Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2017-11-17 Paulette Rosa From: Paulette Rosa Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:03 AM To: 'gnews@gannet.com' Subject: Special Town Board Meeting The Ithaca Town Board will hold a special meeting on Friday, November 17,2017 at 12:15 p.m.in the Aurora Room to continue discussion on draft legislation concerning accessory dwelling units and an operating permit program for them. Thank you Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk 1 Special Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board Friday,November 17,2017 12:15 p.m. Board Members present: Bill Goodman, Pamela Bleiwas, Rich DePaolo, Tee-Ann Hunter, Eric Levine and Pat Leary(VC) Staff: Bruce Bates, Sue Ritter,Paulette Rosa and Susan Brock Mr. Goodman opened the meeting at 12:25 p.m. Mr. Goodman gave an overview of the issues identified so far to discuss—maximum size and height, penalties, registering unrented ADUs and a definition of an ADU as well as a special mailing for outreach. Penalties—Ms. Bleiwas stated that she was looking at Residential Units 4a 1&2 and we have an open issue on whether it is a fine of or a fine up to; but she was more concerned about 3 which says a mandatory imprisonment. Discussion followed. Mr. DePaolo noted that it is a fine OR up to imprisonment. Ms. Bleiwas recapped her discussion with Ms. Brock saying that it seems the length of the sentence drives the classification of the offense and she feels strongly that we should not be criminalizing people for this. She said that we can fine them and she could live with the possibility of imprisonment for a third offense, but to make it a criminal offense that stays on a person's record is out of proportion. Ms. Bleiwas suggested removing the "a period of 1 —6 months" and say"or by imprisonment of up to 15 days"which would not make it criminal. Ms. Bleiwas noted that this is an administrative action, failing to register the unit, not the actual safety of the unit. Mr. Bates and Mr. DePaolo explained the linkage between the permit and the problems the town experiences with enforcement. Discussion followed on the legalese and the board agreed to make the conceptual change with Ms. Brock doing a little more research on levels triggering violations,misdemeanors and criminal charges. Ms. Hunter asked whether this is the only way to fine and enforce the safety and Mr. Bates responded that this law will get him in the door which could not happen without this law unless a complaint was lodged. If he is legally on the property he cannot use that to look at other violations. Ms. Bleiwas thought that should be researched more, basically under the "in plain view"principle. Mr. Bates said that could be true but this registry and the penalty provision is cleaner and clearer. He added that there have to be penalties because some owners will and do play the game with us now; we will write a violation and they will drag it through and by the time we get to court, the tenants are gone and therefore the issue resolved and we are back to square one. Not on all things we are looking at but some. Ms. Brock noted that this penalty section was fashioned after the existing penalty section in the current Code for multi-families with this one being a bit more lenient and counting each week as a violation as opposed to each day. TB 2017-11-17 Pg. 1 The board was fine with these being a violation as opposed to a misdemeanor and Ms. Brock will make the appropriate changes. After some discussion between Ms. Brock and Ms. Bleiwas regarding the violation of rights, the requirement of applying is not a violation of rights although they cannot allow the town in and that would start a process to get a court order to inspect the premises. Definition of an ADU—Ms. Bleiwas wanted clarification on what constitutes and ADU since there has been some talk about hotplates and microwaves. The definition in the code right now: Dwelling—a building designed or used primarily as a living quarters for one or more families Dwelling unit—a dwelling or portion of a dwelling providing complete living facilities for one family Mr. DePaolo said there is some discretion and he asked Mr. Bates what criteria he uses because some would like to take more of the discretion out and have solid criteria. Mr. Bates responded that if there is a kitchen, a bathroom, entrance, and bedroom. Basically, nothing is shared for it to be a separate dwelling unit. If a kitchen or bathroom is shared, it is not an additional dwelling unit. Some discussion followed regarding fire separation and how that fits in with the definition of an accessory dwelling unit and areas that may contain components of an ADU but are not ADUs. Ms. Hunter talked about her research into her house's status as a two unit and reviewing the town's records showing that there was a CO years ago for a two-unit. Mr. Bates said homes with records and CO's are not the focus, but homes that have no records will have to comply with current standards. Mr. Bates added that in regards to a fire separation, that might not be pursued in existing ADU's but if there is no egress, that will be pursued for safety reasons. Mr. DePaolo thought the question is whether or not the ASU's exist,not whether or not there is a record because say someone has clearly had an ADU for years but there are no records in the town; why should they be made to adher to higher standards than the same ADU that the town does have records on? What we are really looking at is new construction as far as standards. The same standards, based on the age of the house, should apply whether you are on record or not as of now or when you come forward to register the unit. Mr. DePaolo asked Mr. Bates if he would be more stringent on the person who has not been on record because they haven't been on record? Mr. Bates responded yes, because the person who is on record, the town has said we are aware of this and how it was built. Someone who isn't on record, we have no idea how that was built and to what standard. After some back and forth, it seemed that units without an existing CO would be inspected more closely and we would agree to what year to hold the standard to. Mr. Bates said that you can't take one example and make it fit across the board. TB 2017-11-17 Pg. 2 Mr. Levine thought the attorney at time of sale should be making sure a second unit is "legal" and he has no problem holding them to the higher standard because they have a