Appendix — Warth v. Seldin
Supreme Court brief1975
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
APPENDIX
(Vol. Il — Page 517 to End) NOV 29 kk
MICHAF! Ri
IN THE ee
Suprengé Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 73-2024
ROBERT WARTH, et al,
Petitioners,
—Vy
IRA SELDIN, etal,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Nae
Petition For Certiorari, Filed July 15, 1974
Certiorari, Granted October 15, 1974
aNaeEemaEa=a=a0anma9@Ee—ESE=EE™——————— eee
SPAULDING LAW PRINTING CO., SYRACUSE, N. Y.
(S 6937)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Docket Entries
Complaint........
Exhibit attached:
A. Amended Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Pen-
8 EE 3
Notice of Motion to Dismiss Complaint ..... 117
Motion to Dismiss Complaint ............ cows . 120
Affidavit of James M. Hartman Ue eheeeseckeeecece Ge
Notice of Motion ........ Die hesedeeeseececdesee Oe
Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff ehRihhenceckeececoe GU
Affidavit of Sanford Liebschutz .............. ececes Ee
Intervenor Afifilicant Complaint .............6.555058. 144
Motion and Notice of Motion ... 2... 6.6.6. cece eens 16S
Affidavit of John C. Mitchell .... 2... 66.6.6 e eee ee 170
Exhibit attached:
i. Charter Membership List .................555. 177
Affidavit of Robert J. Warth ... 2... 06. 6c cece es 180
Exhibits attached:
A. Facts about Rochester Housing ............... 196
B. Housing Site Proposal .............660565. . 201
©, GQUPUMPOMEOMGS 2. nce cece cece cc escccecens 218
EEE OP CETTE TTT T LETT T 232
E. Proposal Regarding Low-Income Housing ...... 233
Ho BUOMMATY TRGGTE 2... wc ccc cece cccccecccceces 245
G. Charter Membership List ..............5-55. 321
i EEE ccc ccccsccccccsenccsccccccs 324
I. Statement to Ways and Means Committee ...... 328
PT peer cece cedeebeeercccecccececces 334
K. Letter to County Legislator, dated 5-S-71 ....... 33%
L. Suggestions by Special Committee on Housing 338
ii
Exhibits attached to Warth Affidavit (cont'd) Page
M. Letter to Chairman, Political Action Committee,
SEEPS snecencacuceneenseeenuennuseu 340
N. Report to County Legislature from Special
ID 6-0 ccbuecos ccocunnuanence 343
Se TD widduiusesnndasueescaeuaden 348
De. Wee 59460000404050 cneeuaeeuae: 352
Q. Metro-Act Proposal to the Penfield Town Board 357
Affidavit of Andalino Ortiz ........... 0... ...cccceeeeee 362
Exhibit attached:
A. Summary of Rental Information in Town of
DOE 6Gckusnccddusceteteecsencuudsenbuses 402
Affidavit of Clara Broadmax .................0ccceeuee 404
GREED écncnedcosedsetdcdssenecsnccs 422
PUTED ccectcdcakcensncedenesaeeuces 435
Affidavit of Warth, Reichert, Vinkey and Harris ......... 456
Exhibits attached:
A. Report of Housing Task Force on Moderate
Income Housing
Appendices:
A. Penfield Housing Task Force “Charter” 524
B. ‘Moderate Income” Ranges ........... $27
C. “Opinion Survey — Tabulated Question-
WE 060seckeconcccunucéessucienes 528
D. Ten Year Housing Targets for Monroe
GED saneneusdeasdstetdacudectede S44
E. Excerpts from 1970 Census of Population
SSD oc nncosccéddesssetccces: S49
F. Distribution of Housing Units in Monroe
UE s cdcodescddsaddcsckeuie 551
G. Cost of Extra Features — Value Ratio
UD cvnsvedbansaatanddseuseseecess $52
H. Land Acquisition Cost Analyses and Land
Development Cost Analyses ........... $53
iii
Exhibits attached to Warth et al. Affidavits (cont'd) Page
Appendices (cont'd)
1. Penfield Zoning Ordinance, Housing Sec-
ED cb donvcteeucesticccccs 555
J. Estimate of Housing Costs in Penfield’s
PURE OUEMEED covcccecspesccccces S61
K. Sections 235,236 Summary ............ 564
L. Section 23S Regulations ............... 566
M. Comparison of Tax Rate Impacts of a
High Density Development and a Low
Density Development on a School District 573
B. Chart of U.S. Government Outlays for Ten Year
DED -ausechecéekeunéussedsiwadowesedeoss $82
C. Charts Showing Population by Race ........... 583
D. Tax Information on the Town of Penfield ...... 589
BS. Busmpt Propecty Totals ..... cc cccccccccccees 600
Pe PE cede weusvesbesceccadeduevecete 606
G. City of Rochester Tax Rates ................. 607
H. News Article from the Times-Union, 4-26-72 .... 608
1. News Article from the Penfield Press, 6-1-72 .... 609
J. News Article from Rochester Democrat and
AEE cosnnccscavecocaeesdesuces 610
K. News Article from Rochester Democrat and
EEE ‘Gucncdcducduecdcendesnaeue 611
L. News Article from the Times-Union, 6-6-72 ..... 612
M. News Articleon Housing .................... 613
N. News Article on Crime Statistics .............. 614
DERE 66664 cvncoccccesececceccests 615
Exhibits attached:
A. Town Zoning and the Housing Shortage ....... 643
B. A Medel Planned Unit Development Article for
a Town Zoning Ordinance ................... 697
C. Planning Board Minutes, 6-9-70 .............. 7%
D. Planning Board Minutes, 8-25-70 ............. 738
E. Planning Board Minutes, 5-10-71 ............. 768
iv
Exhibits attached to McNabb Affidavit (cont'd) Page
F. Report on Proposed Zoning Actions, 6-24-71 .... 772
G. Planning Board Minutes, 7-12-71 ............. 777
H. Description of Planned Unit Development ..... 779
I. Publicity and Minutes of Public Hearing regard-
SPE cc06anesenedeeeds seenddesetacsees 800
J. Notice of Adoption of Amendment to Penfield
SD en dcnsesnntue sencedncebese 818
K. Resolution, Penfield Town Board, 1-3-72 ....... 828
L. Monroe County Executive Committee recom-
mends disapproval of re-zoning change ........ 838
M. News Article, Penfield Press, 5-25-72 .......... 840
Bb Ge Ncdcccucenundduedsceeseonesees 841
O. Proposal of Cooperative Homeownership for
DE stvctceneenvaceueneenensessbeusadas 849
P. Soil Review of Proposed Apartment Site ....... 860
ae: RE coda uedddudeendsandebcascess 864
R. Brief from Robert J. Anderson, consultant ...... 866
S. Resolution of Penfield Planning Board, 9-9-69 .. 881
T. Resolution of Penfield Town Board, 1-12-70 883
U. Proposal of O’Brien Homes, Inc. ............. 885
V. Minutes of Penfield Planning Board, 10-12-71 .. 897
W. Minutes of Penfield Planning Board, 3-27-72
SPE Sundesednwabadendsadene cevckéces 900
X. Omitted here as contents appear herein as part
SRE Sbdunincncdutasdousshdesdsseens 908
Y. Resolution for Rezoning, Penfield Town Board,
Sener Ghdnenndececebwosendbecucducedeuseuse 909
iv SE wees eneseceuesesccosesnececess 920
AA. Minutes of Planning Board, 3-13-72 ......... 921
Affidavit of Kling, Taddiken and Farley ................ 925
U. S. District Court Opinion .......................... 948
U. S. Court of Appeals Opinion ....................... 953
917
EXHIBIT A
IMPACT ON PENFIELD
This section will review the impact of the
recommendations of this Task Force on
various public services in the Town. Certain
services can be handled with relative ease.
