOME Program in 1990 to provide grants to states, larger cities and consortia of
smaller cities and towns to do the following:
· Produce rental housing;
· Provide rehabilitation loans and grants, including lead paint removal and accessibility
modifications, for rental and owner-occupied properties;
· Offer tenant-based rental assistance (two-year subsidies); and/or
· Assist first-time homeowners.
The HOME Program funding is targeted to homebuyers or homeowners earning no more than 80% of
median income and to rental units where at least 90% of the units must be affordable and occupied by
households earning no more than 60% of median income, the balance to those earning within 80% of
median. Moreover, for those rental projects with five or more units, at least 20% of the units must be
reserved for households earning less than 50% of median income. In addition to income guidelines, the
HOME Program specifies the need for deed restrictions, resale requirements, and maximum sales prices
or rentals.
The HOME Rental Program is targeted to the acquisition and rehabilitation of multi-family distressed
properties or new construction of multi-family rental housing from five to fifty units. Once again, the
maximum subsidy per project is $750,000 and the maximum subsidy per unit in localities that receive
HOME or CDBG funds directly from HUD is $50,000 (these communities should also include a
commitment of local funds in the project). Subsidies are in the form of deferred loans at 0% interest for
30 years. State HOME funding cannot be combined with another state subsidy program with several
exceptions including the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, HIF and the Soft Second Program.
Unlike most cities, Northampton does not receive an annual allocation of HOME funding and must apply
to the state for individual programs or projects.
2. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Northampton does receive an annual allocation of CDBG funding, approximately $750,000,85 that
provides substantial assistance for housing activities. While CDBG funding was used in the past to
support a housing rehab program, the City needs to locate a new rehab program administrator. Each
year, 10-20 public service programs are funded, in addition to the Valley CDC First Time Homebuyer
Program and the Council on Aging Home Repair Program. A portion of the City’s funding is currently
being used to retire debt service on the new Senior Center.
3. Housing Stabilization Fund (HSF)
The state’s Housing Stabilization Fund (HSF) was established in 1993 through a Housing Bond bill to
support housing rehabilitation through a variety of housing activities including homeownership (most of
this funding has been allocated for the MHP Soft Second Program) and rental project development. The
state subsequently issued additional bond bills to provide more funding. The HSF Rehabilitation
Initiative is targeted to households with incomes within 80% of median income, with resale or
subsequent tenancy for households within 100% of median income. The funds can be used for grants or
85 In FY10, Northampton received an allocation of $756,801 plus an additional one-time allocation of $201,513 in
stimulus funds.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
168
loans through state and local agencies, housing authorities and community development corporations
with the ability to subcontract to other entities. The funds have been used to match local HOME
program funding, to fund demolition, and to support the acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable
housing. In addition to a program directed to the rehabilitation of abandoned, distressed or foreclosed
properties, the HSF provides funds to municipalities for local revitalization programs directed to the
creation or preservation of rental projects. As with HOME, the maximum amount available per project
is $750,000 and the maximum per unit is $65,000 for communities that do not receive HOME or CDBG
funds directly from HUD, and $50,000 for those that do. Communities can apply for HSF funding
biannually through the One Stop Application.
4. Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program was created in 1986 by the Federal Government to offer
tax credits to investors in housing development projects that include some low-income units. The tax
credit program is often the centerpiece program in any affordable rental project because it brings in
valuable equity funds. Tax credits are either for 4% or 9% of the development or rehab costs for each
affordable unit for a ten-year period. The 4% credits have a present value of 30% of the development
costs, except for the costs of land, and the 9% credit have a present value equal to 70% of the costs of
developing the affordable units, with the exception of land. Both the 4% and 9% credits can be sold to
investors for close to their present values.
The Federal Government limits the 9% credits and consequently there is some competition for them,
nevertheless, most tax credit projects in Massachusetts are financed through the 9% credit. Private
investors, such as banks or corporations, purchase the tax credits for about 80 cents on the dollar, and
their money serves as equity in a project, reducing the amount of the debt service and consequently the
rents. The program mandates that at least 20% of the units must be made affordable to households
earning within 50% of median income or 40% of the units must be affordable to households earning up
to 60% of median income. Those projects that receive the 9% tax credits must produce much higher
percentages of affordable units.
