HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-09-06 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date�Af•�•/• r�J3� / 9p�
Town of Ithaca Clerk 1
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 6 , 1989
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 6 , 1989
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward King , Edward Austen ,
Eva Hoffmann , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning
Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost ,
Town Planner Susan Beeners .
ALSO PRESENT : Bill Hilker .
ABSENT : Joan Reuning .
DISCUSSION MEETING ON LOCAL LAW NO .
OF THE YEAR 1989 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATIVE TO THE OCCUPANCY OF DWELLING UNITS
Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m .
The document before the Board for discussion is attached
hereto as Exhibit # 1 .
Chairman read into the record an article from Talk of the
Towns by A . Kevin Crawford , Counsel for Association of Towns ,
regarding entitled " Court of Appeals Restricts Zoning Regulation
of ' Family "' , attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 .
Mr . Frost stated that it seems clear that the permit process
is a very appropriate way to go . It provides an opportunity for
the Zoning Board to hear the feelings of the community where such
a permit may be given so we are being responsive to the community
and at the same time it enables the Zoning Board to impose
conditions on a particular property as it deems necessary to
deal with the specific instances of that property .
Discussion followed on Article I , Section 1 , Subparagraph 5 ,
( a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) , and ( d ) on Page 3 .
Chairman Aron stated that the Planning Board at their August
1 , 1989 meeting recommended to the Town Board that the proposed
local law amendment be approved with the following
modifications : ( a ) remove restrictions on room size , ( b ) remove
restrictions on number of vehicles , and ( c ) increase number of
unrelated persons permitted in multiple residence units to t1free
( 3 ) per dwelling unit . ( The Planning Board Resolution of August
1 , 1989 , is attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 . )
• Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 6 , 1989
After further discussion , Article I , Section 1 , Subparagraph
# 5 , items a , b , c , and d ( page 3 ) were okayed by the Board
members .
Under Subparagraph # 5 , ( e ) , ( iii ) , ( page 3 ) , Ms . Beeners
suggested that the word " merely " be added in the second line
after the word neither .
It was the consensus of the Board that on page 4 , item ( iv )
( a ) and ( b ) be stricken from the Local Law .
On page 5 , ( v ) , ( vi ) , and ( vii ) become ( iv ) , ( v ) and ( vi ) .
Ms . Beeners referred to a chart that she created , entitled
" Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Requirement Relative to
Occupancy " , ( summary only , dated 7 / 27 / 89 ) , attached hereto as
Exhibit # 4 .
Ms . Beeners referred to Part II - Environmental Assessment -
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Relative to the Occupancy of
Dwelling Units , dated July 27 , 1989 , and stated that under C1 ,
the first paragraph should read : " No significant adverse impacts
are expected to these factors , subject to further ministerial or
discretionary review of specific situations . The proposed
amendment would remain the same as the current regulations with
respect to family and occupancy , etc . . . . ( Copy attached as
Exhibit # 5 . )
Discussion followed in regard to Mr . Frost ' s question about
criteria requirements of Subparagraph 5 , item ( e ) , ( iii ) ( a ) ,
starting on page 3 and continuing on page 4 , ( b ) - ( g ) . It was
the consensus of the Board that this section is okay .
Mr . Austen and Chairman Aron agreed that they did not like
the word " seasonal " in paragraph ( iii ) on Page 3 . It was not
stated whether or not the word should be stricken .
On Page 7 , # 9 was stricken in its entirety from the proposed
amendment , after discussion by the Board .
On page 7 , # 8 ( b ) should read " A family and up to two
additional roomers or boarders " , by agreement of the Board .
On Page 5 , Town Attorney Barney suggested a new ( vii ) to
read as follows : " Determination made hereunder may have
reasonable conditions attached to it etc "
On Page 5 , under ( f ) , change the last line of the paragraph
to read : " on the basis of floor area of habitable space as
follows : "
• Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 6 , 1989
On Page 5 , under ( f ) remove ( i ) - ( v ) and insert the
following ,
" With a minimum of 150 sq . feet for the first person and 80
sq . feet for each additional person , but in no case shall the
net total enclosed floor area , which is including uninhabitable
space of such dwelling be less than 600 sq . feet , as required by
Section 58 of the Zoning Ordinance . "
Further discussion followed on the floor . The above
. recommendations were voted on by the Board to be sent to the Town
Board for their consideration and carried unanimously .
Attached hereto , as Exhibit # 6 is the recommendation of the
Zoning Board of Appeals to the Town Board , with respect to the
proposed local law , by letter of Henry Aron , Chairman , dated
September 7 , 1989 .
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 9 : 00 p . m .
Respectfully Submitted ,
Connie J . Holcomb
Recording Secretary
Exhibits 1 - 6 at t ed
APPROVED :
Hen y Aron Chairman
a
TOWN OF ITHACA
LOCAL LAW N0 , FOR THE YEAR 1989
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO THE OCCUPANCY OF
DWELLING UNITS =
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town - of Ithaca as
follows :
Section 1 . _ Legislative Findings .
The Zoni . ng Ordinance of the TownAof Ithaca permits
residential uses and establishes residence districts in the Town
consistent with the Town comprehensive plan . One purpose of this
part of the Zoning Ordinance is to preserve the . Town ' s
res idential . character and protect residents from overcrowding , an
excessive volume of tra € fic , parking problems -, and excessive
noise which deprives ! them of the privilege of quiet - residential -
neighborhood
esidentialneighborhood communities . Residential districts are designed to
allow people to reside in peaceful environs undisturbed by the
disruptions attendant to .business , , industrial and other intensive -
uses .