For example, in telephone conversations
officials at Rochester Gas and Electric
Company, Rochester Telephone Company and the
Monroe County Water Authority assured the
Task Force that the gas, electric, telephone
and water services will be readily extended
to all housing developments in the Town of
Penfield.
Sanitary Sewers
In contrast the sanitary sewer situation is
too complicated to be dealt with effectively
within the scope of the activities of this
Task Force. At present there is insuffic-
ient capacity to handle 2000 additional
dwelling units in Penfield, regardless of
their location or cost. In fact, certain
approved developments cannot start
construction until portions of the sanitary
sewer problem are resolved. The Town Board
is aware of these problems and is evaluating
solutions. This Task Force assumes that
satisfactory solutions will be identified
and that the appropriate action will be
taken to permit the normal growth of Pen-
field as well as the construction of the
recommended moderate income housing.
Roads, Traffic and Shopping
The Penfield Conservation Board has as one
of its responsibilities the evaluation of
Penfield's road network and traffic
patterns. As specific proposals for
moderate income housing are presented to
918
EXHIBIT A
the Planning Board and Town Board, this
Task Force asks that the Conservation
Board analyze the anticipated impact of
each development on the traffic load and
patterns. Properly located housing and
properly planned roads will present no
major problems,
Our concern regarding shopping is less
with quantity than with quality. It is
reasonably certain that proposals for
shopping centers and commercial services
will be forthcoming as housing, either
moderate or high income, expands. The
Town Board and-Planning Board must be
careful that only well designed, attract-
ive shopping areas, such as Browncroft
Corners, be approved. A repeat of the
Panorama Plaza situation must be
avoided,
Public Transportation
At the present time a moderate amount of
public transportation to and from the
town of Penfield exists.
Trailways has approximately 17 buses/day
from downtown Rochester to Penfield. They
travel along Penfield Road to Fairport/
Webster Road, to Whalen Road, to Five
Mile Line Road. The first bus leaves
Rochester at 6:40 A.M. and the last at
9:30 P.M. The fare from Rochester to
Penfield is $.50. This service has
some variation on weekends.
The R.T.S. route to Webster crosses
Penfield on Browncroft Blvd. and Creek
Street. Also, R.T.S. has a number of
o1d9
EXHIBIT A
charter buses from Penfield to Kodak.
R.T.S. is looking into "Park and Ride"
service from Panorama Plaza to Rochester
and from Fairport along State Route 250
to Xerox in Webster. Both Park and Ride
projects are in the planning stages and
will be put into service if the need
exists.
School System - Capacity _
In discussions with Penfield School
Board members and Administrators it was
concluded that public school age children
from the moderate income housing develop-
ments already proposed could be handled
within present facilities. They were
aware that the bulk of the increase from
present proposals would be in the area
now served by Harris Hill School.
They indicated that the increase in
school population from moderate income
housing would be gradual as not all the
homes would be built at one time. This
would help assimilation. Also, they
indicated the proposed Middle School
reorganization plan would provide
increased capacity at Harris Hill.
Lastly, if in the future the increase could
not be handled by Harris Hill, the lines
within the School District could be
redrawn. This has occurred over the
years as the population has grown.
Both board members and administrators
asked that they be kept informed of
proposed housing developments as early as
possible, so that their plans for the
52.0
EXHIBIT A
school system can always reflect latest
information. The Webster School System
must also be advised of proposed
developments in the areas of the Town of
Penfield which it covers.
School System - Tax Impact
It is possible to measure the impact of a
moderate income development on school taxes,
and to compare this impact with that of a
"normal" development. Since, however, the
New York State School State Aid formula is
dependent on some factors that are three
years old, these impacts can accurately be
calculated by assuming the two developments
were constructed three years ago. Since
we know the a@tual district assessed
valuation and state aid in those years, the
changes caused by either a moderate income
(high density) development or a high
income (low density) development can be
calculated.
The data in the following comparison has
been compiled and the computations prepared
by the Center for Governmental Research
Inc. (See Appendix M on page 48 for detailed
computations.)
'U > > >
iadd
ou oo
co Os
on wp
SX ann
tO
aden
ry
y<asac
pp apy
ee
cn
wha <
© ot O WM
OD
ao c
3 < 0
~
ct
c p
O
th
© »
ct
1)
a
~@
ct
4)
7
nN
wae a
HW
=o
“IN
~e «-
Co CO
IONN
monn
>. - a >.