The Massachusetts Legislature has enacted a comparable state tax credit program, modeled after the
federal tax credit program. The One Stop Application is also used to apply for this source of funding.
5. Affordable Housing Trust Fund
The Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) was established by an act of the State Legislature and is
codified under Chapter 121-D of the Massachusetts General Laws. The AHTF operates out of DHCD and
is administered by MassHousing with guidance provided by an Advisory Committee of housing
advocates. The purpose of the fund is to support the creation/preservation of housing that is affordable
to people with incomes that do not exceed 110% of the area median income. The AHTF can be used to
support the acquisition, development and/or preservation of affordable housing units. AHTF assistance
can include:
· Deferred payment loans, low/no-interest amortizing loans.
· Down payment and closing cost assistance for first-time homebuyers.
· Credit enhancements and mortgage insurance guarantees.
· Matching funds for municipalities that sponsor affordable housing projects.
· Matching funds for employer-based housing and capital grants for public housing.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
169
Funds can be used to build or renovate new affordable housing, preserve the affordability of subsidized
expiring use housing, and renovate public housing. While the fund has the flexibility of serving
households with incomes up to 110%, preferences for funding will be directed to projects involving the
production of new affordable units for families earning below 80% of median income. The program also
includes a set-aside for projects that serve homeless households or those earning below 30% of median
income. Once again, the One Stop Application is used to apply for funding, typically through the
availability of two funding rounds per year.
6. Housing Innovations Fund (HIF)
The state also administers the Housing Innovations Fund (HIF) that was created by a 1987 bond bill and
expanded under two subsequent bond bills to provide a 5% deferred loan to non-profit organizations for
no more than $500,000 per project or up to 30% of the costs associated with developing alternative
forms of housing including limited equity coops, mutual housing, single-room occupancy housing,
special needs housing, transitional housing, domestic violence shelters and congregate housing. At least
25% of the units must be reserved for households earning less than 80% of median income and another
25% for those earning within 50% of area median income. HIF can also be used with other state subsidy
programs including HOME, HSF and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The Community Economic
Development Assistance Corporation (CEDAC) administers this program. Applicants are required to
complete the One-Stop Application.
7. Federal Home Loan Bank Board’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
Another potential source of funding for both homeownership and rental projects is the Federal Home
Loan Bank Board’s Affordable Housing Program (AHP) that provides subsidies to projects targeted to
households earning between 50% and 80% of median income, with up to $300,000 available per project.
This funding is directed to filling existing financial gaps in low- and moderate-income affordable housing
projects. There are typically two competitive funding rounds per year for this program.
8. MHP Permanent Rental Financing Program
The state also provides several financing programs for rental projects through the Massachusetts
Housing Partnership Fund. The Permanent Rental Financing Program provides long-term, fixed-rate
permanent financing for rental projects of five or more units from $100,000 loans to amounts of $2
million. At least 20% of the units must be affordable to households earning less than 50% of median
income or at least 40% of the units must be affordable to households earning less than 60% of median
income or at least 50% of the units must be affordable to households earning less than 80% of median
income. MHP also administers the Permanent Plus Program targeted to multi-family housing or SRO
properties with five or more units where at least 20% of the units are affordable to households earning
less than 50% of median income. The program combines MHP’s permanent financing with a 0%
deferred loan of up to $40,000 per affordable unit up to a maximum of $500,000 per project. No other
subsidy funds are allowed in this program. The Bridge Financing Program offers bridge loans of up to
eight years ranging from $250,000 to $5 million to projects involving Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Applicants should contact MHP directly to obtain additional information on the program and how to
apply.
9. OneSource Program
The Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation (MHIC) is a private, non-profit corporation that
since 1991 has provided financing for affordable housing developments and equity for projects that
involve the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. MHIC raises money from area banks to
fund its loan pool and invest in the tax credits. In order to qualify for MHIC’s OneSource financing, the
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
170
project must include a significant number of affordable units, such that 20% to 25% of the units are
affordable to households earning within 80% of median income. Interest rates are typically one point
over prime and there is a 1% commitment fee. MHIC loans range from $250,000 to several million, with
a minimum project size of six units. Financing can be used for both rental and homeownership projects,
for rehab and new construction, also covering acquisition costs with quick turn-around times for
applications of less than a month (an appraisal is required). The MHIC and MHP work closely together to
coordinate MHIC’s construction financing with MHP’s permanent take-out through the OneSource
Program, making their forms compatible and utilizing the same attorneys to expedite and reduce costs
associated with producing affordable housing.