The U . S . Supreme Court has found that a quiet place where
yards are wide, people few , and motor vehicles restricted , are
legitimate guidelines in land use plans , Further , the police
power is not confined - to - elimination of filth , - stench and
unhealthy places , but it is proper to ' lay out zones where family
values , youth values , and blessings of quiet seclusion and clean '
air make the area a sanctuary for people ..
The Court of . Appeals of the State of New York has also
recognized the validity of these governmental purposes , provided
.there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose and the
regulation utilized to achieve that purpose .
In recent years town officials have been inundated with
complaints about the overcrowding , noise , and parking problems in
many residential neighborhoods caused by large numbers of persons
occupying residential dwellings on _a . transient basis , primarily
as student housing for a semester or academic year . The vast
majority of these complaints are received during the school year .
The Town has two institutions of higher learning with a large
population of students . Unfortunately , the housing
accommodations provided by these institutions of higher learning
are inadequate to . meet the housing needs of . all of the students
enrolled in these institutions , thereby causing students to look
for housing in what are otherwise primarily long term residential
neighborhoods . The effect of these problems is to convert
dwellings in such residential neighborhoods into rental non
owner - occupied properties occupied - by large numbers
of students .
® These occupancies are usually not individuals living together as
a single housekeeping unit , but are more -reflective of transientz
Dwelling . Ith3 , , 7 / 25 / 89 12 : 08pm
• seasonal ( including -semester or academic year ) occupancies .
This trend threatens the stability and integrity of
residential neighborhoods . This practice interferes with the
goal of providing quiet and peaceful residential neighborhoods .
It also results in the hazardous overcrowding of residential
dwellings .
. The Town recognizes that quasi - multiple dwellings are an
integral part of the community . However , if legitimate long - term
residential units continue to be converted from long - term
.. continuous occupancy to rental occupancy on a semester by
semester basis for short - term economic gain at the expense of the
rest of the community , the character of the Town ' s residential
neighborhoods will be destroyed : - Rather than a place where long
term stabilized - neighborhoods exist where residents can have
peace and solitude , they will become a haven for students whose
part -iesm, % - dreiving , and - other activities disturb residential
tranquility . Such type of occupancies are better accommodated in
multiple residence districts and special land use districts
permitting same . T -he Town does provide substantial
accommodations for this type . of % occ .upancy in its multiple
residence and special land use district- areas .
The protection of residential values must be achieved by
regulations which are reasonably- related to this goal . The Court
of Appeals decision in - McMinn - ve - Oyster Bay , ( 66 N . Y . 2d 5 .44 ,
1986 ) is illustrative of this fact .
It is the purpose of this local law to protect the Town ' s
residential neighborhoods by . reasonable regulations .
Specifically , this local law redefines " family " in compliance
with McMinn , ( supra ) .
Overcrowding of residential dwellings and properties is also
regulated based on habitable floor area and by limiting the
number of permitted vehicles at each dwelling .
By such regulations the Town hopes to . give effect to its
zoning ordinance code and the . goal of preservation of residential
neighborhoods by insuring that residential neighborhoods continue
to be populated by year round , long - term residents , while
transient student visitors are properly located in zones intended
for multiple and transient accommod9tions .
Section 2 . The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as
readopted , amended and revised , effective February 26 , 1968 , be
further amended as follows :
1 . Article I , Section 1 , Subparagraph 5 is amended to read
• 2
4)e iii 0/ T )106 /
do
Dwelling . Ith3 , 7 / 25 / 89 12 : 13pm
115 . A * family ' consists of
( a ) Two or more persons occupying a single dwelling
unit , related by blood , marriage , or legal adoption ,
living and cooking together as a single housekeeping
unit , or
.( b ) Any number of unrelated persons ; occupying a
single dwelling unit , not exceeding two ( 2 ) , living and
cooking together as a single housekee,Ping unit .
( c ) Notwithstanding the provisions - of paragraph ( b ) of
this definition , a group of unrelated persons numbering
more than two 2 shall be considered a family upon a
determination by the Zoning Board o- f Appeals that the
group is a functional equivalent of a family pursuant
to the standards enumerated in paragraph ( e ) herein .
( d ) Before making a. determination whether a group of
more than two unrelated persons constitutes a family
for the purpose of occu- pying a . dwelling unit , as
provided for in paragraph ( c ) of this definition , the
Zoning Board of Appeals shall hold a public hearing ,
after public notice , as is normally required for the
obtaining of a variance . The fee for such an
application shall be the same as is required for an
application for a variance : . to Said a• pplica �tion shall be
on a f or m provided by the Zoning Board of Appeals or
Zoning Enforcement Officer .
( e ) In making a determination under paragraph (. c ) the
Board of Appeals shall find :
( i ) The group is one which in theory , size ,
appearance and structure resembles a traditional
family unit .
( ii ) The group is one which will live and cook
together as a single housekeeping unit .
( iii ) The group is of a permanent nature and is
neither a framework for transient or seasonal
( including as " seasonal " a _period of an academic
year or less ) living .. nor merely an association or
relationship which is transient or seasonal in
nature . In making this finding , the Zoning Board
of Appeals may consider , among other factors , the
following ;
( a ) Whether expenses for preparing of food ,
rent or ownership costs , utilities , and other
3
Dwelling . Ith3 , 7 / 25 / 89 12 : 17pm
household expenses are shared and whether the
preparation , storage and consumption of food
is shared .