CoOrw
COOK oa
ne
a tH HH
6
VIO
00°096°S
00°Sle ‘Tt
ett’ 29
86°22
ar
a)
—
EXHIBIT A
a a a) AZzvuU>Y>
ese c ~ Ese
ct ct . By he 2»
pp ocro ~~ OM Dp
rFOOt ~ OD
os ° 3 SS ct
wn a te) <
atrtozn Oo
an eooa ~r'O
"OS ~ ae | rt)
to trO ~ O& ry
KPO Dro ome >
oro DY oom pw
>ranm i “NFO
mo a) re) crs
re cw > oO
e353 &} bt
O° ye! ct RQ
@) hs cto
“ i zs c
ct Q be po |
ae | he bs
1) Q ct
po ve | a
@
3
$
00°926‘gz22$
Slt
S°
9T°g0E ‘T
On’ SEH *OST $
9T’goe*t ¢
SIT
cl°T
00°O0n*gT ¢
OSE
S°6
sauce JF
oo*oos*le ¢
S9
GL°T
suoTtydunssy
qUsUIdOT eAaq
Aytsueq uZTH
qUsUTdOT eAeq
Ayjtsueq MOT
222
EXHIBIT A
>
7)
“
Ww MO @
a
<<< a
oo oo @
© © fo?)
Sa
<
oo0o°o je
Hee fH
ak & c
eam
- oo #4
nes
OO x
oF e
n Oo =)
>oUo Pw
oes ct
- 20
ox» Ss
~y ct ct
ct
K
@
>
ry
n
SO0°-
Z29t*-
46S°+
T
L620°-
SOn*+
LT’
quewdoTsasep pro uesk 2
qusudOTSsASp PTO ueak T
(sueef quenbesqns 3) pto ueeak €
6°"
90°-
t2°+
to'-
CTt*+
Ch’ +
o4ey XBL enTeA TIng
T2°+
Cn '+
ayey xey Aquedoug Toouss uo Joessq
quUSsUIdOT sAaq
Ayjtsuseq moyT Aytsuep ustyH
JUusUdOT eAaq
O28
EXHIBIT A
The conclusions from the above are:
1.
Both developments cause an increase
in the school property tax rate in
the Penfield School District in the
first year.
The increase caused by the high
income (low density) development is
twice as high as the increase caused
by the moderate income development
in the first year. ($1.17 per/1000
vs. .59 per/1000).
The moderate income development
(high density) causes a decrease in
the school property tax rate in the
second and subsequent years.
The residents in the moderate
income development are paying
their "fair share" - in fact,
better than the residents in the
high income development.
924
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX A
PENFIELD HOUSING TASK FORCE "CHARTER"
Preamble
The Penfield Town Board recognizes that a
shortage of moderate income housing exists
in the County of Monroe, and that the Town
of Penfield has a responsibility to help
alleviate that shortage. We hereby create
the Penfield Housing Task Force and charge
it with the following purpose.
Purpose
To analyze the various presently existing
methods*® by which moderate income housing
can be built in Penfield and to recommend
the types and quantity that should be built.
The recommendations of the Housing Task
Force may also include: 1) Identification
of general or specific locations for
moderate income housing in Penfield, and
2) changes, if any, needed in the Penfield
Zoning laws to permit the construction of
the recommended moderate income housing.
*The work "method" is intended to include
two distinct factors: 1) types of
construction (e.g. single family, duplex,
multiplex, etc.) and, 2) ways in which
moderate income housing can be authorized
and financed by private and governmental
institutions and organizations.
Scope
In preparing recommendations the Housing
Task Force should consider the following
subjects:
525
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
The opinions and attitudes of the people
of Penfield.
The probable impact the recommendations
of the Task Force will have on the
present residents of the Town.
Penfield's present population, including:
age, income, location of employment,
mobility.
Penfield's present housing, including:
age of housing, property values, cost
of construction, housing mix.
Penfield's geography, including:
important, unique, topographical
features, drainage problem areas, etc.
Penfield's public facilities, including:
sewer system (before and after Pure
Waters project, roads and highways,
school systems (Penfield, Webster,
parochial), shopping areas, parks,
public transportation, public
utilities, water supply.
The Penfield Master Plan.
Penfield's Zoning Ordinance, including
the P.U.D.Ordinance and the Proposed
Revised Zoning Ordinance prepared for
the Town by the Monroe County Planning
Council in 1966.
All relevant information and data avail-
able from: Penfield Town Board, Penfield
Planning Board, Penfield Zoning Board
of Appeals, Penfield Conservation Board,
various public and private resource
centers (e.g.Rochester Center for
920
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
Governmental and Community Research,
Inc.), the previous Penfield Housing
Committee (Heininger Committee),
builders and builder's associations.
Composition
The Housing Task Force shall be comprised
of residents of the Town of Penfield. The
Chairman shall be Pierre Coste, 107
Woodhaven Drive. The Co-Chairman shall
be Dr. J.Donald Hare, 52 Farmbrook Drive.
Sub-committees of the Housing Task Force
may be established as needed.
Funding
The Town of Penfield will provide funding
in the amount of $500.00 to the Housing
Task Force. Funds will be released only
with the approval of the Town Board after
review of the specific purpose for which
the funds are required. The funding is
not intended as remuneration for Task
Force members services, but rather to
purchase such services as may be needed to
carry out the Task Force's objectives.
Completion of Recommendations
The goal of the Housing Task Force will
be to present its recommendations to the
Penfield Town Board at its June 5, 1972
meeting.
527
EXHIBIT A
- The Monroe County Planning Council
suggests that the Moderate Income
range is from $5,500 to $11,000,
depending on family size.
As contrasted to Moderate Income, "Low
Income" families are generally considered
to be families who could qualify for
public housing. The Rochester Housing
Authority has the following net annual
income limits for admission:
Low Income Limit
One Person - $4,200
Two Persons - $5,200
Four Persons - $5,900
Six Persons ~ $6,800
Eight Persons - $7,800
The F.H.A. (H.U.D.) limits, which are
often used as moderate income limits,
are set at 135% of the Public Housing
limits.
529
on 3 EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
APPENDIX C IMPORTANT
OPINION SURVEY - TABULATED QUESTIONNAIRE All replies will remain completely
anonymous.
Your participation is very important
to the success of the survey.
Dear Penfield Resident,
We invite your participation in an
opinion survey which will provide some besic
information about the views of town resi-
dents on the subject of moderate income
housing. Your honest opinions as a Penfield
resident would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your interest.
