Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs - Building Homes and Strengthening Communities
Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  
Cate Tracz

Posts: 35

Comments and input are requested on the following proposed change:

Exclusions to the Integrated Housing Rule

TDHCA is proposing to modify the list of types of developments that are excluded from the Rule and would like input on these changes. Exclusions, now reflected in the Applicability section, are suggested to be changed as follows:

  • Elderly Developments. The newest regulations and interpretations relating to Elderly properties are now formalized in the Department’s multifamily rules in 10 TAC §10.3 (46). Elderly properties are classified as either Elderly Preference or Elderly Limitation. Elderly properties should no longer need an exception as occupancy is not restricted, merely restrictions and set-asides. However, the Department is aware of the concerns voiced by some multifamily program participants regarding the implications on Section 811 participation based on the removal of the elderly exclusion.  Rather than make unique program exceptions within the IHR, staff suggests that the appropriate avenue to address the concerns is within the Section 811 Program Rule. Therefore, staff will also be proposing revisions to 10 TAC Section 8.3, the section of the rule that governs Section 811 development participation to address those concerns. That rule will be proposed for draft  revisions in conjunction with the IHR draft.
  • Special Needs Developments. At the time the rule was originally created, the concept of special needs populations was conflated with Persons with Disabilities and therefore an exception was put in place. Equating the two is not appropriate and implies that a special needs population should be able to have greater concentrations of persons with disabilities within their set-asides (as an example, the implication is that a property serving colonia residents or farmworkers should be able to exceed the integration rule caps). While the definition for Special Needs varies by program, the use of special needs set-asides on a property should not preclude that property from still needing to ensure it is not creating an over-concentration of specifically disabled units in its restrictions. As with the above, occupancy is not restricted, merely restrictions and set-asides.
  • Scattered Site Developments. At the time the rule was originally drafted scattered site properties were typically single-unit homes operated as rental properties and scattered within a community. However, the scattered site developments are no longer defined separately in 10 TAC §10.3 and are included within the definition of a Development, noting only that a development includes “a project consisting of multiple buildings that are located on scattered sites and contain only rent restricted units.” Because scattered site development applications are often now comprised of whole buildings that are scattered, an exception is no longer appropriate. A building with multiple units should still comply with the integration standard.
  • Chronically Homeless. The proposed Rule suggests adding an exclusion so that supportive housing developments that assist Chronically Homeless individuals are not limited to this cap.

Do you have any comments regarding these proposed changes?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.