( b ) Whether or not different members of the
houlsehold have the same address for the
purposes of
( i ) Voter registration .
( ii ) Drivers license .
( iii ) Motor vehicle registration .
( iv ) Summer or other residences .
( v ) Filing of taxes .
( c ) Whether or not furniture and appliances
are commonly owned by all members of the
household .
( d ) Whether or not any children are enrolled
in local schools .
( e ) Whether or not householders are employed
® in the -loca-1 area .
( f ) Whether or not the group has been living
together as a unit for an -extended period of
time , whether in the current dwelling unit or
other dwelling units .
( g ) Any other factor reasonably related to
whether or not the group of persons i s the
functional equivalent of a family .
( iv ) A group of individuals living in the same
dwelling unit shall be - presumed not to be a family
as defined in this section if such dwelling unit
contains four or more college students over the
age of 16 years . For this purpose the following
rules shall apply :
( a ) A college student is a person who
attends at least half time any college ,
university or other institution authorized to
confer degrees by the State of New York .
( b ) For this purpose of this presumption ,
minor dependent children of any other person
4
Dwelling , Ith3 , 7 / 25 / 89 12 : 22pm
• living in the dwelling unit shall be excluded
in calculating the number of college students
in the dwelling unit .
( v ) A group of individuals living together in the
same dwelling unit shall be presumed not to be a
family as defined herein if it is occupied by -four
or more adults over the age of eighteen years and
is not occupied by minor , dependent children. .
( vi ) The presumption set forth in subdivisions
Liiij and Civj above may be rebutted by sufficient
evidence of the characteristics set forth in
subdivision Liii ) above .
( vii ) In making determinations under this
section , . the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not be
required to : consider the matters set forth in�
Section 77 of this Ordinance ,
( f ) Notwithstanding- the provisions . elsewhere provided
herein , if the following limitations result in a lesser
permitted number of occupants than would - be permitted under
the definition of family set forth above and the regulations
of each zone set forth later in this ordinance , the number
of ' occupants , related or o .thewise , shall not exceed the
• maximum numbers determined -- --on - the basis of floor - area , of . '
each conventional bedroom as follows :
( i ) Less than 80 square feet 0
( ii ) At least 80 but less
than 120 square feet 1
( iii ) 120 square feet
but less than 160 square
feet 2
( iv ) 160 square feet
but less than 200 square
feet 3 -
( v ) 200 square feet or
more q 4
Areas utilized for kitchenettes , bath , toilet , storage ,
utility space , closets , and other service or maintenance space
shall be excluded . "
2 . Article 3 , Section 4 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
5
Dwelling . Ith3 , 7 / 25 / 89 12 : 26pm
• " 1 . A one - family dwelling . A one - family dwelling .may be
occupied by not more than
( a ) An individual , or
( b ) A family , or
( c ) A family plus up to one boarder , roomer , lodger or
other occupant . "
3 . Article 3 , Section 4 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) - is amended to
read as follows ,
" 2 ( a ) A two - family dwelling shall be occupied by notmore
than two families .
4 . Article 4 , Section 11 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to , read
as follows :
" A One - Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling ma .y be
occupied by not more than
( a ) An individual , or
( b .) A family , or
( c ) A f am it y plus up to o. ne boarder , roomer , lodger or
other occupant . "
5 . Article . 4 , Section 11 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) , is amended to
read as follows :
" 2 ( a ) . A two - family dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families .
6 . Article 5 , Section 18 , Subdivision 1 , is amended to read
as follows :
" 1 A One - Family Dwelling . A one - family dwelling may be
occupied by not more than
( a ) An individual , or
( b ) an far, ily , or
( c ) A family plus up to one boarder , roomer , lodger or
other occupant . "
7 . Article 5 , Section 18 , Subdivision 2 ( a ) is amended to
• read as follows :
6
ex Hi a / 'r �/
Dwellin. g . Ith3 , 7 / 25 / 89 12 : 28pm
2 ( a ) . A two - family dwelling shall be occupied by not more
than two families . "
8 . Article 6 , Section 26 , is hereby amended by adding a
paragraph at the end thereof reading as follows :
" Each dwelling unit in a multiple residence shall be
occupied by no more than
( a ) An individual , or
( b ) A family . "
9 '. There - is hereby added a new section , to be Section 69 - a• ,
reading as .follows :
" Sec 'tion 69 - a . Notwithstanding any • other - terms -of - this
ordinance , in residence districts R5 , R9 , R15 , R30 , and
Multiple Residence District , there shall be the following
maximum number of vehicles permitted on a permanent basis at
the following types of houses :
( a ) One family .dwelling 3
( b ) Two family dwelling 4
( c ) Multiple family dwelling 2 vehicles per
dwelling unit
The maximum number of parked vehicles may be increased by
Special Permit of the Zoning Board of Appeals after consideration
of the criteria set forth in Section 77 Subdivision 7 . Such
permit may be indefinite or for a limited period of time only .
Section 3 . Pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law and the
statute of local governments , this Local Law shall supersede any
inconsistent provisions of the Town Law .