Robert A. Peterson
Survey Coordinator
152 Willow Bend Drive
Penfield, New York 14526
At the regular meeting of March 6, 1972
the Penfield Town Board created the Penfield
Penfield Housing Task Force
Housing Task Force. The task force was
given the responsibility "to analyze the Philip Bailey 1912 Salt Road
various existing methods by which moderate Wendy Bickmore 1849 Blossom Road
income housing can be built in Penfield and Alan Bernstein 129 Shirewood
to recommend the types and quantity that Pierre Costs 107 Woodhaven Drive
should be built." A fundamental require- Roy Everson 2467 Penfield Road
ment was that the Task Force actively Joseph Prate 38 Hitchcock Lane
involve as many Penfield Residents as Thomas Hammo:id 108 Henderson Drive
possible. J.Donald Hare 52 Farmbrook
Clarence Heininger 2048 Five Mile Line Road
You are one of approximately 2,300 Max Holtzberg 50 Old Barn Circle
persons randomly selected from the Town's Thomas Johnston 29 Royal View
voter registration lists to participate in Evelyn Landon 56 Hilltop Drive
the survey. Results of the Survey will be David O'Brien 2 Greenwood Cliff
made public as part of the Housing Task Cornelia Patten 143 Brentwood Drive
Force's report to be presented at the June Robert Peterson 152 Willow Bend Drive
5, 1972 meeting of the Town Board (Penfield Barbara Ruben 140 Holley Brook
Town Hall, 8:00 P.M.). George Shaw 1700 Jackson Road
Edith Wilcox 1736 Jackson Road
Please complete the enclosed question-
naire at your earliest convenience and
return it to the Town Hall in the envelope
provided. Tabulation of replies will
begin shortly.
920
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX C (Cont .)
SOME POINTS TO CONSIDER.
The Monroe County Planning Council fore-
casts a need for 80,000 add.tional housing
units by 1980 in the County. Of these,
about 35,000 will be required to house
families in the moderate income ranges.
The FHA defines moderate income as yearly
income approximately between $5,000 and
$10,000 (another definition used $6,000 to
$11,000).
Families in this income range can typically
afford housing costing:
$10,000 - $25,000 for an owned dwelling
$100/mo. - $200/mo.for a rented dwelling
Senior citizens, industrial and service
workers, school teachers, policemen,
minority workers, young married couples
are the main users of this type of housing.
The 1970 Census shows 1,242 owner occupied
housing units below $25,000 and 825 renter
occupied ynits below $200/month and 800
mobil homes out of Penfield's total of
7,033 year-round housing units.
Present AA zoning (density and lot size
requirements) and construction costs leave
little chance that single family dwellings
can be built for the moderate income
range in Penfield.
Penfield was one of the first towns in this
area to incorporate a Planned Unit Develop-
ment (PUD) provision into its zoning
ordinance. A PUD provides for a mixture
ey.
,
~~ wo e-
EXHIBIT A
of single and multiple family dwellings and
accessory facilities in a setting which
attempts to preserve the natural features
of the land, .
One of the three PUD's under development
in Penfield has encountered significant
neighborhood resistance.
Urban Development Corporation ( a state
corporation which is exempt from local
zoning ordinances and has the authority
to construct subsidized housing with tax
abatement in areas it selects) has recently
announced plans to construct a 350 unit
town house and apartment complex in the
vicinity of the intersection of Penfield
Road and Nine Mile Point Road.
A law suit has been brought against the
Town of Penfield claiming that the present
zoning ordinance is discriminatory and
unconstitutional.
Although racial bias may be a factor, much
of the concern over moderate income housing
centers around the economic issues of who
pays for schools, sewers, etc. and the
impact on property values.
Dee
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX C
“(Cont .)
TABULATED
QUESTIONNAIRE
umber of replies
Percent of replies
PLACE A CHECK MARK IN
THE BOX INDICATING
>
THE EXTENT TO WHICH ret
YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE > S
WITH THE STATEMENT | w f
Y +
ae OS .
2} + <4 0
Ae. & &
ARS 3
2
<'< < s a
1. Decent housing is 7 =e 22 |1oa 154 | Ne.
the right of every 2{ 3} 45] 3] 13] 11%
citizen.
2. All families
should have a choice al ¢
of housing regard- 2M [Wo] 263} 25} 247 INS “
less of their income 3 | !3] 32] 3] 30] i%i”
level.
3. A shortage of low
and moderate income 13 [Te] 350 1101 $7 | 15 [No
housing exists in
Monroe County. 2 {22} 43] i) 1a [Yo
4, Moderate income
housing is primarily |
needed by minority 1% [Yt 1235] Ve) 377 | GH INe
group families. 215129 4) 46/8 |%
aed BE
J we
EXHIBIT A
5. Housing is an
economic issue-racial
discrimination and 131152] 307} 37 229 |
civil rights are not 2! 19] 371 5 | 28
part of the problem.
6. I would be more
favorable toward an
apartment house or
town house project in | ya01@3 [217
my neighborhood if I '¥41}2
knew the new residents 2| | 37, 10 | 27
had the same economic
educational, and
occupational back-
ground as my neigh-
borhood now has.
7. I would be more
favorable toward an
apartment house or
34
town house project in !® {2%}320) 25 |20
my neighborhood if I 21H
knew the residents
would be contributing
their "fair share" to
finance such town ser-
vices as schools,
sewers, roads, etc.
8. Penfield has the
%o
responsibility to 17 {1001 297] 75 | 1.901136
help alleviate the
shortage of moderate 2 {!2 37] 4 | 23
7]
income housing in
Monroe County.
Do
EXHIBIT A
9. The idea of living
in a town house or
ee 7 (33 | 139) 93 | 367 ap
e a
— if 4 faa] n | ys] ap
10. The idea of living
in a town house or
condominium would 19 55 [251] 130/243 j12 Wo
appeal to me when my ; %
family has grown up. 2 |_ 1131] 16] 30140
ll. I approve of the
federal government
assisting a moderate =T
income family in the !9|50(|!68)43 [275 26 | |Ne
purchase of a home by 2] G| 2i/] S| 34] 32/%
paying part of the :
interest cost of the
mortgage.
"/ WO | $5 [-60 1-35 [-10 1415 [+40 1465 [490
a A 1-90] -65}-wo] -15 [410 [436 | 460 |495 +0
(mBeR) | 1 luo 166 40 [103 ]19 | W0 [205 | yo |27
(percent) ]} 015 1% Jo] 13115 | 14 [25 19 %
230
EXHIBIT A
12. It is desirable
to have communities
which are a residential
mix containing high,
moderate and low in-
come single family
dwellings and moderate
and low income multiple
dwellings.
13. I approve of tax
abatement of local
property taxes to
provide moderate
income housing in
Penfield.
14. Most people I
know feel that when
minority group families
move into a neighbor-
hood there follows
a downgrading of
neighborhood property
values.
>
ro
&O
> S
oO am Oo
é &0 Ss
oa S »
Sy oO S ~
<8) Sy @)
= oS) Son Y <8)
” ip) G 8) 8)
e od hy Sy
<x ry) w Q, ett) bf
eb) eb) © 48} wo
+> i Sy n ”
Oo 60 O “4 or
= = © <x = =) -”
' 118] nol 18 234 NS Ne
4 |10/ 33} 10] a9] 14 [%
41 J26 | 130] a0 | 259 | 64]No
@ | 3] te] 10] 32133 ]7%
35 lia4 lati} qi | 168/42 [Ne
11 l40] 9 | aol 5 |%
536
EXHIBIT A
>
m4
> a
bo 4 °
Ss by
4 << »
% oO S ”n
o & 3)
= » “4 +B) 0)
n wn sc 8 @
S 4 & &
<= of o @& ww ww
eo © O 8 @
» Sy h ” n
e) d &0 2) “4 4
=z2 <i c¢ 2A QA
15. Most people I
know feel that when
Moderate income
groups move into a
neighborhood there .
follows a downgrad- 33 [$5 | 30) 1231395] 45 [Ne
ing of neighbor- 4 15] 16 fe
hood appearance and q 44] ©
property values.
16. I would not
object to the pres-
ence of moderate
income dwellings 32 | 63/277) S! | 239 149 Ne
withing 1/4 mile from
where I now live 4 |B 1/34) 6 | 29/18 fo
(visible from :
present residence)
17. I would not
object to the pres- '
ence of moderate
iS) jt
income dwellings 35 | 67 1336] 62 |'9 20
withing 1/2 mile from 4] 8 [41] 8 [24] 15 %
where I now live
(would pass by them
frequently)
53?
EXHIBIT A
Not Answering
18. I would not
object to the pres- 43,
ence of moderate
income dwellings
within 1 mile from 4y
where I now live
Agree Strongly
Agree
No Opinion
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
18
43)
GI
92
No
53
(would pass by them
occasionally).
19. Private builders
can economically
build and sell
moderate income hous-
ing without govern-
ment subsidy (money).
20. The recently
announced UDC plan
to build 350 low and
moderate income
apartments and town 36
houses near Penfield
Road and Nine Mile a)
Point Road is a step
in the right direction.
NO
TT
ABU
At
ED
Lo
1
244
128
Le
IUG
No
%
1G
20
20
%o
538
EXHIBIT A
21. There is no
shortage of moderate
income housing in
Penfield.
2c. I approve of
tax abatement of
local property
taxes to provide
moderate income
housing in Penfield
for the elderly.
23. The shortage
of moderate income
housing for factory
workers is one of
the reasons some
corporations have
left the Rochester
rea.
24. The only way
moderate income
housing could be
built in Penfield is
to modify the zoning
ordinance to permit
a greater number of
dwelling units per
acre.
>
0
>> =
&O rt O
&O Sy
an] = »
fy 2) = ~Y
<b) fy ‘e)
= » “4 eB) oY
Y op) S wv <8)
cS “4 fy t,
<x d o Q &
8) <b) © ow w
7) Sy Sy ” ”Y
O 0 oO or or
= f@<«t 2a Q
37 [33 [141 [169 | 307 [124 MMe
5 14 117] 20] 3e i6 fB
(7 [33 |386 | 54 | 140 8) We
2{16j48] 7 J 17 [to ®
NOT TABULATEG %
N TABUYATE D fh
539
EXHIBIT A
25. The Planning
and Zoning Boards
are obliged to
enforce strict
zoning laws in
order to protect
the property
values of the
existing property
owners.
26. It would be
a good idea for the
town to formulate
plans and take
actions which would
provide moderate
income housing of
the type and in the
locations which best
serves the progress
of the town.
Not Answering
27
3
>
re
o
>>
a ae.
na 2 8 @
“4 hy t,
<8) eB) oF oO bD
) Y © a) ray
f Sy n —-
18 a8
265} 350] 53] 103) 23 We
al43fa[3/3 -
47 |43e 59/95 | 57 Me
iS | 54 aio] 4 fF
540
EXHIBIT A
27. Senior citizens
and young families
are usually found
in moderate income
brackets.
28. Most Penfield
residents Il know
would oppose any
moderate income
housing projects.
29. Property taxes
are the best way to
finance schools,
roads, etc.
30. What alternative
to the property tax
would you suggest?
Not answering
28 |
No
>
rd
0
>> >
4 °
b0 y
S »
S . ”
7 .
» 4 ®%
n sc © @®
qa & &
vo} © @& WO ww
vo} ®o O B
c) n on
wo O FH we
ai «¢ 2 AA
NoT TABULATE
%o
91 26] 26} 33
29 19} Ww} 244/210
Not TABULATED
Answering
Not
31.
26/3
35.
81/10
$8,000 63
o41
EXHIBIT A
CIRCLE THE SELECTED ANSWER
How long have you lived in Penfield?
a) Less than 1 year 20/3 b) 1-5
years 205/25 c) more than 5
years 557/69
How long do you expect to live in
Penfield?
a) Less than 1 year 28/3 »b)1-5
years 109/13 c) More than 5
years 615/76
What is your sex?
a) Male 390/49 b)Female 360/45
How old are you?
a) 18-25 62/8 b) 26-35 148/18
c) 36-45 218/27 da) 46-55 205/25
e) 56-65 93/11 f) 66 or giter
50/
The moderate income range lies
between ($/yr.):
al 2,000-$7,000 25/3 »b) $3,000-
c) $5,000-$10,000
226/28 d) $7,000-$12,000 234/29
e) $3,000-%13,000 27
f) $7,000-$10,000 156/19
942
~ A:
EXHIBIT A 43
EXHIBIT A
36. What type of dwelling to you and
your family reside in ? 41. Do you feel that you understand
28/3 a) Apartment 30/4 »b) Town House the main issues related to housing
7/1 c)Private Home 709/88 in the Town of Penfield?
d) Mobile Home 34/4 e) Other 57/7 a) yes 556/69 b) no 197/24
2/0
42. Would you attend a public meeting
37. Does your family own or rent to obtain more information and
present dwelling? express your views?
30/4 a) Own (includes mortgaged homes) a) Yes b) No
731/90 b) Rent or Lease 47/6 NOT TABULATED
38. How many members of your immediate
family are under age 18?
32/4 a) 0 279/34 b) 1-2 293/36
c) 3-4 167/21 d) 5 or more
40/5
39. Where does the principle wage
earner in your family work?
111/14 a) Penfield 63/8 b) Webster
104/13 ec) Other town in
Monroe County 95/12 d) City
of Rochester 422/52 e) Outside
Monroe County 16/2
40, Do you feel that more housing
should be available in the Town
of Penfield for:
107/13 Senior Citizens? a) yes 607/75
b) no 95/12
148/18 Young Families? a) yes 523/64
b) no 140/17
177/22 Minority Groups? a) yes 345/43
b) no 289/37
142/18 Moderate income
industrial and
public service a) yes 513/63
workers b) no 156/19
544
EXHIBIT A
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL
TEN YEAR HOUSING TARGETS FOR MONROE COUNTY
Monroe County should construct
80,000 new housing units between now and
1980, Some 55,000 of these are necessary
to accommodate our growing population
while the additional 25,000 are needed to
replace existing housing which is either
substandard already or bound to become so
over the next 10 years. Of these 80,000
units, about 52,000 - 60,000 need to be for
low and moderate income households,
those earning $11,000 per year or less
for a family of four.
Housing Needed for Growth
There are currently 228,554 housing
units in Monroe County serving a population
of 711,917. The calculation for growth is
based upon finding the number of housing
units necessary for a 1980 projected
population of 817,500 after accounting for
persons living in group quarters and
institutions and changing household sizes.
The 1980 population estimate is that
derived for Monroe County by the State
Office of Planning Coordination in 1966
as part of a statewide effort. These
estimates were revised in 1969; but in
the opinion of the staff, the earlier
work was better. The 1969 estimate by
this state office was 807,300 so the higher
estimate at least ensures meeting the
lower as well. Both projections are well
5409
EXHIBIT A
under our own figures developed in 1962
which projected a 1980 population of
867,800. For the past five years we have
been using instead the low estimates which
range between 810,000 and 820,000..Thus,
the 817,500 used in this exercise is
quite reasonable.
Take 1970 population 711,917
Subtract inmates in
institutions 7,345
Subtract persons in :
group quarters 12,231
Remainder is persons
in housing units 692,341
Divide by 1970 occupied
housing units 220,554
Result is persons per
occupied housing unit -
1970 3.14
Since average household size is
expected to decline from 2.7 to 2.5 in the
next ten years, adjust the persons per
occupied housing unit figure accordingly.
Thus, in 1980, the population per occupied
housing unit is estimated at 2.91.
Take projected 1980 population 817,500
Assume 1.03% are inmates 8,420
Assume 1.71% live in group
quarters 13,979
Remainder is projected
persons in housing units 795,101
Divide by 2.91 persons per
occupied housing unit 2.91
Result is number of occupied
housing units by 1980 273,230
546
EXHIBIT A
Require a 3.5% vacancy rate for
market flexibility 9,560
Total housing units needed
in 1980 282,790
Total housing units existing
in 1970 228,554
Needed additional housing
units for growth 54,236
Housing Needed to Replace Existing Sub-
otandard Stock
In addition to building for growth,
we must also replace the existing housing
stock that is substandard. The report of
the Rochester Center for Governmental and
Community Research assumed that a reasonable
estimate could be made by adding together
all the dilapidated housing plus all the
deteriorating housing which also lacks
some plumbing facilities plus one-third
of the deteriorating housing which still
has all plumbing facilities. These
terms were defined and used by the 1960
census. The 1960 figures for Monroe
County were thus:
Dilapidated 3,833
Deteriorating and lacking
some piumbing 2,792
1/3 of Deteriorating with
all plumbing 4.788
TI,413-
Unfortunately, the 1970 census does
not use these definitions of housing
quality. Instead, it measures various
indices of quality, such as presence or
547
EXHIBIT A
absence of various facilities, and leaves
it to the user to define the categories of
substandardness. The Research Center
simply assumed that the 1960 figure was
at least constant and used it as the 1968
estimate. Past history indicates that
the rate of deterioration is 0.26% annually.
Thus, between 1960 and 1970, 482 units per
year became substandard. Since this just
about equals the demolition of existing
units in the County, housing is becoming
substandard at the same rate that sub-
standard housing is being demolished. As
a result, the assumption by the Research
Center seems quite reasonable as an assess-
ment of the amount of existing housing
stock which requires replacement.
To these 11,413 units should be
added another 1,000 units for the relief
of overcrowding. Again, the assumption
that overcrowding is as serious in 1970
as it was in 1960 is a reasonable one; the
1970 census states that there are 9,879
housing units in Monroe County with
greater than 1.01 persons per room,
while the 1960 census showed 9,966 such
units.
Housing Needed to Replace Existing standare
Housing Which Will Either Become Substandard
or be Demolished over the Next 10 Years
As noted above, housing has been
deteriorating at the rate of 0.26% per year.
However, accelerated construction of a
public nature, urban renewal and highway
construction for instance, lead one to
believe that this figure should be increased
948
EXHIBIT A
somewhat. Another reason for doing this
would be the observation that the
housing stock is comparatively old.
Over 50% of the stock is over 40 years
old for instance. Thus, an ongoing
replacement rate of 0.5% annually would be
a decent estimate for this factor. This
would call for 12,800 such units over
the next 10 years.
Summation
In summary, the components of the
1980 housing targets are:
Units needed for growth 54,236
Units to replace existing
substandard units 11,413
Units to relieve over-
crowding 1,000
Units to replace existing
units becoming sub-
standard or being demolished 12 ,800
Total need between 1970 and 1980 79,449
To round off, say 80,000 units
are needed; 55,000 for growth and 25,000
for replacement. If all of the replace-
ment units and between 50-65% of the growth
is required for low and moderate income
families, then 52,000 to 60,000 of these
80,000 units should be directed at that
market.
049
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX E
Excerpts From
The 1970 Census of Population and
Housing
Penfield population: 23,782
Housing Units:
Age of population:
7,939
Under 5 = 2076
5-14 - 5770
15 =- 24 - 3113
25 =- 34 = 3096
35 - 44 - 3477
45 ~ 54 - 3038
55 - 64 - 1788
65 + - 1364
Population by race: White - 23625
Negro - 60
Oriental- 71
Indian - 16
Other - 10
Housing Units:
Owner occupied: 5681
Renter occupied: 1190
Vacant: 168
Housing Units:
One unit structures: 5123
Two + unit structures: 1110
Mobile homes: 800
“WAV taswad pi “wivay YO Bows AZ GILVIINOWI 4OW BHIM ATHL APHPAIVD BIVRIAW &w! 41v4 aL Gywwetty SIV Sahel Quz0/ -
‘aan. Gar Dwaew) SyawaL at AW92994d B YO SLIM OSS 392 aINE™ BZsvTIe0eW QM Id we
Hern YId QSIk BONY AwlwIA ANY ‘CO0%Ls BAODY BarvA Yaemo F$B8an720 HOI, ©
Haved F394 “OSig cl ‘O38 WeIA WiMDZ dw¥ "000° £ yak e0'or g WO¥d BrIWA YaNmO SBENr2W , BUVa aol) oe
MiweWd JI4 O8g MO1ID WHMIy ANY ‘Oee dig OIA SNWA WaHmO $30nI9~ aM07,
“SWIHZ DHS any SemEenO~e BsN-Wwawsasay -welv cwrvsya? FanvIM! Svesnip19
“Wards VO BowA AQ GBivz9weN_, ByIM KUN getnen MeL 39 "G00! 40fV Stav7—aD $i SiwZ
(400! a Wwos Tew si wots Gowsee? 90 4009994) S4icmm FewsMO Fel FO ImdrId BYY 403724 TY «
2 S340N
MW | Se | a9 | SA | GAY gt | th | 59 | 15 | 55 | se | 69 | ou | sz | 19] 49 | me] S9 | eB] | S9 | Oh! (amzryed) WOH
99 | Me] ee | SE) at | Mh] Bl | ee] Be) oe | of | st | st | uc | xe] ot] ecl et | of gol | AE | be |remas) auvvacow
Li; uv} %] 24 ov 9; e¢/ ALAS Cl z_i i|/ sit frut~ty 1}; 2] 6 (4970994) M07
< —+— - —-— —_—_ |--_- —— --- -—- -—— | — —_— |j-—— -——-4
hs ‘sor |As2't |$46'9 |028'F | 648 | ars’ | o10%, uso |arb't |usi’E |s1n'l ‘coo'ot isn’t Lee" |u9 SE | 18°C Jove’) | gor 's sus't co's lace'ani uss Ger) SHO BSReH 99
_ Es aaa SO he Me teed ees --—| ei ea oad peal’ alioess ati saci; ee Gate ome amie. a prawn Wack | y
mn AB | 1B 1% 58 | su | 2b | eb | Ob | Ad | s tL |} |Sb | OL | se | Ab | 8h | ch i ce ie | tb | 3 | —S7er9 eae fue
is os | ce ae ae: i ce basic ae Wee 39 ANB Gd
7 ee Ee cers 7 oe '
ai Can) Sh | Mea'blent'l| Bh | cee | 50% 5835 | 50h" /hEL'T | gob | ib9'St lisn'9 | cre looses (bat’s | sug pce"S | cri'ot| pie's bro's 90's (Sarwn) H9IH
Te S| ASA [$9n'1/ O86 | 191 | 19h | pat isso lesa | ong isch iso's |29t'l | ssh lAsi'L leco'sl ase | Asc’! tee") ass") $67't |‘ Acn'ss (sO) uevaacow
¥
-——— = -—— —e—o ee en re ce eee fee ce SS ef ee ee eee
AcUs| Ctl | sh A, £3) $9 | lbl | 89¢! gsi} 96 | bb [sah 96 | Sb [AME | cil | eee lees | Lb | tb Urs ‘qs ‘oe (saan) mo)
PLETE LO] alatlwiwer~lwylole lH =elerlalalina Rliyrin:? ~?
& » a . fi ~ Fy i = ag — @E. ~ . aie e®
sl elas yi; >=/e : Rin EsR [Hi ez ,iels.is
x c | = Fs © 3 2 com 9 is 7 a
& " 3} SX
(eu) Apna remy we ste Beso go mepnqagng
4d XiGNaddV
a Pee) ee
7.
9.
om Sy
*C O
Mo n wo n
u\ co > Uw »
wo ~aA SM 4
a «a caw 4
om soc -| VNWNWNr~nwm
ra) = OTrHAHN™-OAd or ** NO WOW Ast
w Mm MLW OW NH wn wo 79) . Tawa
oe » NDODDMHAN wo =» és b Oo
~~ - 4 a INP Oo 4 4
se] nn» c — a ©) S
- Po 3 Loe
» -— & [2.2 2 2 @€ ee 79) + Oo
cS = & Me) a Oe Me]
re) w w j%~ zn co) oa
© » Me) a wo @ iB) 4 Bizz aa)
x= { cU wo Q, > n oO Q, rt
_ ® 0 — Onwvd 3 rt
mx 2, oO ro) ANAANAW Ww Qo Ew oO
im, ias © DANAAAO & SEOW © -~
—Im 2 30 re) WD ANAAAAAO Sof80 e Oo C- **
HH MX © oO oO “Or, 2 2 a m4 AOE Hs > n ~- er
o 4 c£ve°o S4 UN ®t Ost a ON ie) On i 7) wo
=) Ke) 09 ANA ANMSs & © h& ww & cB) ®@--. i »
a = © 4 = PAAR AH HE ARO Ana ow » Hoo oO
fx] ui. w = Go oaaan oO 7 QQ, S EG°¢ » » Ex
A, cow 2) oe ke heh el «ele! Yond O 9) HNO. OO S
Qu. occ Hoooo0ocono O00 0 & & » ONDNDEE w
<= “Az oD GH eteokokholhohonon| BS ce a, Se at. NO Oh
» Oo & re) “an annna GH Dy OHANANS
4] ANOMOWMWNO .* 3) i a ERPRAAO
acc iB) NMRA AHAHNANMWN 3) N LAN et
SHH 3 8) AAA *Hw; Hw » » G “oOo tf 1 3
RQ, 4 — re) n n NONOVOCO VY
oO wo = oO wo NA AWNOO
A, > © Ol ARB HAMO
AAAS
Adjwveed perce em ely eee thers bone
Sandal
Fe ateces
Canerets Dnwee
front Lawn on
beadcaung
Foust Spemblers
Paral Carpetung
One Fin ploces
Phone
Wood Woke or
Sringic Rew
Dishe ayhen
Two Cor Carage
602) Sware Foor
Lot Size
2 Rathes of Home
Less Thon 2.000
Square [oct
3 Baths of Home
2.00 oF Mine
Square fees
02
©XHIBIT A
Cost of Extra reaturcs
Value Natio Curve
Features Relow
Sawdon
47 Asphalt Drweway
No Lawn or
Lands sping
Ne Si rinblers
Ne Carpeung
Neo Fueplace
Composiiion Roof
No Dishwasher
One Car Corace
Twe Ca Corpon
One-Car Carport
Less than 6.000
Square boot Lor
Sue
1% oF Fewer
Baths
1% oF Fewer
Baths
No Av Condwioning NA
No Drayxs
Sengle Oven
No Sell Cheamng
Over
Ne Pavo
No Wer Par
No Fen ing
No Bonus Arcs
Bory from ene ews. tee + The sear
a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unfinished Bonus
Ares
Patally Fnished
Bonus Ares
+ nr commen ferences ther
Cot d hee tare eer
. .
