HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegulatory Issues and Affordable Housing in Ithaca 1994 Regulatory Issues and Affordable Housing in Ithaca
City of Ithaca,New York
Rental Housing Advisory Commission
12/13/94
Foreword
The City of Ithaca faces,as do many cities across the nation,a shortage of affordable housing.
This situation has developed over the last two decades as the average costs of market-rate rental
and market-priced sales have increased far faster than average incomes in most American cities
(Davis, The Affordable City,p3).
In many respects,however,the situation in Ithaca is unique. The presence of two major
institutions of higher learning,Cornell University and Ithaca College,create a captive student
population nearly equal to that of the City's year-round population. The relative isolation of
Ithaca from other cities concentrates changes in supply and demand within a metropolitan-area
housing market,three-fifths of which is within Ithaca City limits. There is no opportunity for
significant spill-over to adjacent markets.
The City's 1994 abbreviated Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS)paints a
picture of a housing market that is not responding to the needs of a growing segment of the
renting population—those renters with low to moderate incomes. While this segment of the
population grows,the rental options available to them in the City of Ithaca appear to be
decreasing. The CHAS states that the current operation of the housing market"results in a
continual shrinking of the inventory of affordable rental housing for low income families."
While the rents have increased 93%,the median household income in the City of Ithaca has
increased only 72% in the last decade(City of Ithaca,CHAS,p.1). The normative level of 30%
of household income devoted to housing costs(recognized by New York State CHAS and HUD)
was exceeded by some two-thirds of Ithaca's population in 1990(1990 Census).
The upward pressure on rents shows no sign of abating in the immediate future. The obvious
effect of an exacerbated shortage of rental housing units coupled with a burgeoning population
will be higher rents. The expanding market of students,with greater purchasing power than
many local residents,has spurred the conversions of single-family houses and further limited the
options of local residents of limited means.
Cornell University could in theory reduce demand,and therefore the pressure fueling rising rents,
through the creation of more on-campus housing. The creation of more student housing on the
Cornell campus would concentrate the student population. This would separate some activities
1
of students from neighbors who might find them undesirable. It would also lower the number of
trips generated to and from campus by car.
However,a reduction in the number of students housed by the private sector would not be
beneficial to the overall local economy. A conservative estimate of 10,000 renting students each
paying$300 a month creates$36,000,000 of annual revenue for landlords,who are
predominantly local residents. With a multiplier(the number of times a dollar is recycled
through the local economy)of 2.5,it can be argued that students' rents generate some
$90,000,000 in local business annually. This revenue is taxable. The removal of a significant
number of student renters would prove detrimental to local business and the City's tax base. The
creation of more housing for the student population by the private sector,although not beneficial
directly to the population that affordable housing is intended to serve,would ease pressures on
existing housing stock.
A scarcity of new affordable housing developments and a widening of the gap between those
who can and cannot afford housing has created an untenable situation. The City of Ithaca has
therefore begun to investigate possible regulatory and zoning changes that may ease the situation.
The controls and limitations of a zoning ordinance,and how the intent of the ordinance is
physically manifested in development,cannot be underestimated.
The heritage of zoning makes it a tool which attempts to simultaneously address both goals of
American housing policy:quality and quantity. Modern zoning has developed along with the
American city,and therefore represents an amalgamation of the many issues confronting cities.
The topics of ventilation, sanitation,lighting and fire safety are all addressed within the earliest
zoning codes. Another strain of zoning developed concerning the regulation of land use in order
to preclude incompatible uses on the same property. This type of zoning,which states what the
allowed uses of an area are(and the allowable parameters of those uses),is know as"Euclidean".
The creation of Euclidean zones exclusively for residential use(defined as the"highest use"of
zones) is an attempt to allow for both the availability and quality of housing. However,as
quality standards are more easily and affordably codified,they generally win out over quantity
issues in local zoning codes. When quality issues are predominant they invariably lower the
supply of housing and increase its cost. Qualitative restrictions(although necessary for the
insurance of a minimum standard of quality of life)contract the supply of available housing,thus
increasing its cost.
2
.. i.
Local zoning codes must then preclude inferior dwellings while simultaneously allowing for
acceptable development. The definition of"acceptable"is amorphous and markedly different for
different members of a community. A community may be correct in zoning specifications that
protect a neighborhood's character from high-density development,but it would be
unconscionable and unlawful to exclude those who would live in a high-density development
from the entire community. The zoning code must then allow for the inclusion of housing
serving all segments of the population,regardless of income level. As the population of a
community changes, so do its housing needs and the performance of its zoning code.
As the needs of the population of Ithaca have changed the need to revamp certain areas of the
existing zoning code and perhaps add new zones has become apparent. These changes must be
made in a very specific manner so as to effect beneficial outcomes,while preserving the
character and history of the City. Any inquiry into possible zoning code changes must begin
with an exploration of the needs of the neighborhoods which comprise the City.
The following is an attempt to explore the needs of the City of Ithaca in regard to affordable
housing and explore means of meeting those needs. The report is divided into four sections:
I. an evaluation of current needs and liabilities in regard to affordable housing;
IL a survey of cities similar to Ithaca in population make-up;
II1 a survey of local developers;and
IV. an overview that includes possible courses of action for the City.
3
L Creation of Affordable Rental Housing Units: Investigation of Current Liabilities and
Needs
The creation of additional affordable housing within the City will prove futile if the existing
affordable stock is not maintained. An understanding of liabilities to the City's present
affordable housing stock will enable policy makers to tailor policy decisions towards the
maintenance of existing and future affordable housing stock.
Any single method of inquiry into the many liabilities that threaten affordable housing proves
insufficient. The evidence and conjectures in the following section are both empirical and
anecdotal. The issues discussed are considered in broad categories and are not by any means
exhaustive.
The number of affordable units available in the City of Ithaca are insufficient to meet the demand
created by the population. The Tompkins County 1994 CHAS states,
The 1990 Census indicates that two-thirds of all rental households in the City are paying
more than 30% of their income for rent,with 57% of low and moderate income family
households found to be paying over 35% of their income for housing costs. The
Tompkins County CHAS found that"half of the renter households in the County are low
income,and that 36% of the low income households pay more than 35% of their income
in rent.
The CHAS goes on to suggest that the rental market is responding to pressures created by an
increasing number of college students. As the number of college student renters increases the
pressure on existing rent levels in neighborhoods surrounding the University and College
increases. Students who are unable to attain or unable to afford units in close proximity to the
campus spill into outlying neighborhoods and place further upward pressure on rents. As long as
the demand for units by college students exceeds the number of units available affordable units
will be lost to ascending rent levels.
The private market has not kept pace with the demand created by students. The lack of buildable
space in most of the neighborhoods surrounding the University has limited the number of
opportunities available to developers. A dramatic increase in the number of units in Collegetown
during the 80's did ease and even reduce the spill-over of college students into adjoining
neighborhoods,but as the CHAS states the upward pressure on rents is still strong.
The creation of more housing for students would help relieve some of the upward pressure on
rents. This would slow the loss of affordable housing in some neighborhoods,though it would
4
not create new affordable units to fill the City's existing need. If the students' demand for
housing is left untended,the creation of affordable housing may prove impossible,as it will be
converted to serve the more profitable student population. Therefore the upward pressure on
rents caused by students must be addressed before any effort to create affordable housing can be
effective.
Not only have units been faced with ascending rental pressures,but many have been lost to fire.
During the last four years alone,the Ithaca Fire Department has fought 33 fires in residential
multiple-unit dwellings which caused more than$1,000 of damage. The number of affordable
units that have been removed from the market due to fire,and for how long,is not known,but it
appears to be substantial. This reflects the need to protect not only new but existing housing
stock from loss by fire.
Compounding the problem of a loss of affordable housing is the lack of new affordable housing
being developed. The CHAS states that only 53 subsidized units have been created in the last
decade. Since the private market has failed to address the demand created by students,it should
not be expected to create less profitable affordable housing without some kind of incentive. The
current situation has meant a net loss of affordable units while the population needing them has
grown.
The conversion of existing vacant and underutilized building stock into affordable housing is an
option that should be fully utilized by the city. These conversions should be pursued with vigor
and assistance whenever possible. This avenue has been curtailed by current building
rehabilitation regulations on the state level. Amendments to the state regulations making it
possible to utilize building stock as affordable residences,especially in historic areas such as the
Commons, should be vocally supported by the City. In the likely event that the necessary
amendments are not immediately forthcoming,the City should investigate the possibility of
creating a loan pool to be drawn from by developers attempting to rehabilitate buildings in
accordance with the code.
5
II. Creation of Affordable Rental Housing Units: Investigation of Efforts Pursued By
Similar Cities
Possible changes and additions to the current zoning code of Ithaca will be better understood if
the effects of like efforts in similar cities are explored. This investigation will shed light on the
actual outcomes of theoretical proposals and point out potential pitfalls. This initial inquiry will
allow Ithaca to avoid many of the problems other cities have experienced while implementing
code changes. More importantly it will narrow the scope of considered changes and additions to
the zoning code by excluding ones that proved ineffective or undesirable in other cities.
A list of cities comparable to Ithaca in terms of surrounding area,population demographics,and
presence of a university was made. This list included six cities,which were contacted via mail
and asked to complete a survey created by the Rental Housing Advisory Commission. The initial
response of two cities was increased to five by a second round of mailings—one survey did not
indicate which city had completed it,and therefore will be referred to as Huron. The survey
contained two sections,the first regarding general issues and the second relating to specific
policies. Each of the survey's basic questions was augmented by follow-up questions to add
depth to answers. The findings were categorized according to section and then basic question.
Section l: General Housing Issues in Small University Cities
The first question asked was"What do you feel is the paramount regulatory impediment to the
creation of affordable housing in your city?". Three cities felt that there were no major
impediments created by their regulatory system. Boulder cited the time taken to process project
applications. Boulder does have a growth management program and has discouraged higher
densities in the past few years. These measures and its linkage fee program(explored later)
create a longer period of bureaucratic navigation for developers. Burlington felt that the multiple
layering of regulatory levels(local and state)created over-lapping interests and lost time.
The second question asked to what degree the presence of a large college population affected the
rental housing prices. Three of the Cities found the effects to be"strong"while the remaining
two choose"extreme". "Extreme"was the most potent choice offered,with"strong"being the
next.
6
The third question asked for the percentage of housing units that are renter occupied,and what
percentages of those are occupied by college students and families or individuals below the
poverty line.
The following chart indicates that each of the cities surveyed have a lower percentage of housing
units occupied by renters than Ithaca(71%). Lawrence,Huron,and Gainesville obviously rely
heavily on the private market to provide rental housing to students,and the markets
predominantly serve students. Only Lawrence has a higher percentage of renters below the
poverty line than Ithaca.
Housing Units Rental Units
% Renter Occupied % College Students % Below Poverty Line
Lawrence,KS 51% 60% 56% (est.)
Huron 60% 80% 5%
Boulder,CO 50% n.a. 23%
Burlington,VT 65% 12-15% 17% (est.)
Gainesville,FL 51% 60% (est.) 14% (est.)
The fourth question asked whether a policy has been implemented to concentrate or disperse the
student population. Only Gainesville has chosen to pursue such a policy. In an attempt to
concentrate the student population near campus,land use designations near the University have
been granted higher densities to encourage the development of student housing.
The fifth question asked what efforts had been taken to create more rental housing for students.
Three of the five cities have opened negotiations with the universities,and two have taken no
action.
Of the three that have negotiated with the University, Burlington seems to have made the most
progress. It has finished an agreement that changed the campus housing policies of the
University(creating a more flexible meal plan and having sophomores live on campus)and had
the University build more housing. These efforts have resulted in higher occupancy for the
dormitories and new units. In total they have resulted in"some easing up of student demand in
private sector housing,"although the effect on rent levels are harder to measure due to the impact
of the recession.
7
Boulder has allowed higher densities on the campus,and then allowed the University to deal with
the problem. These efforts have been described as"marginally"effective as students are
commuting from farther and farther away and still having a"strong"impact on the market. In a
statement,nearly verbatim with the City of Ithaca's own 1994 CHAS,Boulder notes that
"students continue to impact rental housing as they can pay$300/bedroom [which is]out of
reach for families." It must also be noted,however,that the changes made by the City of
Boulder were made recently and have not had time to become effective.
Lawrence is working with the University,but this does not seem to be a high priority of the City
as"it is not a large concern—because market forces will provide rental housing for college
students." Lawrence is not facing undue pressures on its rental housing market from students as
there is no lack of student housing on campus. In fact,the University of Kansas has an
"abundance of'on campus' student housing. The University is trying to reduce the number of
units available due to high vacancy rates."
Gainesville is currently making no effort to create student rental housing,as their comprehensive
plan states that"the University of Florida and the private sector shall be responsible for providing
housing for college students." The before-mentioned efforts of the City to increase allowable
densities around the campus have,however,proven positive in this regard as"several higher
density housing projects for students have been developed and are currently being developed
near the University."
All cities surveyed,other than Burlington,are then relying on the universities and private sector
to provide students with more housing in attempts to ease the"extreme"and"strong"effects
students are having on the rental the housing market. Cities have aided both the universities and
private sector in this regard by allowing higher densities near campuses.
The sixth question asked whether profits from market-rate housing developments had been tied
to affordable housing projects. Three of the cities have not created programs,although one of
those(Lawrence),has begun discussing the idea. Two of the cities have created linkage fees
tying profits of developments to affordable housing.
Boulder has levied an excise tax on both residential and non-residential development to build and
rehabilitate affordable housing. The units created by funds from this tax are targeted for working
households earning from 30-60% of the AMI(area median income). These efforts have
succeeded in creating 150 permanently affordable units in the past three years.
8
Burlington also utilized such a linkage agreement during the 80's. A subdivision of affordable
housing(37 units)was developed in connection with a market-rate condominium development.
The agreement also included a land swap,rezoning,and beach dedication.
Section 2: Specific Housing Policies in Small University Cities
The first question asked about the use of incentive zoning to attract the creation of affordable
housing.Two of the five cities had not utilized incentive zoning,while the remaining three had.
The City of Gainesville has used density bonuses as a form of incentive zoning if affordable
housing was included in the development. These densities are triggered when 10% or more of
the project is affordable housing. The City also has a policy that will"implement and promote
the opportunity for zero lot line and cluster subdivisions as incentives for low income housing."
Zero lot line zoning is a mechanism that allows structures to be built directly adjacent to the lot
line with no side yard. This allows for one side yard to be larger than previously possible. With
open space concentrated on one side of the dwelling,lot size can be smaller without destroying
many of the positive aspects of larger lot zoning for single-family residences. In effect this
convention allows for reduced lot size,and thus housing cost,without sacrificing aesthetic
considerations.
Cluster subdivisions have the same overall density as those that are conventionally designed;
however,they have more open space. This is accomplished by"clustering"units closer together
on one portion of the overall parcel and preserving the rest as open space.
These allowances lower development costs for developers by reducing infrastructure needs.
Gainesville rates these policies as"marginally"effective.
The City of Boulder will promote the creation of affordable housing by mandating that 20% of
its allocations are given to affordable housing projects through its growth management system.
The effort has not yet been implemented and will go into effect in January 1995.
The City of Burlington has implemented forms of incentive and inclusionary zoning. Incentive
zoning provides an incentive(such as a bonus of increased density or tax-deferment) for desired
developments. Inclusionary zoning states that a minimum percentage(usually 5% to 10%)of
proposed units must be sold below cost to families of moderate income.
9
In Burlington density bonuses are used commonly and given regularly to elderly housing
projects. Elderly housing projects are also subject to less stringent parking requirements. Impact
fees,assessed against developments in accordance with their anticipated fiscal drain on a
municipality's services,are also waived for desired developments. These efforts are considered
"moderately"effective by the City.
The second question asked about changes in the zoning code that allowed single-family houses
to be converted to multiple residences or to have accessory apartments. An accessory apartment
is defined as"a small dwelling unit,added to an owner occupied single family residential
property,which is subordinate to the principal residential use in terms of size and appearance"
(Ithaca Code).
Burlington,Boulder,and Lawrence have made no changes in the code,although Burlington has
allowed such conversions with zoning board approval for single-family homes on large lots since
the 1970's. Gainesville has recently turned down a proposal to allow accessory apartments.
Huron has recently attempted to do just the opposite of allowing single-family houses to be
converted. The zoning change they enacted was intended to end the conversion of accessory
building area(an area which is incidental to the principal use or occupancy of the main building)
into living space. Such accessory uses in a residential structure might include recreation and play
rooms,or dining and banquet rooms.
The third question inquired about alterations in regulatory review process to ease the creation of
affordable housing developments. Only the City of Burlington had made such changes,and
these changes had been substantial. The City has added a technical review committee(TRC)
comprised of all members of all the departments involved in developmental review. The TRC
reviews all projects at the conceptual stage:which allows for an expedited review as all
regulations and issues have been identified and dealt with. The City has also waived impact fees
for affordable housing projects. Burlington has also adopted a new"user friendly"zoning
ordinance.
Answers to question four indicate that none of the five cities has modified its regulatory review
process to ease the conversion of single-family houses to multiple-unit apartment houses.
Boulder has gone so far as to note that greater densities are being actively discouraged in single-
family neighborhoods. It must also be remembered that Boulder is actively pursuing greater
population densities on the campus.
10
. . .. S ...
Question five asked about the existence of"floating zones"to allow a pre-determined number of
projects to enjoy certain zoning variances where affordable housing is desired. Only Huron has
attempted to utilize this method,creating a floating zone for elderly housing projects. The
ordinance cannot be evaluated as it has only recently been passed.
Question six asked about the use of"performance standards"rather than traditional Euclidean
zoning to allow for more affordable housing projects. This type of standard had not been
adopted by any of the cities surveyed.
The final question asked respondents to discuss and evaluate any policies regarding affordable
housing that had not been addressed by the survey.
The City of Burlington has enacted a condominium conversion ordinance which slows down the
rate of conversions to condominiums in an effort to conserve affordable housing stock. A
security deposit ordinance,which regulates the amount and return time of security deposits,has
also been created. Minimum housing inspections are mandated for rental housing units. A
housing trust fund has been created through the transfer of fees and a one percent property tax
levy. An ordinance that requires the replacement of affordable units lost to demolition or non-
residential conversion is also in effect. The City is also supporting a network of non-profit
housing developments including land trusts and cooperatives.
The City of Lawrence is attempting to implement the suggestions of the 1994 report of the
Mayor's Appointed Housing Study Group. The Group has urged the creation of a Housing Trust
Fund in order to procure permanently affordable housing. The City is also considering creating
several housing education workshops and seminars.
The City of Gainesville provides available city-owned parcels to private and non-profit housing
developers for the development of affordable housing for low and very low income households,
The City has assisted in several such projects with various developers(Homebuilders Assoc.,
Habitat for Humanity). Assistance to private and non-profit housing developers identifying sites
for low income and manufactured housing is also provided by the City.
The City of Boulder has created a Community Housing Assistance Program(CHAP) that is used
to leverage funds to create affordable housing for residents who are earning between 30%-60%
of the Area Median Income. The initial funds are locally generated, some$800,000 each year,
through a housing excise tax on new development and a small property tax. These funds
leverage CDBG and HOME moneys. The CHAP funds have been used to acquire and renovate
some 150 units in three years,30 over the initial goal of 40 per year. The program is part of a
11
City effort to place at least five percent of the City's housing stock into the"permanently
affordable"category.
Conclusions:
A variety of methods have been employed by those cities surveyed to increase the amount of
affordable housing; some of these approaches are appropriate for consideration in the case of
Ithaca's housing needs. All of the cities surveyed felt that the presence of universities had a
profound effect on the rental housing market. The first section of the survey shows that most of
these cities have relied on the private market to provide needed units.
Some attempts have been made by all cities to focus the market forces into development
favorable to the community. Although only Gainesville acknowledged a policy which attempts
to focus the University population,most cities had increased allowable densities either near or on
campus. These efforts are reactions to market pressures and attempts to increase efficiency by
reducing trip generation and impact on existing neighborhood character, Efforts to ease
conversions of single-family houses to structures more likely to be utilized by students were not
entertained in three of the cities surveyed, rebuffed in Gainesville,and a measure creating the
opposite effect was passed in Huron.
Programs that have tied market rate housing to affordable projects have proven successful in both
Burlington and Boulder. These types of linkages require projects of fairly large capital inputs
and a strong market. The low percentage of buildable land near Cornell(the only market
seemingly able to support both requirements) would limit the use of such methods in Ithaca.
However the success of the CHAS program in Boulder does indicate that linkage fees of some
sort should be fully investigated.
Changes in the zoning code that would lower construction costs, such as zero lot line zoning and
cluster zoning,are limited by the lack of buildable land in the City of Ithaca. These techniques
could be tailored to meet the needs of Ithaca by reducing the size requirements. The same
reductions could also apply to the issuance of density bonuses. The concept of floating zones
could be combined with the use of density bonuses in order to promote the creation of affordable
housing in certain areas. The inapplicability of some existing ordinances can be seen by the
under-utilization of the City's current cluster zoning ordinance.
Another area of concern in Ithaca is the conservation of what is currently affordable housing.
The efforts of Burlington to insure the replacement of affordable housing,and Boulder in
12
permanently securing affordable housing should be considered in Ithaca. The efforts of INNS
have been rewarding,but the creation of a fund devoted to the conservation of affordable housing
for families would be beneficial.
The regulatory changes pursued by Burlington,creating a technical review committee(TRC)
should be noted. Such a committee can theoretically guide developers through the process with a
more expedient and pleasing outcome for all parties. In the case of Ithaca,however,the
committee would add little to the process if the current site-plan review process is not altered. If
the Planning Board were to shift the scope of review totally away from technical issues, such a
committee could potentially expedite the process. Burlington's adaptation of a"user friendly"
zoning ordinance would seem to be ineffective for the City of Ithaca as the current code is
considered clear and accessible by developers.
13
III. Creation of Affordable Rental Housing Units: A Survey of Local Developers
The effects of existing regulations on the development of affordable housing must be understood
before any meaningful investigation of proposed policy can be undertaken. In order to best
understand the effects of current regulations the input of users of the system was sought. The
users in this case are developers,architects,and landlords who must navigate the system in order
to create developments.
A list of local developers,architects,and landlords was compiled and cross-referenced. Input
came from representatives of the Building Department,the Real Estate Industry,members of the
community,and from developers themselves. Each member of the final list was asked to provide
input in an anonymous interview. Six of those asked obliged the interview. This group included
developers,landlords,and an architect. The interviews were conducted in an informal manner
with a focus on both regulatory code and process.
There was a strong consensus among most of those interviewed that the current zoning code of
the city was satisfactory. No individual interviewed cited a single regulation in actual zoning
code that they felt was unneeded or outdated. While some of those interviewed did not support
the theoretical underpinnings of zoning in general,they did accept that the code was as fair as
could be expected.
Many of those interviewed gave positive to glowing reviews of the City Building Department
and staff. The Planning Department was also praised as efficient and professional by most of
those interviewed.
While those interviewed did not criticize the zoning code,they were extremely vocal about the
manner in which the City chooses to enforce the code. Each interviewee cited a measure of
arbitrariness and political opposition to development in the way applicants were handled. Most
were referring directly to decisions of the Planning Board and in particular the open-ended nature
of the site-plan review law.
The site-plan review process was roundly criticized by nearly all of those interviewed. The
complaints were not because the process existed,but the manner in which it was currently being
applied. When asked to state exactly when they felt development became problematic in the
City,those interviewed did not mention the inception of the site-plan review process,but a period
of time ranging from five to three years ago. One individual pointed out that the site-plan review
14
process was in theory a more rational and efficient manner in which to deal with requests of a
proposed development's surrounding neighborhood than the informal negotiation process that
preceded it. The individual went on to state that the process had lost its rationality within the
last four years,and that it was now perhaps more inefficient than its predecessor.
Most of those interviewed complained that the process had become politicized to the point of
arbitrariness,and that it only served to halt the development process. When asked what the
paramount hindrance to development in the City was,nearly all of those interviewed cited an
anti-development attitude on the part of the Planning Board. Many of those interviewed asserted
that the current Planning Board did not adequately reflect the community of Ithaca and therefore
did not always consider the full spectrum of the community's needs. Some felt that the site-plan
review process was used to create obstacles to slow and halt development. Others felt that if the
Planning Board were more specific and directly forthcoming in what they desired less time
would be lost and the results would be more pleasing to both sides. While most of those
interviewed stated that the Planning Department itself was professional and competent,one
individual charged that it too had become politicized and involved in favor trading.
Interviewees stated that requests and comments made by the Planning Board were often non-
concrete and intangible,and as such were difficult to fulfill. Most complained that the Planning
Board did not have a defined area of influence and input in regards to developments,and thus
tended to make decisions in areas in which they had little or no expertise. Most felt that the site-
plan review process needed to be better defined in scope. This would allow the Planning Board
to concentrate on issues it felt were paramount to the community,and allow the Planning
Department to handle technical issues.
The monthly meetings of the Planning Board,the lack of communication between developer and
Board during the interim and the inexact nature of the Board's requests were cited as increasing
the time needed for approval of developments. This increase in project completion time
increases the final cost of the development. One developer made the point that by slowing down
the development process and increasing costs the site-plan review process was creating capital
burdens too large for smaller developers and marginal or small projects. He stated that in the
current political climate only large capital-intensive developments were feasible.
Developers referred to the requests of the Planning Board as"extortion"because they received
no incentive other than the possible approval of the project to meet them. Some stated that the
system did not allow for barter between the City and developer. This might have meant that
more projects would have been developed,and those developed would be more beneficial to the
15
entire community. Some asserted that if the City could give a little,they would be more willing
to alter projects according to the requests of the Planning Board.
Conclusions
The complaints of those interviewed centered not around the regulatory review process or the
existence of a zoning code,but the manner in which the regulatory mechanism was employed to
enforce the code. The two most prevalent complaints were those of the politicization of the
Board and the scope and applicability of the Board's requests.
The nature and original concept of the site-plan review law demands that the requests of the
Planning Board have some measure of flexibility and breadth. This malleability is intended to
augment the effectiveness of the zoning code in creating a more pleasant community.
However,the Planning Board is limited in the scope of its investigation by the intent of the site
development plan law. The intent states that the site plan review process,
is not intended to prohibit development that is otherwise permitted under the
applicable zoning regulations;rather it is intended to improve the design,function,
aesthetics and safety of projects and site plans which are otherwise in
conformance with zoning regulations. It is also intended that this site review
process be conducted in a timely fashion... (p.27602,Ithaca City Code)
This passage also appears to effectively limit the Board to areas of inquiry dealing directly with
the particular site in question. The Planning Department can,and should,be used as the primary
resource of the Planning Board in attempts to understand the implications and effects of proposed
developments on the city as a unit,but layout of existing zones defines the plan for the city in the
physical realm. Since all projects before the Board conform with the zoning code,they should be
considered as conforming with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Therefore,while particular
aspects of the projects proposal may be considered for desirability,the project itself should be
assumed to be desirable.