second unit that is in violation and kept secret from the town and that person has been paying less assessment and therefore taxes, double water, etc. and that is not fair to the person doing it correctly and legally. If you have a secret unit, you are taking the risk that when it is found out, you will be held to the standard of that day. Ms. Hunter responded that we need to back this conversation up;just hearing Mr. Bates describe the process he would have to go through when he goes to somebody's house to determine whether what standard to hold them to is big. She did not think that people have been purposely being secretive. Some maybe, but she thought the town is just now coming to grips with this is something we need to get a handle on and develop some standards for. Ms. Hunter said that we had people tell us this would have an adverse effect on affordable housing and when she asks how many we have in the town, no one knows. We have given people in the town no opportunity to have a conversation and register and understand what they need to be doing. We have recognized that we have a problem and have developed a law that is pretty far-reaching and may well be having some unintended consequences and presenting us with problems we are not ready to handle. She thought that even as we sit here tonight and talk about it, it seems unclear what we want to do in certain instances. Ms. Hunter thought the town needs to proceed cautiously and find out what is out there right now and what condition they are in...who are they housing.... Mr. Goodman brought the board back to the definition of an ADU and Ms. Brock, who had been googling other municipalities, asked if this works; after the definition of Dwelling Unit saying it provides complete living facilities for one family, this example has a statement "Each individual unit shall have a separate and direct access to the outside and each individual unit is to be occupied exclusively by one family..." and she wondered if the "occupied exclusively" helps in some way so that if you have got your single family home and you have your sink and bathroom downstairs, that doesn't turn you into an ADU because it is not occupied exclusively by a family. Ms. Bleiwas thought it helped as long as we are only requiring the registration when it is rented; if the registration is not required if it isn't rented.... Ms. Brock stated that change was made; registration is only required if the ADU is rented and only applies to rentals of 30 days or longer. Mr. Goodman thought that generally when you are renting somewhere, the tenant has exclusive use of the premises so that is already there. Ms. Hunter asked about rented vs non-rented ADU and not having to get a permit for a non- rented ADU...if we don't have a process whereby people who have family members living in ADUs for which they do not have to get an operating permit,when they come in to get one, say after mom passes and now they are going to rent it, and they come in to apply for an operating permit, at that time, given that they have not had an existing ADU on record, they will need to abide by the then relevant codes. So what is the system to address that? TB 2017-11-17 Pg. 3 Mr. Goodman responded that his understanding is once mom is gone and you are going in for an operating permit, if it was a permitted and known ADU then the inspection is based on the code at the time it was built, but if it was something that did not get a permit when it was created and we have no knowledge of it, so we are doing the first inspections ever, then, if somebody can prove somehow when it was created,we can use the code at that time. But if we have no idea, we have to use the current code. Ms. Hunter said, yes, but, unknowing and unwitting individuals, of which there are going to be some, should be afforded an opportunity to come in to the town and register their ADU, go through whatever permitting process they are going to have to go through with the town and lock down that designation even though it is not being rented. Mr. DePaolo didn't understand what you gain by"locking down" and Ms. Hunter responded that you gain having it held to the year you established. Mr. DePaolo said it doesn't matter, the ADU was built when it was built and Mr. Goodman added, you have to have some proof, so whether you come in now with receipts or 10 years from now with those receipts to prove it was built in say 1985, it is the same, whether you come in now of in 2020. Ms. Hunter asked what a person does if they bought it existing and have no receipts? Mr. DePaolo said that is a question for today,whether we are going to have a registration program absent the operating permit application. Mr. Bates stated that in the past, it was a problem to research, but now, with Municity, it is easier to look back and see things. At some you have to come up to code. In the past, attorneys may not have checked, but now, they do more and more. Mr. Goodman asked for thoughts on having the registration part without the operating permit. He thought that if someone really wanted to let someone know now, or get on record now, then just fill out the application and get the operating permit paying the $150. He didn't know if he wanted to create a whole other way to register without an operating permit. Mr. DePaolo said a person could still call and do that to get on the record simply by calling. Ms. Hunter wanted a way to have people be able to come in and have a conversation about what it is and what would be needed were they to rent it. People need to have a way to establish that they have a rentable ADU whether or not they are renting it now. Mr. DePaolo stated that there is nothing in the current construct to preclude people from doing that now so he was confused. He asked if she was suggesting a voluntary registration versus a mandatory...Ms. Hunter said that since the start she has talked about outreach and rollout of this legislation for people. Mr. Goodman thought the concern she has is people having to bring the ADU up to a later standard and how to avoid that and if they want to come in now and say it is existing now but not rented and/or occupied by family, that establishes it. He thought there will be growing pains we can't avoid and he was sure the City did also. TB 2017-11-17 Pg. 4 Mr. Goodman turned to Ms. Hunter's other question regarding due dates and she responded that Mr. DePaolo answered that question. Height Ms. Ritter wanted to double check on the height