Section 4 . In the event any portion of this law is declared
invalid by a court of competent Jurisdiction , the validity of the
remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of
invalidity .
Section 5 . This local law . shall take effect ten days after
its publication pursuant to applicable provisions of law .
7
Z"Y f'/ / a/ T A*/
r
? I TALK OF THE
`�'► ' rT` (� 1 7 XT.
21
Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals stated that "be- 301 the Court said that if a household
cause the ordinance here similarly restricts "bears the generic character of a family
Restricts Zoning the size of functionally equivalent family unit as a relatively permanent household,
Regulation
� � but not the size of a traditional family, and is not a framework for transients or
u
it violates our state constitution. " The transient living, it conforms to the pur-
! � Court also found that the Town 's argu- pose of the ordinance."
Family ment that the ordinance withstands Reading Baer together with Perraioli,
federal constitutional scrutiny was Croup House and. McMinn, one must con-
beside the point, in as much as the ordi- clude that any ordinance which restricts
By A. Kevin Crawford. Counsel, nance offended the State's constitutional the size of a functionally equivalent family
Association of Towns standard. but not the size of a traditional family
This latest determination by the Court can do so only if that restriction can be
of Appeals ( hereafter the "Court") gives • defended on the basis that it bears a
,, .
. ►; : Vi further clarification to the Court's earlier ". . . reasonable relationship to the goals
LL
family definition case of McAfinn , u `Town of reducing parking and traffic problems,
- < ofOyster Bay, 66 NY2d 544( 1986 ): In , controlling . populationdensity and .pre=
t ' ? McAlinr, the Court found, fault with a venting noise and disturbance. " See
I Iry
> ,i l ' ; definition of family which' restricted McMinn. supra at 59. It is important to
? ; functiomlly' equi%ralent but unrelated note that the Court has not abandoned
Y _
s_ families to any two (2) persons not related its long-standing position that it is a legi-
�• - ` w by blood , marriage,- or legal adoption , timate governmental objective to seek to
° ' r living and cooking on the premises preserve the character of a traditionally
Vo . : together as a. single, nonprofit house- single family neighborhood. See. Group
keeping unit, both of whom are sixty-two House, supra at 271 ; Mc:Llinn, supra at
( 62) years of age or over. . . ." The Court 459. Rathcopf. in his treatise , notes that
stated that "because the only alternative regulating single family occupancies by
n the case of 1?oseann Baer, et. ol, definition contained in this ordinance. . . focusing an physical characteristic such
V. Town of Brookho� Uen, dated is more restrictive; both as to the number as shared cooking facilities. the permanent
I0 i;" 'Vl"Hli '23: 1989. the New York State of unrelated •persons and their ages. . . nature-o€ the occupancy and access to .
Court of"Appeals unanimously affirmed the entire definition of family contained all parts of the dwelling by all household
an appellate Division determination in in the ordinance violates our state consti- members are permissible forms of regula-
which' the town 's zoning definition of tutional guarantee that no person shall • tion. Rathcopf, The Law of Zoning and
`family" was . found to be unconstitutional. be deprived of property without due Planning, § 17A63( 3 ).
The plaintiffs in Baerwere five unre- process of law". To conclude. in my view. zoning laws
lated elderly women living in a house We know as the result of the Baer can still legitimately retain alternative
located in a residential zone where only decision that any numerical restriction. de` f o s o " ami v . ev ma no
single family dwellings were permitted standing alone ( i.e., even without any however, r ri v set aInamgffc3a4miLL
as of right The Baers were licensed by accompanying age or other restriction ) on non-traditions ami y u nits when
Suffolk County to operate their home as that is not similarly imposed on the tradi- none are set or eion roily unit
a rooming house. Borders were referred tional ( i.e., related by blood, marriage or a leve that towns cou . t rang a
to the Baers by the County's Social Ser- adoption) family is unacceptable as special permit process. elect to have their
vices Department and by Kings Park violative of due process. The key element planner hc) neals
Psychiatric Center. Nonc of the women appears to be that which was stated by examine non-traditional familv unit situ-
were seriously ill. the Court in McMinn, when it said (at pg, ations in order to determine that the
The Town of Brookhaven 's zoning law 550) "zoning ordinances may define the factors cited early on by the Court of
defined the term "family" as "one or more term family alternatively to include various Appeals in Ferraioli — factors which are
persons related by blood . adoption or circumstances and relationships. . . but reaso3tauiy reiaieu to the legitimate and
marriage. living and cooking together as only so long as the ordinance, when read desirable goal of preserving the character
a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of in its entirety, does not exclude any house- of the single family neighborhood — are
household servants. A number of persons, holds that due process requires be inclu- (housekeeping
deed present. For example, an occu-
but not aviceeding four. living and cooking ded," and that "the Oyster Bay definitionanty of more than four persons not
NbI together as a single housekeeping unit . . . is not per se unconstitutional providedlated by blood, adoption or marriage,
V though not related by blood, adoption or the ordinance contained an alternativeay be required to obtain a. special use
� marriage . shall be deemed to constitute definition of family as any number of unre
rermit. The standards for the permit could
a family ". Emphasis added lated persons living together who meetclude : 1 ) that it is a permanent and
* the
after the toren charged a violation of the indicia we set forth for the functionalot a transient situation : 2 ) that the unit
'not exceeding four unrelated persons' equivalent of a traditional family in ill operate as a single. not- for-profit
limit . plaintiffs commenced litigation Croup House v. Board of Zoning and unit sharing common
seeking a declaration that the restrictive Appeals 45 NY2d 266 ( 197th ) at ? 72-273tchen facilities: and . 3) that otherwise
definition of family violated the due and City of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 34 size . structure and appearance the
pr+icetis clausC flfthy ` Cw fork State NY2d 300 ( 1974 ). at 305-306 . " citationscupancy will operate as the functional
C011StltUtl ( n tNYO) n .st . art 1 . §6 ). and materials added In Ferraioli tat pageuivalent of a family.
� h ; b ; 4-
Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance - 1 -
Relative to the Occupancy of Dwelling' Units
Recommendation to Town Board
Planning Board , August 1 , 1989
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR
Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance
Relative to the Occupancy of Dwelling Units
Recommendation to Town Board
Planning Board , August 1 , 1989
MO-TION_by _M.-._ Willlam_Lesser_,_ -seconded.b_y—Mr-. Robert Miller_:
WHEREAS : -
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town
Board with respect to a Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning
Ordinance Relative to the Occupancy of Dwelling Units ,
2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental
review . The Planning Board is acting as an involved agency in
coordinated review . -
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 1 , 1989 has
reviewed the proposed Local Law , SEQR application and environmental
review for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the
- Town Boardthat - a negative determination of environmental significance--- -
be made for this action .
Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Miller , Smith , Ken erson , Lesser .
Nay - None . .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance
Relative to the Occupancy of Dwelling Units
Recommendation to Town Board _
Planning Board , August 1 , 1989
MOTION by Mr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 - This action is the Consideration . of a Recommendation to the Town
Board with respect to a Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning
Ordinance Relative to the Occupancy of . Dwelling Units .
• Proposed Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance - 2 -
Relative to the Occupancy of Dwelling Units
Recommendation to Town Board
Planning Board , August 1 , 1989
® 2 . This is a Unlisted Action for which the Town Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review . The
Planning Board is acting as an involved agency in coordinated
review .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on August 1 , 1989 has
reviewed the proposed Local Law , SEQR application and environmental
review for this action .
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Town
Board , determine and hereby does determine that ,
a . There is a need for the proposed local law amendment in
the Town of Ithaca . ,
b . The existing and probable character of the neighborhoods
in the Town would not be adversely affected .
c . The proposed local law amendment is in accordance with a
comprehensive plan of- development of the Town .
2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the
Town Board that the . proposed local : law amendment be approved with
the following modifications *
a . Remove restrictions on room size .
b . Remove restrictions on number of vehicles .
c . Increase number of unrelated persons permitted in
multiple residence units to three ( 3 ) per dwelling unit .
Aye Grigorov , Baker , Miller , Smith , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
Mary S . qtyant , Record4hg Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
August 31 1989
TOWN
CA LOWING
LCC,I ANt_ _. Ttir=llJLlrilh � Gc1� CSF' I1IhIAi�iL; F=: � : f TFi -= ' IVlS r� F : L. ...... 'I Cl
S I NCiL.. E F' At•1I L . S
EXISF' INGon
a . Individual
b . F= amily +
C • Unrelated Persons
PROPOSED :
a . Individual
b e Family +
e . l.lnr el -i1 c� tcl pvrs.-ion
t
TWO FAMIA. Y 1ii� EL. I_. 1 S
EXISTINGE
a . Family + 1 Family + i
be F" arn i I y 2 Un re l a t: f.? d Persons
Co Maximum Unrej. , .it £ � ci VerW, cins in IDwe.� llir-ty
PROPOSED :
a . Family " amity
b • 2 Unr- elatcd Persons 12 Unrelated Persons
or maxi. rriUrn 4 t_inre .lateci persons in dwelling
( R - 9 Districts wr.? Ltici still have provision for increased
occupancy by Permit t. ) f the Zoning Board of Appeals )
MUI~ 'f' IF_ _ F; ESIi ) htE= =. D141.5.1 r.hl-C1 .S
ExISTINGM
No specific reqUirements on oc: r. Upancy in :tuning
Ordinance .
PROPOSEDw
an IndiviclLta1
be Family
c • Unrelated
r '
RESI11 DENCE f" Ai < ! 'I EC � _REM,ENT __. ,� . D_ . _
EXISTING :
One - Family Dwellinae:> a No requirements
Two -Family Dwellings . No requirements
Multiple Family Rlesidence_� s : rain . 1 . 4 parking spaces per-
dwelling unit , no mc1Ximi.Am requirements .
( See Also Section 69 parking Tar spec. ital USEvs )
PROPOSED :
One - Family Dwellings , "" vehicicis
Two - family Dwellings : 4 v (= hicles
Mull., iple Fami. IFS (En irJence-, ss '. veliir : :le , }:scar cia) ellinu t..tn
tUlfi-1Ib871 — TaMt 12 IC
PROJECT I . D. NUMBER 61711 SEAR
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor)
1 . APPLICAN /SPONSOR 2 . PRM. .CT NAME
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Amendment Occupanc
3 . PROJECT LOCATION:
Municipality Town of Ithaca County Tompkins
e . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address end road intoreactlons, prominenl landmarks, eta, of provide trap)
( Town of Ithaca Residence Histricts )
5 , IS PROPOSED ACTION:
0 t�
New 0 Expansion L`Xoditiestlonlatteratlon
6 , DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance relative to the Occupancy
of Dwelling units . '
7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
Inctlally a All ;&641,yzoned for reslgprtial purposes in Town )
8o WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
❑ yes " No It No. describe b0erly would amend existing zoning requlations .
