The April 2008 issue of Research Works, published by HUD, highlights a study HUD’s Office of Policy and Development commissioned to determine whether subdivision regulations that dictate infrastructure and site requirements pose unnecessary barriers to affordable housing. The Research Center of National Association of Home Builders conducted the study, collecting data on some of what they considered to be the economically influential subdivision regulations and zoning rules for 469 municipal and county level planning jurisdictions across the country. Benchmarks were developed by a team consisting of residential land developers, architects, civil engineers and land planners, who developed what they believed to be national minimum standards necessary for healthy, sustainable communities. The study then measured lot size, floor space requirements, lot width, roadway width, sidewalk requirements, and curb and gutter drainage against these benchmarks. According to the summary, “subdivision requirements that went beyond the benchmarks were termed excessive and defined as regulatory barriers.”
Not surprising, 91% of communities studies had one or more regulatory standards that exceeded the benchmarks, with a reported additional cost of compliance of $11,910 per dwelling unit. Over the course of the study year, it was reported that cumulatively, this amounted to roughly $14.6 billion. The study concluded that excessive subdivision requirements limit affordable housing by increasing development costs, and called upon local governments to reduce regulatory barriers by balancing affordable housing goals with other community amenities. The study recommended that HUD focus efforts on addressing what was found to be the largest contributors to excessive subdivision requirements – lot size, lot width and floor area.
Note: Of course, readers are cautioned to consider the reasons why municipalities choose certain subdivision requirements, and that much has to do with, among other things, community character, environmental protection goals, public health and safety concerns, and community demographics. While communities should always keep affordability in mind, other considerations are appropriate to balance when developing the final regulations. Although this report calls for such a balancing, it is understandably focused on monetary costs. It should not be read to suggest that all subdivision regulations must require high density, compact subdivisions. Where appropriate, however, such considerations might offer more affordable housing options. Consider that market price has an equal, if not greater influence on the cost of single family dwellings than do subdivisions regulations, absent local regulations that specifically limit housing costs.
The report may be accessed at: http://www.huduser.org/rbc/rbcNews/subdvsn_req.html
Information about HUD’s Affordable Communities Initiative can be found at: http://www.hud.gov/initiatives/affordablecom.cfm
Categories:
