HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1973-12-27 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
City of Ithaca
Special Meeting December 27, 1973 4:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chm. Doney, Mrs. Benson, Messrs. Schickel,. Shaw and Stein.
ALSO: Pl. Dir. Van Cort; Asst. Planner Meigs, Jr. Planner Williams; Mayor Conley,
Aldermen Meyer (Vice Chm. Charter & Ordinances Committee of Common Council),
C. Bonnichsen, M. Hall, R. Hemming, D. Hoffman, F. Hoard, M. Keller, G.
Myer, J. Raden, D. -Sherow, J. Spencer, J. Taylor, M. Woods; S Bernstein, .
C. Conway, P. Costanza, M. Lynch and J.: O'Shea (representing press and radio).
ABSENT: Messrs. Austin and Clynes.
Chm. Doney: Purpose of meeting today--at the Regular Planning, Board meeting, pro-
visions of revised zoning ordinance, map and chart regulation were received. There
were a few questions which arose; therefore, the Board wished to study the material
and return today for discussion and action to be-recommended to the Common Council.
The most prominent item was the definition of "family." The definition in the
present ordinance is as follows: One or more persons of recognized family relation-
ship maintaining a common household and may include domestic help. Following is the
revision which appears on the draft: "Family" shall mean one or more persons occupying
a single dwelling unit, provided that' unless all members are related by,b?ood,
marriage, adoption or ,other legal relationship, no such family shall contain over 5,
persons,, but further provided that domestic servants employed on the premises may be
housed on the premises without being counted as a family or families." Chm. Doney
took exception to the suggested definition--received several calls from people
feeling the same as he.
Mrs. Meyer asked if it wouldn't be worthwhile to -explain at what point the Board and
she had arrived in the work on the definition and other points. She explained the
reason for their meeting, as a whole, for sone help (to amend the suggested revision'
to 4 or 3 unrelated persons). The work on the ordinance has faltered for a variety
of reasons: it was worked on by many groups and individuals, and finally referred
to a subcommittee of the Charter &. Ordinances Committee of Council. "Community meetings
have been held--we are at a place of, hopefully, a final draft (excluding amend-
ments). We are now trying to find something acceptable to this group, which can be ,
recommended to the Common Council for their a-.tion. She explained the definition of
family came about because it was felt the original definition was noteclear enough:'
to be takentocourt. During the past two years there have been many discussions` on
definition of ,family. People who help make decisions don'tall-come to all the
meetings. We have come to be aware that in some of the case's which have been tried
the. key concern is the-constitutionality of the definition. The l4th 'amendment. says
we cannot discriminate against certain rights which people have.
In trying to Find a definition and taking into consideration the concern people in
R-1 district .have, we tried to find definition to meet both needs--question of not
allowing area to be deteriorated by encroachment of students, and which meets re-
quirements of the 14th amendment. The definition used in. the proposed zoning
ordinance was from the American Society of Planning Officials. We must -settle on a'
definition before approval of the Board and Common Council. The Planning Board will
vote on. oiie of several definitions. Th n the definition will be brought to Common
Council at a public hearing. The publi hearing will be held on January 17, 197+ and
this will be a major meeting to inform eople of the ordinance; in fact it might be
necessary to have more than 1 public he ing.
Alternative definitions:
Chm. Roney read a suggested definition: ""Family" shall mean one or more persons re-
lated by blood, marriage, adoption, or Dther legal relationship. "Family" shall also
*Wean not more than two people not so re ated and their immediate families related by
blood, marriage, adoption, or other leg 1 relationship. Domestic servants employed'
on the premises may be housed thereon w'thout being counted as a family or families."
He explained the difference between thi3 and the other definition--5 unrelated
persons which could be 6 or 7, and tota ly unmanageable. Secondly, although we have
not really taken a case to court in at least the past IO years, the spirit of the
ordinance would be retained by continuing a. .family definition along slightly more
traditional lines with the inclusion of some people who now desire to live without
benefit of marriage, but who are at least family oriented in the commonality of
goals and living together.
Other alternative:
People expressed concern they didn't ca e so much about unrelated persons living to-
gether so long as the owner of the prop rty is in residence to cope with problems
which might arise.
Pair. Stein: Wish to clarify mistake--I said I thought the Charter & Ordinances Com-
mittee had decided on 4 unrelated people rather than 5 people. Since last week, the
committee agreed on 4 people.
Martin A. Shapiro', on December 26, 1973 drew up Memorandum of Law addressing itself
to court cases which have gone before. There are two parts to the statement: The
first part--cases in New York; the second part cites case where higher court rejected
that, then gave.opinion on above.
Read by Mrs. Meyer: Application of Cas6 Law to Our Proposed Zoning; 0-dinance:
"There is no doubt "aut that the Boraas case if allowed to stand, has materially
charged the law -in New York with respectto zoning uses based upon blood relationship.
Although prior state case law would permit such an ordinance, and indeed, there are
many such ordinances currently in effect, it is my opinion that the Common Council
should be very wary of enacting an ordinance w'zich would fly in the face of theBoraas
case.
It is my belief that an ordinance which would define a family solely as a group of
blood-related, married, or adopted people would be more stringent than the ordinance
in the Boraas case, and according to that case may ultimately be found to be un-
constitutional. The proposed definitio of "Family" as it now stands, on the other
hand, is less stringent than the ordinance in the Boraas case and thus may be found
to fall within constitutional bounds. n any case, any Court litigation as to the
constitutionality of the zoning law wou d necessarily be expensive and time consuming
and probably result in many appeals."
Chm. Doney: In the case of Boraas, I'm not sure it is pertinent--wealthy community
on Long Island--only single family dwellings in their community, excludes everything
else. Currently being appealed to Supreme Court.
2
Mayor Conley cited the example of professors who go on sabbatical leaves, subletting
their homes to several individuals for a year or two, and making a high enough profit
that they don't care if damage is done while they are away as they can,af.ford:it.
Mike Hall: Don't need to write definition as the court says it should be. In favor
of keeping present definition of family being proposed; people can apply for a
variance to take care of discriminatory problem. Write ordinance that reflects what
people want to see--let people contest it if they don't like it,
Ed Jones, Zoning Officer: Variances deal with land use. Anything else is an exception.
Problem, at present, Model Housing Code says, for the purpose of clarification, ''a 1-
and a.2-family dwelling unit shall consist of a .family with no more than 4 roomers or
lodgers residing with either family and the first, thing permitted in a R-1 zone is' a
1-family dwelling unit." Now tell me how I equate the two items.
R. Hemming: Don't make it easy, don't throw gates wide open. He then presented pre-
pared statement:
SFAs a former member of the City of Ithaca Planning Board,, and as a current member of
the Tompkins County Plann4o.ng Board, I fully realize the importance of the decisions
you are called upon to deliberate and make. I thank you for this opportunity to be
hearel. My name is Raymond V. Hemming. I own iry home at 807 Mitchell Street in the
City of Ithaca, and, pay real estate taxes there both .to the City and to the Town of
Ithaca, since the easternmost boundary of the City bisects my land. I acquired ry
property in 1949 and have paid the real estate taxes levied on it each year. These
taxes have increased 500% since 1949, so "I feel it"should be the prerogative of those
like myself who are no longer youthful, and are not transients, to expect you to .
listen to us, and to give us at least as much consideration as others.. Officially I
am here as the elected` President of the Bryant Park Civic Association .to remind you
that we did a tremendous amount of trork during the fall of 1970 to bring about a
return to R-1 zoning in our neighborhood, and, as a companion effort,, did obtain at
the same time signatures on petitions requesting that the key word in all present ;
zoning be re-defined to specifically state that it: is that which 99% of the property
owners in our neighborhood know it to be: "A family consists of one or more persons
living in the same household who are related to each other by blood, marriage, or
adoption." This is the definition used by the.U.S. Census, U. S. Fed.e-ral Income Tax,
: and the Town of Ithaca, so we feel it is sensible to use in the new Definitions being
promulgated for the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance., I .herewith submit to you for
your consideration photor:opies.of the aforementioned .petitions and signatures thereon;
I ,am also submitting copies of the minutes of the 1972 and 1973 Annual Meetings of the
Bryant Park Civic Association in which is recordedthe sentiment favoring the
definition of "Family" as heretofore outlined, copies of Common Council Proceedings
dated Dec. 2, 1973, and, February. 3, 1971 respectively, in which is recorded action
taken by the Planning.Board and Common Council on.the petitions, also my written
request to this Board, dated December 28, 1971, requesting information on action
taken or not taken on the "Family"-definition, and, the most recent request by a
number of our property owners by letter to Mr. Edison Jones that 'enforcement of R-1
zoning be carried out with respect to documented violations of such zoning at 105
Cobb Street and 702 Mitchell Street, and other parts of the R-1 Zoned area.
I thank you for listening. In my opinion, if meaningful zoning cannot be established
and maintained, it will become necessary to revert, to deed restrictions in lieu of
zoning. If so, it follows' that those who derive a substantial income from rentals to .
students and others should be assessed as commercial enterprises and pay a much
greater portion of the tax burden of those who do not have such income. 'Be assured
3
that your assessment base-will decline substantially in our area if R-1 zoning is
eliminated and properties are allowed to b� abused in the same manner as the absentee
landlord sloes at 104 Pearl Street. You really should drive by it, or better yet, in-
spect "it, and compare it with all other properties nearby where owner occupied homes
still reflect pride of ownership in upkeep and landscaping. Please give us as much
consideration as those who don't care, because we do care what happens to us. We
live here. That is why we are here today nd why we are counting on you to uphold
zoning, not destroy it. (Letter and attachments may be found in Official Planning
Board Files. )
Mrs. N. Meyer: We have police enforcement powers, protection in laws which keeps
police power under control. tinien we as an official body exercise a discriminatory
measure it is different than putting deedestriction on property.
people
C. Bonnichsen: More live in R-2 than R-1. Students could not have the same
choice as others.
A Bryant Park Resident: When petition was put out in 19'j0, 95% of owners signed it,
we never got an answer back as to what is wrong with the definition of the Internal`
Revenue Service.
Mrs. .N. Meyer: Zoning is tied to police power of city-this is the problem we see as
to why it is unconstitutional (in Internal Revenue definition) .
S. Stein: Speaking as amateur lawyer, using a variance route puts"burden on appli-
cant. When we considered this questions w had to consider the fact th,. c certain court
cases were on the books and make some judgment about it--this is not just a lower court
case--it is circuit court case--quite specific on issues--dealt in conditions similar.
If we go the route suggested by PQr. Hall, someone in the city will take the issue to
court. We are still trying to decide what to do with that knowledge. The committee
decided not to take this "risk. The likelihood is very great of having a court case.
Sooner or later it is likely to come out against this protection, then the city would
be in gorse shape than now.
A_Bryant Park Resident: As a judgment in lacking down--makes the committee appear
weak--no backbone.
Mrs. N. Meyer: In the last two years we have seen very good examples of cases being
raked over the coals. I don't think this is a weak position. Also, there is the
matter of priority--Common Council -will vote tonight and may take the Census defini=
tion. I personally would favor the position there are certain rights which have
priority over other rights.
Mrs. F. Hoard: Perhaps the' residents will move out of the city to the Heights or'
other places to get protection. I think t ere" is the freedom to leave the city with
its problems."
G.. Meyers Would like to see traditional family definition be passed. Let it be taken
to court and then redefine it, do what maj rity wants.. We get no support of our.
complaints. , If someone converts his house to rooms, it is commercial and would be
checked.
John Spencer: Would like_ to back up something Mr. Myers said. If Common Council
passes this definition of family, one of the results is you are really removing one
4
of the possibilities for people living in area which is not commercial, residential
area.
Chm. Doney: Would like to hear from Board members.
Mr. Schickel: The proposed definition effectively does away with R-1 zoning. By
same token, current definition is a bit too restrictive. Most objection seems to be
coming from 1 neighborhood where perhaps the problem is gree+est. Other areas of the
city would be handicapped by not having people living in houses. Mr. Schickel MOVED,
"oto get a, definition on floor for discussion, recommend approval of proposed defini-
tion." Seconded'by`TZr. Stein.
G.G. Myer Could something be written in the definition about absentee landlords?
Chm. Doney: I agree, but don't know how to cope with it.
Mrs. Benson: What about sabbatic owners?
Mr. Shaw: Stress is being placed on the bad situations - the "rotten applef4 point of
view. I don't think a definition permitting 4 unrelated people is a weak position.
It recognizes changes we have to make in the ordinance. We are basing our arguments
with force on examples of what you have experience:. This definition can best be met--
we meet the law and take any type of action to weed out rotten apples. Accurate count --
properties going down which have nothing to do with multiple residence. I am not yet
totally impressed by the picture of the rotten apples which is one constantly brought
to .our attention.
R. Hemming: you are right about change and times--don't forget how close we are to
Collegetown. I invite you to go through our entire area.
Chm. Doney: I have heard of a number of groups from other areas, including West Hill;
who are concerned.
Mrs. Benson: I agree with Mr. Shaw; I don't think the definition of family is the crux
of the matter. We need very strong laws about garbage, noise, pets, etc. Problems
have to be dealt with in other ways than definition of family.
Chm. Doney: Enforcement doesn't get done. With 4 unrelated people living there for
10 years you would know them. In my neighborhood, have up to 15 people in house.
R. Williams: (1) The whole problem starts off by mentioning family in zoning ord -
nance which was meant to control land use; (2) Enforcement problems will be the same
as enforcement problems of any other ordinance. You are placing the responsibility
of enforcement on the wrong ordinance.