9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT
0 Residential 0 Industrial 0 Commercial 0 Agriculture 0 PatktForest/Open space ❑ Other
Describe:
n . a . All land uses apply
1Q . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL
STATE OR LOCAQ?
Yes 0 No It yes, list spsncy(s) and psrrnlUapprovale
( filing with N . Y . State )
11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
Oyes Bio It yet, list agency name end pinwappmef
12 . ASA RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILLEXISTING P6AMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?••.___ _ . -. .
❑ Yee UEo
I CERTIFY THAT INE IMPORTATION PROVIDED ABOVE is TRUE TO M NU OF MY KAlOWLO"
Town Su ervisor zr2
/�
Applleantlspoe►ngr nam.: Noel Desch .ar P - Data
Slgnstan: A +' �
It the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
OCoastal Assiiissment Form belors proceeding with thle assessment
OVER
PART 11 -- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE 1 THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 657. 12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
U Yes No
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 817.8? 11 No, a negative decisration
may be superseded by another Involved agency.
Yes ❑ No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwrltfen, 11 legible)
C1 , Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantify, nota levels, existing traffic patterns, Solid waste production or dispossir
i potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problem? Explain briefly: r
c fPx
1 CY. Aesthetic, agrkmHurate archaoolog"l, historic. at other natural or Gun" reaourOn: Or ooffununity Or nelght>orlsood eharaater! Expfaln brlelty:
e
C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
i
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as Officially adopted, or a change in use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain brlefiy,
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
C8. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified In 10146? Explain brlefly,
C7, Other impacts {including changes in use of eltherAvantlty. or type of energy)? Explain briefly.
D, IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO OF. CONTROVERSY.RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?
Yea No If Yes, explain briefly
Y
PART III —DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
{ INSTRUCTIONS: For each ativoras effect Identified above; Qetsmthw whether It Is substantlal, largo, impoftarlt or OVWrwias 1Ngnlflcan
Each affect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) setting (l.ee urban or rural); (b) probability of oeeurHag; (e) duration; (+
Irrmisibllity; (o) geographic scope; and (f) rnagltltudso ff necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure thi
i explarlatlorts contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adnexae ImpwW have boort Identified and adequately addresWR
❑ Check this box If you have Identified one or mors potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which MAY
i occur, Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF andbr prepare a poeltive declaratlom
Check this box If you have determined, basad on the Informatton and analysis above and aRy supporling
doewuntotlon, that the proposed action . WILL NOT result In any significant adverse em livAllowetal hrlpaots
` AND provide on attachments as necessary, the myons supporting this determination:
Town of Ithaca Town Board
Nam of Lead Avfty
Noel Desch flown Supervisor
Print or Tvw Nam¢ of ResponAi4Ker in Load Agency lwt11041f
4 � 7 61
(Mature of ResponsibleKer in e Agency Signature o r01w /MpOfl Kar
•te
2 _
rg ,q / j / ,r 1 ' '
• p .
3
.. ...._. . _ . ... .,. .. ... .. . ..... ............. C....C. . .. Z I
_1.._1. ......�'. Irtr� v .a. rcar� tric_ nt �.a .f N _s �t ��� =;�niF�i_�_'�.._--- 1-:rc� }�us��cl..._�on.i.f?.g.
0rdin �anco rj �nei d (iiE� ri �. Re14tivf? _ tc� thLa Occ �� panc.y_ of DweiIing
(in i t _.._,
A Action i. s enlisted .
60 Action will receive coordinated review ( Town of Ithaca
Town Board , ..town of Ithaca Planning Board ) .
C . Could action rosult _._ i_n any adverse effects on , to or
arising,from the following.
Ci . Ex-isting_. airduality , surface or groundwater
guali_t , org uanti�ty ,_noise leuelse_;; istinc� traffic
Patterns . solid waste 'groriLic. ti. on or -�eotenti. al for
erosion
drainage _or _ .floodingTprobl.e,ms "?
No sign :i. ficc-q. nt adverse. impacts are expected to these
factors , 4sul:a _iec_ t W furLher minis . erial or discr - etionary
review of Sx` 1' :i. f :i. c: � :i. f . c.iak '_ rsr� s . The proposed amendment would
�► 4d re �,� �' - — c. urrellt regulations with
respect to family � c� cr_ Upancy in single - family areas by
reducing th ( a permitted number of unrelated persons in a
single - family clweI11 ng -from to '2 , and leas restrictive in
areas of two - family frous .ir7g with all increase from v to 4
Unrelated ptrsor) S. per E: nti. rr:a two - unit structure . Multiple
residence district occupancy would become more restrictive
by the amendment , - as there is no specific occupancy
limitation at present ,
Given other provisions of the proposed occupancy
amendments , the 12 per cent proportion of two . - family
dwellings in the Town of Ithaca hcfG< s ng stock. .. and the
recent increase in new student housing built by the private
sector and by Ithaca College and Cornell University , no
significant adverse environmental impacts are expected , nor
are any drastic changes expected to the Town housing makeup .
Localized beneficial impacts would generally result
through provision for increased control of residential
occupancy , noise levels , and vehicular controls . Proposed
parking restrictions , being applicable to all dwellings ,
will assist in alleviating current vehicle nuisance problems
and in mitigating possible localized impacts related to the
proposed increase in unrelated persons in two - -family
dwellings . The proposed noise ordinance currently under
consideration by the Town would be an important supplement
to the proposed occupancy amendment ,
Q2. w_ Aes_ ttiet. ick---� c�r .ti_isiTturaI ' rche,olopic �l ; hist' o_r__ : c ,J�III __._._ _.
or, other n aturalor_' .._ c. cLi .l tUral ,_.resni.� r:,c ct�rr�munitY, car
r� eighbor' hood char �� c_ ter ?
Not expected given the nature caf the proposed
amendment , Beneficial impacts would occur in the 'Town ' s
residential neighborhoods as a r' F� sc.ilIt cif increased
reQ (AlatiOn ar-id review of re sideintial r3ecL.cl ) anCy and vehicular
dun �sity , and the curltrol of environmental impact ? relelted to
OVQrOCCUpancy .
Ve.getatinr_i or faUna,_ fish , shell—fish or w =ildlife
species , sigIficAnt habitats . or threatened or endangered
s ecies ?
No species or hc�.tbi. tats would be specifically affected
by these amendments .
C4�...._A_._commug_i•_ty ' =� .e %5istinrg �r1 _ ns or goals as
off
icially _adopted . , _.or ?_ change i. n._ U50wor intensity of use
of land or other na tUra l resources ?
The amendment .aE-s proposed would have no significant
adverr, e impact un c: .. mrl_ nity plans and goals or on policy as
adopted in t_ he r' �r? � :i. nE:.l f ) r i::linG; rlc: Ey . z m �, y assist in
clarifying t. iie .irl is rl i. S3f 1 . hc re serit oni. no Ordinance a. nd
Loninq flap as �SC117 (Jt:. f + E:I E] I' C� Li frlctl 'y bt.-' Subj (.) L: t Lu fUl•" t= he !'
dta 'rinit: .i. on l.11'1fl? r" s:Zl;. !'11_fl' I_ lcil' li1il1S � f_ f 'fi'lr"� 55 .
C5 . Gr �"a} +:t_I .r._....'}alb =i �-n._t.. ..._c, eve..,l.c►.omr in.t_,._ rar _ related
activities
Gctivi ti_r' s l..iH E�;1y to hc� iiiduc�2d _by th c _j? roposed_ action ?
No siranificani' c) r- owth , suL_ISQquent development . or
relatpd ac. tivitic.2 - LRr_ ,:! lii• ely to tce induced by the proposed
a mendmerlt.: , BY S:if? S:: I S � E � :i. ng the number or" unrelated peirsons
that (.-. an uc . c- c.lpv14s :il c110 - family dwiyllint? , and by increasing
the total occupant:. y czar aiwc:? i' arr? i1y dwelling from 3 to 4
people , in t1ie lol-Ig term thcrare may be increased developmf?nt
of accessary apartments .in e .Xxsting Elwellings and in new
con5truc tion .
It i5 ex4mLic:: ted t1l"lat there woE.11d be incentive to
maintain smaller or_ cupancy sizes of unrelated persons that
eo'* ists at present in single - family areas and in multiple
residence districts . . I. here would be a decrease in Occupancy
in those single -family neighborhoods where single -- family
deed restric= tions are in plac= e , R --- V Districts would still
provide for increac•; ed occupancy by Special Permit .
With Dormitories and other educational residential
developgrentf it is expected that the occupancy proposed for
such development ccluld be subject to specific review as a
use permitted by Spe. zial Approval by the Zoning Hoard of
Appeals upon recommendation by the Planning Board . It is
assumed that the Zoning board of Appeals would be able to
require that cCc_ c..lpancy hQ Subject to the samL* restrictions
as for other , non -- .Lric ti tUtionzA residential development
Unless tho -,� e rir5f7, tr- icti. on <_i modified during the course of
projec= t review by Town,
)eq or �
The proposed occ. t.tl:Jancy rc-2strictian would be a new
addition to the Multiple kesidencua District requirements .
It is assumed that -Any 'future new development in existing
Multiple Dii t. r .ic: ts which might be proposed for an
occupancy qre atr_ar tl--ian that provided for in the Zoning
Ordinance would either fol low the process set. forth in the
Zoning Ordinance for <_appea al , speciCal permit , or variance , or
would rtzcq t,:c:, t. a re � un .ir� ca to Land Use District .
The recent large increase in the number of new or or-
planned new studulnt housing units , particularly in the . City ,
is e .: pected to at least temporarily assist in alleviating
environmE� ntai impacts pf overoccupancy by Students in
neighborhoods . It .is assumed that the trend will continue
for student housin (.:1 to be located on or within cla e
proximity to Corneill University and Ithaca College , or in
other areas canveni. ta-, t U) Plai-ining meatsures that
would enhance tf16' propose5d cIcct..ipcmicy zamerldment might include '
the c:ie �, i .::} r'lai . .i. or'I c -r" car - Ilrcay .irii. r.:; rl ic:, r ra. r" r� �-.a �; with incre <_ised
occuP41.ir1c: y , to sl- �s -i. i . i. n mi. ! :i. +:1 �ti:. i. r1 � ] fJc� _._ ' ; i. ble future impacts
Y" J i:. t f1_ctctr ::_ I''Il7ft( :'Itc• I' i:) t" � Ciisllf .I. 01-1t 1 Student: ren 'l: i1
hotrt =_sin : .
