Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2017-10-191 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 19, 2017 MEETING Committee Members Present: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary. Town-Related Staff/Board Members/Others Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Board Member; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk. Guest: Megan McDonald, Tompkins County Associate Planner. Members of the Public Present: Several members of the public. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30pm. Persons to Be Heard: None. Committee Announcements and Concerns: None. Consider September Meeting Summary: None. Discuss Tompkins County Hosing Strategy with Megan McDonald (Tompkins County Associate Planner): - Megan McDonald: Provided background on the Tompkins County Housing Strategy initiative endorsed by the County Legislature in July 2017. Ms. McDonald explained that the initial housing strategy initiative, completed in mid-2000’s, called for 4000 new housing units between 2005 and 2014. That projection was assessed just before the 2007-2009 recession and so there were some questions on the adequacy of the figures. She stated that while 3,200 units were built during the period, few met the affordability goal. Now, ten years later, it was time for a re-evaluation and a new strategy. In 2015 - 2016 the County Planning Department completed a new Housing Needs Assessment that incorporates a model more adjustable and accountable to changing conditions. Ms. McDonald explained that the initiative works with the County’s Development Focus Areas Strategy and targets new housing in locations with adequate infrastructure and transportation, with connections to walkable neighborhoods, etc. The County Planning Department is working on a comprehensive list of housing opportunity sites, including proposed and recently completed housing developments from around the county. They are also looking at potential infill sites, along with municipal plans and codes and infrastructure availability. They then plan to go out to each of the municipalities in the near future to discuss these issues in more detail. She reported that the County Legislature will be considering a new planning position at their November 9th budget meeting. The position would help with implementation of the housing strategy and work to help other municipalities, where needed. She made a plug for the Community Housing Fund, a partnership between the County, City, and Cornell. Each partner contributes annually to a fund that helps with affordable housing projects (large or small). The partnership is in a position to leverage additional state/federal funding. They would welcome more partners, including municipalities (i.e. Town of Ithaca), businesses, and other organizations. 2 Ms. McDonald also touched on several other related topics: - Housing incentives: TCAD (Tompkins County Area Development) conducted a survey of builders to get their perspective on working with local municipalities. Martha Armstrong would be a good person to talk to hear what builders had to say. - Condition of housing stock: County is interested in helping insure that older houses are safe and that code compliancy is consistent throughout the county. - Short-term rentals: Area of concern for municipalities for a variety of reasons. - Collaboration: County is working with a community partner that is interested in seeking grant funding for development of a virtual housing office that would be one-stop shopping connecting people with housing information. - Rich: Asked how they ascertained the housing demand from in-commuters. - Megan: Responded that the number was derived from a subset of an electronic (emailed) survey questionnaire. The survey (2015) was not scientific, people chose to participate, but the response rate was high, with the in-commuters being a subset. The housing demand target took a conservative piece of that data and combined it with projected job growth. - Rich: Asked how student housing was factored into the study. - Megan: Responded that compared with other areas, Ithaca has very low rate of students living on campus. Housing that would normally be for the area workforce is devoted to student rentals. They attempted to identify student projected growth figures, but in reality these can vary widely from actual enrollment. - Tee Ann: Expressed interest in the Town obtaining CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) to address housing stock conditions. - Megan: Responded that the City of Ithaca is entitled to CDBG funding directly, but all other towns have to compete for the grant money. The county has funded homeownership and rehab programs from CDBG. Other municipalities have also applied in the past. Funding can now be used for planning purposes, such as condition surveys. Discuss and consider comments received on the laws pertaining to accessory dwelling units and a rental operating permit program: - Rich: Asked Sue for the major public concerns expressed at Monday’s Board meeting. He apologized for not being able to attend. - Sue: Responded that the predominant concern was the rental operating permit program, with comments expressed on: privacy and unease with inspections by town staff; the hassle/inconvenience with getting an operating permit and scheduling an inspection with staff (needing time off from work); having to address repairs and scheduling follow-up inspections; difficulty of hiring contractors to address the compliance issue within the specified time period. - Rich: Agreed that the compliance time lines could be an issue, but in terms of inconvenience, he noted that these permits/inspections were only required every five years. He asked staff to explain the fees. - Staff: Responded the committee had earlier discussed a $100 application fee, with the inspections contemplated at the same rate as current fire inspections: $50.00/hour for the first hour, then $35.00/hour after that. - Bruce: Explained that a recent inspection he performed, following a complaint on a single family home, took him less than 1 hour, including notes prepared, equating to a $50 fee. - Rich: Acknowledged the anxiety that was expressed with inspections and the concern with what else might be found and deemed a violation. He stated that the committee’s intention was to address only the basic health and safety issues, but he recognized that this could be a gray area that needs further discussion. Bruce: Listed items the Department currently inspects for, including: adequate egress, bedroom size requirements, bedroom egress windows, whether the space/structure has a valid permit, 3 condition of walls (i.e. holes, presence of mold). He added that many of these, once resolved, would not be expected to come up again in subsequent permit renewals. He suggested that the fire safety inspection list would be a good starting point. - Sue: Added that fines/penalties and requirements for brokers were another concern expressed at the Board meeting, as well as questions concerning the rationale for the operating permit program. - Rich: Responded that the proposed penalties remove judicial discretion and replace it with set fines in order to create a deterrent to operating a substandard property for a prolonged period of time. The prison element is not mandatory and can be avoided by paying the fine. The idea is to create a financial disincentive to prevent people from looking the other way regarding over occupancy and health and safety concerns. - Bruce: Added that fines/penalties are currently up to the judge’s discretion. The proposed law changes this and directs the judge to require certain minimum penalties if they are found to be in violation. - Rich: Added that the proposed tiered penalty system is prescribed in NYS Town Law and would be common in the codes of other municipalities for various violations. - Rich: Responding to the question of rationale, stated that he hears regularly from residents with concerns about over-occupancy and poor property maintenance. He does not consider the comments heard at the Board meeting as barometer of town resident’s attitudes as a whole and the need for measures to be taken. The town’s population is growing, demand for rental housing is increasing and we need to modernize the zoning to reflect current conditions. He further described the balancing act of maintaining traditional single family neighborhoods with the demand for rental housing. He also mentioned the town’s current work on new zoning, applicable to defined development areas, that will allow/encourage a range of housing types as well as contemplating allowing duplexes in the High Density Residential zone. - Bruce: Suggested that people look at the Codes Department reports submitted to the Board to get an understanding of the housing complaints received. He stated that over the last eight years complaints have quadrupled. - Tee Ann: Raised concern with the difficulty of finding a contractor to make repairs if a violation is discovered and the time involved with making the repair given requirements of the law. - Bruce: Explained how the department would work with the owners to help them get into compliance. The goal is to get it corrected and as long as they are working towards that goal issues of timing can be worked with. He added that he meets new contractors regularly and questioned the claim that there is a shortage. - Rod: Added that there were also comments stating that the program would make housing more expensive. - Rich: Responded that the intent is to have a safe housing supply. He acknowledged that regulations can cost money, but if safety is the cost of being code compliant then so be it. If the housing does not meet basic health and safety then it should not be rented. - Pat: Suggested that if the ADU is not rented then an operating permit would not be required and added concern for expenses that would be incurred by necessitating a permit for unrented units. - Rich: Responded that by virtue of it being a two-family house, it is rentable property and the rentable portion of that property needs to be code compliant. - Tee Ann: Stated that she was not looking to dial back the proposal, but that she wanted a gentle approach. She said that we live in a transient community with expensive housing and high taxes and having rental property is a way for some people to make ends meet. She felt this was making a dramatic change to the rules and that it should be phased in with public education to make sure 4 people fully understand the regulations. She added that she thought the penalties were a little draconian. -Rich: Summarized actionable items to address the concerns expressed: Relax compliance timelines; Consider a phase-in period that would accommodate initial high demand for finding contractor/workers to make repairs/improvements; Modify penalties, such as not mandating penalties on the first offense, and instead mandate on second offense. -Bill: Stated that he was putting this topic on the Oct. 30th Study Session meeting. He added that after listening to the public comments on Monday and the discussion today, several things come to his mind: Provide more outreach to dispel misperceptions, such as the fees. He explained that since fees are set by resolution, and are not in the law, they need to be explained. Providing more information, generally, may help to alleviate concerns. Address the legal questions raised and have Susan Brock to attend the Study Session meeting. In terms of un-rented ADUs, he is comfortable with not requiring operating permits, at least initially. Address timelines. Given the initial startup and potential crunch we should stagger the implementation. He did not think that the current penalty formula was too stringent, since by that time, the non-compliance issue must have reached a significant point to where it involves the judge. - Bruce: Reminded the committee that the law did have two implementation phases, with an application deadline of May (2018) for ADUs and November (2018) for all other rentals. He added that the Town of East Hampton has a rental registry with similarities to what the town is proposing. - Rich: Addressed the letter from the Realtor community regarding the requirement of putting responsibility on them for verifying if a property has/needs a valid an operating permit. Recognizing that this information is needed at all hours/weekends, he said the town needs to make sure this information is easy to access. Staff Updates and Reports: No staff updates or reports. Next Meeting Date and Upcoming Agenda Items: The next meeting of the Planning Committee is November 13th at 3:30 pm. Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30pm.