limits for a detached ADU due to a concern that was raised in one of the comments. The board discussed the building aspect of it such as pitch with Mr. Bates and decided on single story at 20'ft and two-story at 25'ft when it is a sole structure such as a cottage, but not when they are above a garage, for example. This would apply to new construction. Size Ms. Bleiwas proposed 1,200'sgft. The initial plan is to limit the size to 70% of the main house and by capping it at 1,800'sgft,you are basically saying that a house that is 1,172' square feet or smaller can have an accessory dwelling which is not really giving 70% but giving them 800' square feet. If we move it to 1,200'sgft, she thought that was a more typical house of about 1,800'sgft. She added that her issue with 800'sgft is that it really is quite small and a one bedroom apartment and when we think of this,we often think of this in terms of an in-law apartment, but a lot of times now it is the reverse and people are having their kids come home or their kids with kids who are coming home because they are now a single parent and it is a situation where they have to provide housing for their offspring and if it is a parent with a child or two, you really need two bedrooms and you can't do that in an 800'sgft space realistically. Mr. DePaolo thought that size is huge and the whole idea of an accessory apartment is that it is subordinate to the big house. It isn't a big house attached to a big house. Discussion followed with some noting that current developers do this; a large house with a large house to maximize what is allowed by the 70%rule alone. Ms. Ritter said there are 161 single-family homes in Ithaca that are 800' sqft or less and she had pictures. They are older houses, but people do live in them. She thought it was one thing to have it in the basement, but look at Sanctuary Drive; that is what you get without the maximum, huge dwellings to allow two units. Ms. Ritter added that she has done a ton of research on ADU's and 800' sqft was always popping up with large ones being associated with a 35%-40% of the main house restriction. These are intended to be small, not a duplex. She thought these are really not meant for whole families; where would you put the parking? and other concerns. It creates more problems for neighborhoods when you allow bigger ADUs. Ms. Rosa asked about an exemption for existing basements such as her case where a long hallway would put her over the 800' sqft. Discussion followed with the board deciding that the 800' sqft could remain and Ms. Ritter added that in the research she mentioned before, they also almost always required owner occupancy. Mr. DePaolo asked for those examples to help with the conformity issue. TB 2017-11-17 Pg. 5 Outreach/Mailing The board approved mailing to all property owners, excluding the apartment complexes and existing multiple dwellings who are already under an operating permit program. Discussion ensued about the process and procedure as it pertains to the public hearing and adopting the local law. The general feeling was that there have been numerous opportunities for comment and the most recent public hearing had all of the comments addressed, so although the law is different and therefore requires another public hearing, the changes were what the commenters wanted. Mr. Goodman thought that the town has done much more regarding this legislation than any other law and at some point people have to take responsibility to keep themselves informed as property owners. Mr. DePaolo was concerned that at some point in time the board has to go with what is drafted, especially in cases such as this were comments have been taken in to consideration for over a year. This shouldn't be an opportunity for a total revamp of the laws because now people have been notified in this way. We do not gain anything in this instance where we give people three, four, five opportunities to comment yet again. There are issues with every law; someone is inconvenienced by all laws. We have given people a year to figure out how to comply. Mr. DePaolo said he is absolutely in favor of public involvement, but at some point a law has been discussed and dissected enough and presumably board members and staff have been bringing comments from residents they have heard to the process. Mr. Goodman wanted to wrap the meeting up due to time and he felt we had made a lot of progress and the legislation is ready for the final step. He thanked Mr. DePaolo for all his work on this. Adjourned at 2:22 p.m. Submitted by Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk TB 2017-11-17 Pg. 6 Outreach/Mailing The board approved mailing to all property owners, excluding the apartment complexes and existing multiple dwellings who are already under an operating permit program. Discussion ensued about the process and procedure as it pertains to the public hearing and adopting the local law. The general feeling was that there have been numerous opportunities for comment and the most recent public hearing had all of the comments addressed, so although the law is different and therefore requires another public hearing, the changes were what the commenters wanted. Mr. Goodman thought that the town has done much more regarding this legislation than any other law and at some point people have to take responsibility to keep themselves informed as property owners. Mr. DePaolo was concerned that at some point in time the board has to go with what is drafted, especially in cases such as this were comments have been taken in to consideration for over a year. This shouldn't be an opportunity for a total revamp of the laws because now people have been notified in this way. We do not gain anything in this instance where we give people three, four,five opportunities to comment yet again. There are issues with every law; someone is inconvenienced by all laws. We have given people a year to figure out how to comply. Mr. DePaolo said he is absolutely in favor of public involvement,but at some point a law has been discussed and dissected enough and presumably board members and staff have been bringing comments from residents they have heard to the process. Mr. Goodman wanted to wrap the meeting up due to time and he felt we had made a lot of progress and the legislation is ready for the final step. He thanked Mr. DePaolo for all his work on this. Adjourned at 2:22 p.m. Z y A& Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk TB 2017-11-17 Pg. 6