( 6w Rlsl7c� r t .-. twrrn +..... runiL.:1.1.. t. iv s _ or other
f F �c, ts ncA _ den l_ i r i Nd in C: .i - 1.: .`'_� '?
l' hEa Etmt<� ndmtDnt w :i. 11 enable the Zonincl . Board of Appeals
to more ft � il � .r. nves i . ic -jat. e and i: akL action on complaints
related to ovFAr- occul::lar'Icy by unrelated pc:•rrsons , and related
to veh .•ict,� Iar crowding . In the Short range there may be tan
increase in tf-ie nt..irr b r.' of increased oe_ eupancy requests ar
overoc: cLtpanC: y complaints r- c:+ viewed ,
In single and two -- family neighborhoods , impacts would
bt. most likoly relatec:j to c ( 11-rvers .i. ons or infill development
rather than to large - wale new c:: onstruction . New
subdivisions , and new multiple residence development , would
be sc.tlaject to furthl:_� r Specific review and suaject to
regulations such as they Zoning Ordinance , Subdivision
Regulations , and Environmental Review Regulations ,
C7 � Of- her _i. mtrzac__ t _s_._( nc. lttding. changes in use of either
guanti-tY_ar ..._tYpe._ Q_ :f ertergY� `
Not directly e ;; pected as a result of this action .
DIs Cher ..qr is therms ^�i_4-:� Iy to be , controversy related
to_mot_enti l dy� i� _ env, , ronMental impacts ?
No controver % y is, at the time of review .
neayz; tivc., cif:� l: e: rmin <it. ic� n of envi. roninerrtal significance
i = recommended for this action , "I here would be a beneficial
physi- c- al impact w -i. th to .increased regulation ni•
nveror_ rc.ipancy problelms , noises , residential traffic , and
other impacts related to residential land utse . Potential
impacts with rvEipec_ t to possible inc:. rea <sed enforcement needs
will probably fluctcAat (? , largely based on the local housing
market .
Lead Agency ; ' f own of Ithaca 'Town Doard
Reviewer : Susan C . Deeners , Fown I" l annc? r
Review Uat. K! : July : 7 , 19 ), v
•
• ' )e ASPr 'r *S
L
TOVM OF ffEIACA
126 EASY SENECA STRAIT
MfACA„ NEW YORK
14130
September 7 , 1989
To -: Honorable Town Supervisor and Members of the Town Board
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the proposed toca1
law amending the zoning Ordinance relative to the occupancy of
dwelling units at a special meeting on September 6 , 1989 . The
Board discussed the proposed Ordinance at length . In general the
Board is supportive of the matters contained in the proposed
Ordinance but has a number of recommended changes which are as
follows :
1 . Mr . King suggested , if possible , that subdivision ( e )
with all of the criteria relating to the determination of whether
a particular group is a single housekeeping unit , be moved from
the definition section of paragraph 5 to a miscellaneous section
at the end of the Ordinance .
2 . Page 3 , subdivision ( e ) , sub - subdivision ( iii ) - the
Board recommends that the reference to " seasonal " be eliminated
an d that the sub - subparagraph be limited to transient
occupancies .
3 . Page 4 , subdivision ( iv ) - the Board recommends that
this subparagraph singling out college students as a particular
group be eliminated in its entirety and that the subsequent
subdivisions be renumbered accordingly .
4 . Page 5 - the Board recommends adding a new subparagraph
( f ) ahead of the existing subparagraph ( f ) and relett er in g the
existing subparagraph ( f ) to be subparagraph ( g ) . The
recommended additional language would be substantially as
follows :
" ( f ) In making determinations as to whether a particular
group consists of a family , the Zoning Board of Appeals may
impose reasonable conditions to assure occupancy as a family
as contemplated by this Ordinance . "
5 . Page 5 - old subparagraph ( f ) - the Board recommends
eliminating this paragraph in its entirety and substituting a new
subparagraph which would essentially provide as follows :
" ( g ) Notwithstanding the provisions elsewhere provided
September 7 , 1989
Page 2
herein , if the following limitations result in a lesser
permitted number of occupants than would be permitted under
the definition of family set forth above and the regulations
of each zone set forth later in this Ordinance , the number
of occupants , related or other-wise ., shall not exceed. the- - -
maximum numbers determined on the basis of habitable space
of each dwelling unit as follows :
( i ) A minimum of 150 square feet of habitable space
for the first occupant ; and
( ii ) 80 square feet of habitable space for each
additional person in each dwelling unit .
In no case shall the enclosed floor area be less than
required by Section 58 of this Ordinance .
Areas utilized for kitchenettes , bath , toilet , storage ,
utility space , closets , and other service or maintenance space
shall be excluded in determining . ° habitable space ' . "
6 . Page 7 , paragraph 8 , subparagraph ( b ) — the Board
suggests adding to this the words " plus . two additional persons ,
related or otherwise . "
This would mean that in multiple . residence zones . up to four
unrelated persons would be permitted in each dwelling unit .
7 . Page 7 , paragraph 9 — the Board recommends deleting
paragraph 9 in its entirety .
Needless to say if any of you have any questions regarding
any of these recommendations I would be happy to discuss them
with you .
Very tru yours ,
r .
He / ry ron
Chairman
wr•