The number of respondents who judged the Planning Board to be politically motivated and anti-
development(whether or not these assertions are valid)warrant serious consideration. This level
of distrust of the process seems to reveal a serious lack of communication and interactive shaping
of developments between developers,the Planning Board,and the Planning Department.
Increased communication and accessibility would create a more comprehensive and informed
understanding for all parties. Direct and frank interaction would mitigate delays and produce
more desirable developments for all parties.
16
The Planning Board should make an effort to present all requests in terms that are as clear and
finite as possible. This will allow developers to better meet the requests of the Board and avoid
the appearance of ambiguous and arbitrary desires on the part of the Board.
The requests of the Board must also encompass the needs of every member of the community,
regardless of race,gender,religion,or income level. The board must embrace to Herculean task
of creating a community that is accessible and responsive to all of its present and future
members. In this regard,decisions of the Board will augment and clarify the intentions of the
zoning code and the Planning Department as part of the overall plan of the city,not reconstitute
it.
The effectiveness of the site-plan review law is then dependent on the comprehensively
representative nature of the Planning Board's decision process.
17
IV. Regulatory Issues and Affordable Housing in Ithaca: An Overview of Policy
Considerations
Propositions for the creation and maintenance of affordable housing in Ithaca must meet stringent
criteria. They,as a whole,must address the needs of the entire City's population. Any actions
taken must be sensitive to the existing character of Ithaca,without compromising the goal of
offering attainable, satisfactory housing to the citizens of the community.
In order to achieve these goals,proposals to change regulations must investigate two areas,the
actual code and the process by which it is implemented. This section will investigate both the
areas of actual regulation and regulatory process,then add a third category of inquiry, systemic
regulation. Systemic regulation explores the basic premises under which regulations are created,
and investigates whether or not the current system of zoning is obsolete.
This section attempts to combine aspects of the previous sections of the report into a
comprehensive overview of the affordable housing needs of the City of Ithaca. It is divided into
three sections(regulatory changes,regulatory process changes,and systemic changes),which
will outline interpretations and explanations for each of the proposals included under each
section.
It must be understood that the following proposed changes in code to facilitate the private market
will not solve Ithaca's housing problems. The market has been hindered by the existence of
some codes,and the changes will allow it to be more productive. The market,however,is driven
by effective demand(demand for products from individuals with the minimum amount of money
to pay for them)and will operate in an efficient manner only if it responds to such demand. No
matter the efficiency and skill of entrepreneurs in the Ithaca area,the market responds not to the
needs of the people,but to the effective demand created by the people. When people do not have
enough money to pay for adequate housing,developers cannot sell it or rent it to them on the
open market. The market can only meet the housing needs of those in the City who have enough
money to compete for housing on the market;the housing needs of those with too little money
must be met by social institutions.
18
Section 1: Regulatory Changes
Perhaps the first step that should be taken by the City is to determine the number and type of
affordable units needed in the City—and proclaim that in the next decade it will take steps to
insure that need is met. Such a proclamation and setting of a concrete goal of unit creation and
preservation would prove a catalyst to the City. The City of Boulder has set such a goal,which
forced it to define the population it was to serve and the means in which it was to serve them—
which it is now very effectively doing. The City of Ithaca cannot solve the housing problem
alone,but it can make a substantial impact—and should decide the priority the creation of
affordable units has on the agenda. While the financial means by which the City can directly
influence the situation are not infinite,they can be marshaled in a more focused manner. The
creation of a tangible goal will allow the City to begin to make a focused effort to meet the lack
of affordable units head on.
The goal of affordable housing will only be achieved by a proactive means,taken after the
relatively passive action of goal setting is accomplished. Modification of regulatory code and
procedure in order to utilize the private market can be considered a proactive move of limited
scale. Changes must be made periodically as codes and procedures grow obsolete,failing to
meet new demands of the populace,or are proven inefficient. These modifications,however,
must be undertaken with caution,as the original codes and procedure were themselves created by
public pressure. The original intent of these codes and procedures cannot be ignored. Where
even the original intent of these laws proves obsolete,change is long overdue.
The zoning code of Ithaca is a remarkably clear and concise piece of legislation. It has guided
the growth and physical manifestation of Ithaca since its inception. The code's original intent of
separating incompatible uses from one another has been met very successfully. The code,in its
own right,is considered fair and clear by the vast majority of contemporary developers in the
City of Ithaca(see section detailing the results of the developers' survey). While the code may
be clear,it is not producing the desired number of affordable housing units. The impetus for
actual production falls on the market mechanism,but any legislated deterrents to the creation of
such housing should be addressed.
The current zoning of Ithaca increases the costs of housing construction,as all zoning codes
must,by restricting the quantity of land available to housing and outlining minimum standards.
These standards are defined within the code according to each zone. The longstanding use of
different zones has created neighborhoods within Ithaca of differing character,a desirable
outcome. The standards created by these original zones,however,do not represent the needs or
19
desires of all citizens in the City. Every existing residential zone in the City calls for minimum
side yards. This is desirable for most residential zones,and helps create pleasant neighborhoods,
but it excludes the possibility row houses. The creation of a new row-house zone would allow
for lower construction costs,higher living densities,and more efficient utilization of scarce
buildable land.
The use of such a zone would allow for the creation of more affordable units which could be
utilized by families. These zones could be placed in areas that currently have dilapidated
housing stock in an effort to stimulate the redevelopment process. The argument that these zones
would destroy"neighborhood character" should be weighed against the discriminatory effects of
mandated side yards and minimum lot sizes. Row houses create neighborhoods of extremely
desirable character,the total exclusion of which would prove economically discriminatory.
The current"Cluster Zone" has proven ineffective as it has almost never been used. The apathy
displayed by the City in regard to the current incarnation of this zone is demonstrated by its
failure to include a description of the zone on its zoning chart. The cluster zone concept should
be modified to better fit the needs of the City. Cluster zoning can be utilized as a modified
density bonus which gives credit for unbuildable land to adjacent lots. While the overall density
of a neighborhood will not exceed the spirit of current zoning legislation,more units could be
built. In order to insure the creation of affordable units with the cluster zone,stipulations could
be built into the voluntary application for a zoning designation.
While correcting some oversights of the current code,such as the lack of a row house zone,will
passively allow the development of more affordable units,the City should take a more active
role. By creating a zone with the exclusive purpose of promoting such housing,the City would
become a catalyst of its creation. Such a zone must balance many concerns. It must provide an
incentive for the development of affordable units over more market-rate units. It must insure that
such units remain affordable. It must not concentrate the creation of such housing,thereby
"tilting"neighborhoods toward having a large majority of any single economic group or
significantly altering the character of specific neighborhoods. It must be conducive to the
creation of housing within the restrictions created by Ithaca's lack of buildable space. It must
also allow for the creation of units that correspond within reason to the existing architecture and
character of the neighborhoods in which they are placed.
In order to meet these criteria the City should establish an "Affordable Housing Zone" to
promote the creation of units which are rented or sold within the standards of affordability set by
Tompkins County. The actual zone should be"floating",that is not placed on the zoning map
20
with specific boundaries. It would be placed in an area that needs affordable housing,and then
possible projects would be entertained. If a specific project is found acceptable the appropriate
agency could designate the floating zone to the proposed site. The zone would then have been
placed in the site where it was needed and best suited. Such a zone would allow for needed
development types without changing the overall zoning of the neighborhood or allowing for
more than the desired number of that type of development. This would guard against the
unnecessary designation of zones,and allow the City to make decisions regarding the
appropriateness of specific proposals.
The minimum size of the zone should be relatively small,in order to meet size restrictions and
minimize capital investment requirements. The designation of a site as an Affordable Housing
Zone should include incentives. A package of limited density bonuses and temporary freeze on
property tax appreciation or future property tax reductions should be considered. Such projects
should be given special consideration and aid by all agencies involved from the outset to insure
viability. The City should also make an effort to promote such a zone and insure its use by
setting a goal of unit creation over five year spans through this mechanism.
The City should also consider a variety of less traditional measures in order to preserve and
create affordable housing. One such measure would be the creation of a fund from which
affordable housing landlords could draw upon at low interest in order to bring units up to code.
Creating a readily available capital pool would allow owners to improve units immediately in
emergency conditions,and even perhaps perform more preventive maintenance,thus keeping
units on the market for longer periods of time. The use of the funds should be tied to the
provision that the units be rented or sold at an affordable price. In the case of rental units,they
should remain affordable for at least a period of time that insures that the funds are not used to
move units out of the affordable bracket and constitute unfair gain by owners.
The City should also consider the creation of a local land trust. A land trust would create a pool
of permanently affordable houses to be utilized by local families. A land trust would consist of
the City purchasing property and selling houses to families in need of housing at an affordable
price. The City would retain the ownership of the land,therefore when the current occupants
decided to move the house could be sold by the occupants,who would receive market
compensation for any improvements made. The City's ownership of the property,however,
would negate any appreciation of the unit that does not reflect true value. The house would then
be resold,to an eligible buyer,as an affordable unit. The original subsidy created by the City's
purchase of the land is then retained throughout the life of the unit(and beyond). The appeal of
the program is that it would serve families of low-moderate means that have made a long-term
21
commitment to the City. The City would be able to garner property taxes for the value of the
house from these households. The ownership of units would give an incentive for improvement
to inhabitants that does not exist in many housing subsidy programs.
Currently, subsidies to affordable units are often lost as the house appreciates and is sold as at
market price. In effect public subsidies are lost as a private gain to program participants on the
market,and thus must be met through another expenditure(often greater than the original)by the
City. Federal programs for the creation of affordable rental housing units are now plagued by the
loss of such units as the time periods for which they were to remain affordable have begun to
expire—the subsidies have in effect been lost. Current Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
programs also suffer from this dilemma.
The success of the"Time of Jubilee"land trust in Syracuse should be noted. The trust has
created over 50 permanently affordable units in only a few years of existence. This could well
serve as a very accessible model for policy makers in Ithaca to formulate a local equivalent.
Section 2:Regulatory Process Changes
Changes in the regulatory process should be made to ease the process of affordable housing
creation. These changes,however,are of a second order nature in that they will affect all
development,not only that relating to affordable housing. The changes would have a limited
effect on creating affordable housing,but would create a more efficient regulatory system.
The current monthly meeting schedule of the Planning Board is insufficient to allow for the
demands placed on the Board members. Technical issues are at times addressed during the
limited few hours the Board meets before the public. These issues could be better raised and
addressed in a forum with only members of the Planning Department staff and Planning Board
present. This type of meeting would allow Board members to be well versed in all aspects of a
site proposal,review modifications to site proposals that have occurred between meetings,and
reflect upon the proposals before them. The presence of a Planning Department member would
allow quick response to technical and comprehensive queries in a less politicized environment.