10. Section 8 Rental Assistance (Housing Choice Voucher Program)
An important low-income housing resource is the Section 8 Program that provides rental assistance to
help low- and moderate-income households pay their rent. In addition to the federal Section 8
Program, the state also provides rental subsidies through the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program as
well as three smaller programs directed to those with special needs. These rental subsidy programs are
administered by the state or through local housing authorities and regional non-profit housing
organizations. Rent subsidies take two basic forms – either granted directly to tenants or committed to
specific projects through special Project-based rental assistance. Most programs require households to
pay a minimum percentage of their adjusted income (typically 30%) for housing (rent and utilities) with
the government paying the difference between the household’s contribution and the actual rent.
11. Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund
The Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund (MPPF) is a state-funded 50% reimbursable matching
grant program that supports the preservation of properties, landscapes, and sites (cultural resources)
listed in the State Register of Historic Places. Applicants must be municipality or non-profit organization.
Funds can be available for pre-development including feasibility studies, historic structure reports and
certain archaeological investigations of up to $30,000. Funding can also be used for construction
activities including stabilization, protection, rehabilitation, and restoration or the acquisition of a state-
registered property that are imminently threatened with inappropriate alteration or destruction.
Funding for development and acquisition projects range from $7,500 to $100,000. Work completed
prior to the grant award, routine maintenance items, mechanical system upgrades, renovation of non-
historic spaces, moving an historic building, construction of additions or architectural/engineering fees
are not eligible for funding or use as the matching share. A unique feature of the program allows
applicants to request up to 75% of construction costs if there is a commitment to establish a historic
property maintenance fund by setting aside an additional 25% over their matching share in a restricted
endowment fund. A round of funding was recently held, but future rounds are not authorized at this
time.
12. District Improvement Financing Program (DIF)
The District Improvement Financing Program (DIF) is administered by the state’s Office of Business
Development to enable municipalities to finance public works and infrastructure by pledging future
incremental taxes resulting from growth within a designated area to service financing obligations. This
Program, in combination with others, can be helpful in developing or redeveloping target areas of a
community, including the promotion of mixed-uses and smart growth. Municipalities submit a standard
application and follow a prescribed application process directed by the Office of Business Development
in coordination with the Economic Assistance Coordinating Council.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
171
13. Urban Center Housing Tax Increment Financing Zone (UCH-TIF)
The Urban Center Housing Tax Increment Financing Zone Program (UCH-TIF) is a relatively new state
initiative designed to give cities and towns the ability to promote residential and commercial
development in commercial centers through tax increment financing that provides a real estate tax
exemption on all or part of the increased value (the “increment”) of the improved real estate. The
development must be primarily residential and this program can be combined with grants and loans
from other local, state and federal development programs. An important purpose of the program is to
increase the amount of affordable housing for households earning at or below 80% of area median
income and requires that 25% of new housing to be built in the zone be affordable, although the
Department of Housing and Community Development may approve a lesser percentage where
necessary to insure financial feasibility. In order to take advantage of the program, a municipality needs
to adopt a detailed UCH-TIF Plan and submit it to DHCD for approval.
14. Community Based Housing Program
The Community Based Housing Program provides loans to nonprofit agencies for the development or
redevelopment of integrated housing for people with disabilities in institutions or nursing facilities or at
risk of institutionalization. The Program provides permanent, deferred payment loans for a term of 30
years, and CBH funds may cover up to 50% of a CHA unit’s Total Development Costs up to a maximum of
$750,000 per project.
15. Neighborhood Rental Initiative Program (NRI)
The Massachusetts Housing Partnership has introduced the Neighborhood Rental Initiative Program
(NRI) to support the development of affordable rental housing in suburban and high-opportunity
communities. MHP has committed $5 million to the program in zero percent interest, second-mortgage
financing. The program is targeted towards 219 communities characterized by such factors as good
schools, proximity to jobs, higher housing costs and a shortage of affordable housing, including
Northampton. Applicants may request up to $75,000 per affordable unit, which for this program is
defined as units serving those earning at or below 50% of area median income for a maximum project
subsidy of $750,000. The minimum project size if five (5) units and 50% of the units must have two (2)
or more bedrooms. NRI second-mortgage financing must be used in combination with at least $250,000
in MHP first-mortgage financing.