Chm. Doney: There are places acceptable which provide every kind of housing you
would want.
Mrs. Meyer: Support definition as fairly good compromise of problems. Would like to
say in general, in taking the responsibility of working on the zoning ordinance, we as
committee have tried to present it in the communith in all kinds of dimensions in the
most open way; tried to decide and agree on minute details. I hope that is under-
stood. Family definition is. only 1 little part of the work load.
5
Director Van Cort: -n talking to Mr. C yne's who could not be present today, he- said
-he would like to see definition of family having 3 unrelated persons.
Mr. Stein: I tend to feel that if it is written, I am intrigui.:d by the double defini-
tion suggestion. I see before us half of that. It is basically unworkable in some
ways. If we could develop the approach to ;suggest this, could fit into this very :
well. Think I will not vote on definition.' I would consider 3 people.
Mr. Shaw: I will vote against 2. There are merits in 4--economics has not been
stressed. Four unrelated people can afford to maintain home and city can afford this.
The definition being voted on is as fol ows: ""Family" shall mean one or.more
persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal relationship. t°Family"
shall also mean not more than two people not so related and their immediate families
related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal relationship. Domenstic
servants employed on the premises may be housed thereon without being counted as .a
family or families."
VOTE: Ayes - 2 (Doney, Schickel); Nays - 3 (Stein, Shaw, Benson)
Mr_. Stein: I COVE the same resolution sing 3 unrelated persons. Seconded by Mr.
Shaw.
The definition being voted on is as follows: '°"Family" shall mean one or more
persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related
by blood, marriage, adoption or other legal relationship, no such family shall contain
over 5 persons, but further provided that domestic servants employed on the premises
may be housed on the premises without being counted as a family or families."
Chm. Doney: I recommend going back to he ',way the ordinance was written, substituting
3 unrelated persons for 5. MOVED by Mr Stein, .Seconded by Mr. Shaw.
VOTE: Ayes= 3 (Shaw, Stein, Schickel) Nays - 1 (Mrs. Benson)
After this lengthy definition of family the Board began to give its comments on other
parts of the ordinance. It was noted t atMr. Clynes had asked that light printing
or printing be a permitted use in the proposed marine zone. Therefore, it was
requested of staff that they investigate the need for defining different types of
printing in the Definition Section.
It was suggested by a Board member that perhaps there was a need to allow home
occupations in R-2 zones by special per it: S. ter a brief discussion it was decided
this should not 'be added to the ordinance at this time.
Mrs. Benson noted that artists' studios were not a permitted use anywhere .in the city.
After some discussion itwas decided th t artists' studios should be a permitted use
in R-3 zones. Then it was discussed ab ut ',allowing artists' studios and perhaps
some sort of living accommodations in a I-zone to accommodate those artists who
work in heavy materials such as stone a d steel. It was decided this was a complex
quesiion .which merited study and it was referred to staff for amendment and in-
clusion in the ordinance at: a later dat .
There followed a number of changes to d finitions in the ordinance. On page 30.3
the definition for cooperative house wa3 made to read, "cooperative, house.shall mean
6
a group of 3 or more unrelated persons occupying a dwelling without. auxiliary social
facilities. The change was from 6 to 3 and from the word single housekeeping unit to
dwelling.
It was noted that on page. 30.4, Definition 25, "Dwelling, 2-family", should read ".
no more than 2 [instead of 11 dwelling unit[s] occupied exclusively . .`i
On page 30.7, Definition 51, the lodging unit should read "a single habitable space
[not unit] A4
On page 30.20 in the parking space requirements chart it was suggested that coopera-
tive house be separated from dwelling unit and be required to have 1 parking space
,per 2 bedrooms or fraction thereof.
On page 30.33, Section 30.38, C Procedure, Item 3, it was suggested that the follow-
ing sentence be inserted before the sentence beginning with "when a variance or
special permit is requested, . . .'"`applications recieved less than 7 days before
Planning Board meeting will be acted on at the discretion of the Board."
_Same page, Item 5, was changed as follows: "the appellant shall pay . . . a
fee of $10 [not $251 ."
Same page, Item 6: The following change was -�.uggested: t4. the appellant shall
send notice [substituting the words" by mail" for "of same by certified or regis-
tered mail with return receipt"] to all property owners . .°'
Nir. Shaw MOVED, and Mr. Schickel seconded, that "the PlannL.g Board recommend
approval of the proposed zoning ordinance as amended by the Board." Passed
.unanimously.
V2ETING ADJOURNED 6:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Matthys Va/ Cort
1.18.74 Planning Director
7