This meeting could occur on a monthly basis,as does the public forum—in effect making the
Planning Board's meetings bi-monthly. The increased sacrifice such a change would entail of
members should not be taken lightly,but the benefits would be substantial to the community.
The nature of issues dealt with by the Planning Board precludes intimate relations with
developers. This presents a quandary when developers desire to address the Board regarding
22
•
•. .
. . • :
. ,
, . .
.
.
, • •
•
. • .
• • •
.
.
. . .
. • 1 .
•
. .
. .
,
• • .
. • , . • • .1 • •• , • •
• t • ,•. • •
. . .
. I .
.
.
•
.
, , •i"• ' •
, •. • • • •
.
•
.
.
, .
•.
. .
• .
. .
. •
.
, . .
modification to proposals or clarification on decisions between monthly meetings.
Communication between developers directly with a designated contact person within the
Planning Department would allow consistent reporting between the Board and developer via a
less political conduit. The twice monthly meeting format presented above would create,with the
designation of a contact person,a framework for communication that will allow for a more
efficient,intelligible,and productive review process.
Section 3: Systemic Changes
The City currently employs a"Euclidean"system of zoning code. In effect the code states what
uses/densities/lot sizes etc.are allowed within each zone. It is a descendent of the original
concept of zoning in that it attempts to separate uses that are incompatible. This method of
zoning has been very effective for a number of years in Ithaca,as it has dictated the pattern of
growth within the City. The basic pattern of the City's fabric has been established,and
residential uses have been safely protected from noxious ones. As the City has grown and the
availability of buildable space has decreased,building techniques,development patterns,and
needs have changed,so have the demands on the zoning code. The current"Euclidean"nature of
Ithaca's zoning may not be appropriate to the current needs of the City.
The City has chosen within the last decade to create a site plan review process in order to better
meet the new demands not met by the zoning code. The site plan process is used to address
issues that concern the City which fall beyond the scope of the current zoning. These issues
include neighborhood character(defined beyond the outlining limits of allowable building
characteristics in the code), sunlight,traffic,and visual appearance. These issues are important
to the community as a whole,and cannot be addressed in through a Euclidean-style zoning code.
The Planning Board is then charged to"improve the design,function,aesthetics and safety of
projects and site plans"which are otherwise in accordance with the code. This task is an
extremely broad and subjective one,and the City of Ithaca is relatively inexperienced with it.
The difficulty of the task faced by the Planning Board is made nearly impossible by the lack of
standards used as a benchmark for the Board's decisions. As the Planning Advisory Service
notes:
Communities that choose to enact regulations that require discretionary review but that
lack standards for decision making may make ad hoc and arbitrary decisions. Their
actions become exclusively reactions to development proposals without any prior testing
of desirability against policies and standards. And secondary and tertiary problems arise
that were not considered in the rezoning process but that might have been if the proposals
23
had been evaluated against a plan or planning process—p.8 The Administration of
Flexible Zoning Techniques.Meshenberg
The creation of a set of standards with which development proposals would be forced to meet
would mitigate these troubles. Such a standard would also allow developers to understand the
demands of the City,addressing the complaint most common in the survey,and avoid the
appearance of a politicized process.
The Planning Board is legally entitled to request certain changes of developers,but under the
current code it is not able to grant concessions in return for site improvements. This has created
a negative environment for developers and the community. A developer may be better off
bringing a substandard project for review,and conceding changes that would have otherwise
been included in the original proposal in an attempt to placate the Board. Developers are
certainly given no incentive to create innovative or exceptional projects,as they have no legal
ability to go beyond the specification of the legal code and must attempt to avoid costly
modification due to the Board's reviews. Thus projects are either not attempted or reduced to a
lower common denominator.
Both of these issues could be dealt with by the implementation of a new zoning code,one of
flexible zoning. Flexible zoning creates a set of standards that must be met(as in Euclidean
zoning)but allows for a schedule of trade-offs between the Planning Board and developers.
Flexible zoning is also able to address directly issues that the Planning Board currently addresses,
though in a more systematic manner. Current changes in development patterns such as integrated
developments(planned unit developments which integrate different residential and commercial
uses in one development)are anticipated by flexible measures.
Perhaps the most appealing aspect of flexible techniques is that they allow the City to state what
is desired in the City. This demand is then met with different proposals on various sites,and the
City is able to select the best proposal. This allows developers to be more creative with each
particular site and proposal,and less encumbered by zoning codes that may be inappropriate for
the nature of the specific proposal. For example,the City could create three floating zones for an
apartment house. While the best of these proposals may not be destructive to a neighborhood
due to exemplary design,current zoning in the Euclidean sense might preclude it. Flexible
zoning would give the Planning Board the option of granting the zone for the project. Rather
than today's system in which the Planning Board would request modifications that may make the
plan financially unfeasible,flexibility would allow for a trade-off benefiting all.
24
The move to a flexible system of zoning would constitute a considerable change for the Planning
Department,and development in the City as a whole. Such a move will not be considered
lightly,but it should be understood that the existence of the Site Plan Review law demonstrates a
need for more flexibility. The Planning Board is,in effect,the regulatory mechanism for flexible
zoning. The City has therefore chosen to create the regulatory outlet in order to relieve such
pressure. Perhaps the City should also consider creating the a zoning code that will clarify and
complement the role of the Planning Board.
25