C. Homebuyer Financing and Counseling
1. Soft Second Loan Program
The Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund, in coordination with the state’s Department of Housing
and Community Development, administers the Soft Second Loan Program to help first-time homebuyers
purchase a home. The Program began in 1991 to help families earning up to 80% of median income
qualify for a mortgage through a graduated-payment second mortgage and down payment assistance.
Just recently the state announced that it had lent $1 billion in these affordable mortgages. Participating
lenders originate the mortgages which are actually split in two with a conventional first mortgage based
on 77% of the purchase price, the soft second mortgage for typically about 20% of the purchase price (or
$20,000 if greater) and a requirement from the buyer of at least a 3% down payment. Borrowers do not
need to purchase private mortgage insurance that would typically be required with such a low down
payment, thus saving the buyer significant sums on a monthly basis. Program participants pay interest
only on the soft second mortgage for the first ten years and some eligible buyers may qualify for an
interest subsidy on the second mortgage as well. Additionally, some participating lenders and
communities offer grants to support closing costs and down payments and slightly reduced interest
rates on the first mortgage. Northampton is already a participating community in the Program.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
172
2. MassHousing Mortgages
MassHousing has mortgage financing available with low or no down payment requirements as well as 30
to 40-year fixed rates for qualifying low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers as well as those
looking to move up or refinance. The income limit is $90,720 for those purchasing in Hampshire County.
Borrowers apply for the mortgages through participating lenders. The program builds in mortgage
insurance to help pay the mortgage in case of job loss.
3. American Dream Downpayment Assistance Program
The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Program is also awarded to municipalities or non-profit
organizations on a competitive basis to help first-time homebuyers with down payments and closing
costs. While the income requirements are the same as for the Soft Second Program, the purchase price
levels are higher based on the FHA mortgage limits. Deferred loans for the down payment and closing
costs of up to 5% of the purchase price to a maximum of $10,000 can be made at no interest and with a
five-year term, to be forgiven after five years. Another loan can be made through the program to cover
deleading in addition to the down payment and closing costs, but with a ten-year term instead, with at
least 2.5% of the purchase price covering the down payment.
4 Homebuyer Counseling
There are a number of programs, including the Soft Second Loan Program and MassHousing’s Home
Improvement Loan Program, as well as Chapter 40B homeownership projects, that require purchasers to
attend homebuyer workshops sponsored by organizations that are approved by the state, Citizens
Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) and/or HUD as a condition of occupancy. These sessions
provide first-time homebuyers with a wide range of important information on homeownership finance
and requirements. The organization that offers these workshops in closest proximity to Northampton
include the Valley CDC and HAP, Inc.
5. Self-Help Housing.
Self-Help programs involve sweat-equity by the homebuyer and volunteer labor of others to reduce
construction costs. Some communities have donated building lots to Habitat for Humanity to construct
affordable single housing units. Under the Habitat for Humanity program, homebuyers contribute
between 300 and 500 hours of sweat equity while working with volunteers from the community to
construct the home. The homeowner finances the home with a 20-year loan at 0% interest. As funds are
paid back to Habitat for Humanity, they are used to fund future projects.
D. Home Improvement Financing
1. MassHousing Home Improvement Loan Program (HLP)
The MHFA Home Improvement Loan Program (HILP) is targeted to one- to four-unit, owner-occupied
properties, including condominiums, with a minimum loan amount of $7,500and at least a 3% down
payment. Loan terms range from five to 20 years based on the amount of the loan and the borrower’s
income and debt. MassHousing services the loans. Income limits are $82,000 for households of one or
two persons and $94,300 for families of three or more persons. To apply for a loan, applicants must
contact a participating lender.
2. Get the Lead Out Program
MassHousing’s Get the Lead Out Program has been offering financing for lead paint removal on
excellent terms. Based on uncertain future legislative appropriations, some changes in program
requirements were made to insure that eligible homeowners with lead poisoned children would have
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
173
funding available for a longer period. All income eligible families who are under court order to delead or
who have a child under case management with the Commonwealth’s Lead Paint Prevention Program,
will continue to receive 0% deferred loans. Owners wanting to delead their homes for preventive
purposes must qualify for an amortizing loan with a 3% interest rate if earning within 80% of area
median income, 5% interest if earning over 80% AMI and up to the program maximum. Applicants must
contact a local rehabilitation agency to apply for the loan.
3. Septic Repair Program
Through a partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Revenue,
MassHousing offers loans to repair or replace failed or inadequate septic systems for qualifying
applicants. The interest rates vary according to the borrower’s income with 0% loans available to one
and two-person households earning up to $23,000 and three or more person households earning up to
$26,000 annually. There are 3% loans available for those one or two person households earning up to
$46,000 and three or more persons earning up to $52,000. Additionally, one to four-family dwellings
and condominiums are eligible for loan amounts of up to $25,000 and can be repaid in as little as three
years or over a longer period of up to 20 years. To apply for a loan, applicants must contact a
participating lender.
E. Homelessness Prevention and Assistance Programs
Homelessness prevention has been identified as a priority housing need in the Housing Needs
Assessment. Programs to prevent homeless include but are not limited to the following:
1. Rental Assistance to Families (RAFT)
The Residential Assistance to Families (RAFT) program, funded by DHCD, offers short-term
financial help or other assistance to families who are homeless or seriously at-risk of
homelessness. Families can get up to $3,000 for such items as rent, mortgage payments,
security deposits, utility start-up costs, first/last month’s rent, moving expenses, etc.
2. Tenancy Preservation Program (TPP)
The Tenancy Preservation Program (TPP) is administered by MassHousing to prevent homelessness
among persons with disabilities. The Program acts as a neutral party between the landlord and tenant,
also providing clinical consultation services to the Housing Court. TPP clinicians assess the reasons for
the eviction, identify needed services, develop a treatment plan to maintain tenancy, and monitor the
case. If the tenancy cannot be preserved, TPP coordinates the tenant’s transition to a more appropriate
placement, preventing homelessness to the greatest extent possible.
3. Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP)
The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) was enacted by the federal
government as part of the Recovery Act to help persons affected by the current economic crisis to
provide homelessness prevention assistance to households who would likely otherwise become
homeless and to rapidly re-house persons who are homeless. HUD allows grantees to develop
prevention and/or rapid re-housing programs that meet locally-defined needs, to be targeted and
prioritized to serve those most in need. This program is not a mortgage assistance program but meant
to provide temporary assistance for such items as utility costs, moving costs, security deposits and rent
in a new unit, storage fees, and other financing costs or services.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
174
4. HUD Homeless Assistance Grants/McKinney-Vento Appropriations
HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants, funded through McKinney-Vento appropriations, support a variety
of programs and activities, largely distributed through the Continuum of Care system across the country.
The City of Northampton has served as the lead agent for the Three County Continuum of Care since it
was created in 1997. Homeless providers work together to identify their needs and rank projects that
they want to fund. HUD then ranks the applications and makes funding decisions. Funds can be used
for permanent and supportive housing, transitional housing, and services. Northampton, on behalf of
Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden Counties (except the City of Springfield) has successfully applied for
and received at least one million and three hundred thousand dollars each year since 1997. There are
10-15 projects funded annually.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
175
APPENDIX 5
Future Land Use Map
The following map, prepared by the City’s Office of Planning and Development in 2007,
provides direction for “smart growth” future development patterns. For example, it
identifies areas in Northampton where future development should be more
concentrated, including the downtown, village areas and along commercial nodes, as
opposed to sections of the city that are permanently protected or should be conserved
as open space. The map further provides the locations of specific types of land uses
including residential or traditional neighborhood areas; mixed-use areas; and areas
zoned for business, industrial, and institutional uses and even combined live-work units.
The map, included in the City’s Sustainable Northampton Plan, provides the main
framework for implementing the following land use objectives:
1. Ask for creative designs and cluster developments that allow higher density to
improve the yield of housing in the downtown and village centers.
2. Encourage mixed-use development in both residential and commercial areas
such as Florence Center, the Village of Leeds, Bay State, Hospital Hill and
satellite commercial areas.
3. Before developing rural areas, and after allowing for green space within densely
developed areas, encourage infill development of vacant and underutilized land
in around the downtown and in existing denser developed areas.
4. Match the pace of new housing development with the growth in capacities of
public infrastructure, public safety, public health, and social services.
5. Locate housing within walking distances along safe paths, or with bicycle access,
to and from neighborhood commercial areas, parks and recreation, schools, and
public transportation.
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
176
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
177
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
178
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
179
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
180
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
181
APPENDIX 7
Acknowledgements
The Northampton Housing Partnership and Consultant wish to acknowledge the help of
particular individuals who provided important input into this project including the following:
Jon Hite, Executive Director of the Northampton Housing Authority
Michael Owens, Assistant Director of the Northampton Housing Authority
Joanne Campbell, Executive Director of the Valley CDC
Patrick McCarthy, Project Director, Housing Development for the Valley CDC
Michele Morris, Homeownership Director for the Valley CDC
Patrick Goggins and Rosie Quinn, Goggins Real Estate
Joan Sarafin, Northampton City Assessor
Anthony Patillo, Northampton Building Commissioner
Maura Manizak, Hampshire Property Management Group
Le-Ann Conner, The Taylor Agency
Steve Slezek, Robinson Realty
Carolyn Misch, Northampton Office of Planning and Development
Most photos courtesy of Dietz & Company Architects, Inc.
Another special thanks to those who attended the Northampton Housing Partnership’s meeting
on June 23, 2009 and community meetings on November 21 and 23, 2009, to provide input into
the Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Plan including the following:
Fran Volkmann/ Community Preservation Committee
Joanne Campbell/Valley Community Development Corporation
Don Perry/ SRO Outreach Coordinator
Danielle DeBerry/ ServiceNet, Inc. Program Director, Grove Street Inn
Rachel Taylor-Doward/ ServiceNet, Inc. Drop-In Center Coordinator
Tammi Butler/ Community Action
Eneida Garcia/ Casa Latina
Emma Febo/ Casa Latina
Bill Winslow/ South Middlesex Opportunity Council
Yvonne Freccero/ Friends of the Homeless
LaWanza Brewington/ Safe Passage
Jane Banks/ Center for Human Development
Margie Westwell/ Hampshire County House of Corrections/ Re-Integration Mgr.
Jim Ayers/ Center for New Americans
David Modzewelski/ Department of Mental Health
Michele Dihlmann/ Northampton Council on Aging
Jamie Williamson/ Mass. Fair Housing Center
Steve Como/ Soldier On
Pat Byrnes/ Mass. Non-Profit Housing Association
Tom Kegleman/ TCB, Home City Housing
Danielle Kelly/ POAH/ Meadowbrook Property Manager
Marcia Crutchfield/ HAP- Housing Consumer Education Center
Bob Carroll/ Veteran’s Administration Outreach
Northampton Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategic Housing Plan
182
Toni Hochstadt/ Aids Care of Hampshire County
Sue White/ Veteran’s Administration VASH Coordinator
Nate Best/ Northampton CDBG Administrator
Michael Tremblay/ ServiceNet, Inc. Drop-In Center
Jim Seney/ Veteran’s Administration
Lachlan Ziegler/ Interested Citizen
Peter McLean/ Zoning Revisions Sub-Committee
MJ Adams/ Pioneer Valley Habitat for Humanity
Daryl LaFleur/ Interested Citizen
Joseph Keefe/ Interested Citizen
Conrad Nool/ Interested Citizen
Roger Clark/ Interested Citizen
Babs Mayer/ Safe Passage
Kitty Callaghan/ Western Massachusetts Legal Services
Michael Owens/ Northampton Housing Authority
Peter Frothingham/ Local Architect
Jennica Huff/ Valley Community Development Corporation
Barry Roth/ Interested Citizen
Joel Russell/ Northampton Design Forum
Deb Jacobs/ Interested Citizen
Tom Weiner/ Zoning Revisions Sub-Committee
Joe Hennefield/ ServiceNet, Inc.
Mary Ford/ Former Mayor of Northampton
Pamela Schwartz/ Regional Coordinator, Network to End Homelessness
(City Councilor)
Special thanks to the Northampton Community Preservation Committee for funding to prepare
this Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Housing Plan.