Suweure re. “ws
Vober sorte gerne os phen d hoem whe tage eden d pene thet 8 rhe Soal meets gewane om che betes af he Come nme
OD comege ions mestiis smeseved Pus whered pomee ec peenens habiebdeeheaa ie are
- Ts4 o
ee ~~ Om Bee
‘EEEEEEFH
oY &* see aoe
s#0n
io
s'o
$0 "wy
Squere
Fox
$450, Rach
S600 Full Rach
450% Rath
SBOQ/F ul) Back
NA
NA
NA
NA
5500
prce Gellery ore added to m xte!
Dells:
Ameen
Feavwres Above Sudsreceed From
Siendond Seles Pree
NA NA
Back Lown o tiso
Lomds< oping
Back Sprintions $180
Complere Comeung $250
Two or More $050 cach
Furcplaces
Tike Root $500
NA NA
Three o Mare $800 each
Car Carage
More than 6 000 $0 'S/
Square fan Seware
Lot Site Foot
2% oF More 545074 Bark
Bours SBOE ul) Bach
3 of More 5450/4) Bas
Batrs SHQIP ull Bach
Au Condiwenng $1,200
Eeaporsin ¢ Cooling
Ponsa! Dears $280
Complete Dupes $500
Dew Ne Oven $)00
Sel Cle anung $100
Oven
Povo $200
Wei Bas $400
Femcung $450
NA NA
NA —Nor Apolicable None
o” ¢ ger alent smmauns my eye tm’
locks om em, echorwrne
Liitii tir
“|_| VALUE RATIO CURVE
eeEE REECE
EF
a
“=a ew fiw thw tem fe
i
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
H
DIX
!
APPE>
bea vi>
Z<HIBIT A
ra
‘ ©
Cc. ¢ ¢ ‘) +}
4 S > ’ / ce ~) t o s
ci a o @ F
_ el o <7 +0 o> ~~ :. ’
/ =~ NB =e VY VE w&
= " oO wo
W o Fa) oO i 1.) i= « i
3) SG wR we ce HH F
| | — =- Cc “ ~9
| ba w my - =~ & &. = <<
=| — «Z Tr “4 - “<> . a
| -~« —_—
oe
‘+, as c=
ae) - 2s +2 = £
- s & Re) "2 ff Sf fe & =3
~ oo = -
“| —- oO > ~3 i - = =
| 2 i.) Q €
ry Pa
o| enree sea 2 a ©.
a a << 8 WM Oe = = =
*
| caleba eninaie
4 a $ » © 3S a
‘in ip S VW « PS eee Se
* er of
| ommammemees
ee,
f
a
Cs
4
4
F
, 9
7 al 0 » .
4H 9 OOQEEFL & EF Q
cy seh R437 & & &
Pe > ™ *. Py
“) G N¢leowts ve A
,
ae
‘ on
<
a ¢
S ‘
s pa
. ~
. ~
-
"ase 405596 pedesepwey
2 OF PIVTOWTOe 64 TIeUe TOTIETD TeTisopTees pres
Sarurofpe 4tmeipoe an Cave VW OS © Sere GeTWA Je
V2T4IE\ > TeTWwoptes 498 Jo euTT ews Je 45 OS2 wTWITS
- POPPE? OE Liv io 4706 2eTpEsy Ave Oy wOTTTppS oy
*[veddy jo preg
Butvez ows 4q pososcan
9 vere fase! setpesy
¥ J@ volleivde ayy
0) Licesonee aq Ave oe
101g ¥ Gone oF
Peri tesed essen pue evoli Te
“Od OU) [T® ©) toeTene
*229T43010 ¥ TeTiwepteas
—_—
BEST GOPY AVAILABLE
- G228 [242209 yone “ET OF pelyiesed eoen Try eurey eT Teal
(S) #008 epee epre
*e1wo-; 97 WOTK" wo pers *eesF STOPLIGeG Je SIVTPTING sounvequl ew
PINGS OO Sut, 4ecsre 82 %* onrr veeer we wVleyues ‘ease woltyasee oy
©) 33 0) WON seve vere Tien Gow *edeazee Tewepylaus catyirtaes
pesese> F Peto TVe = 6ow *sywost VE wots vo C044 JO ZizZ VON Stow = eIMensZe ‘foul cease
vs 09 TENN HOTUR JO BH9dTE ice fad wo erty ou dima20 wer SPifpt ing fete y tpwnessieté
40 tetcone & tT “aT Putrrenp Joie OF TF Sy He eJeque2; 43 O28 “M20 2ad Byhun Jatttenp = 6feqeed ‘eTOud Bepeusas
< per.2e % Vee a7 G29m8 g sarees ow ued Guodj DO8eT 10 eeu tere 6 peeets ©) jou Aijeua, anes? ‘sevesns opeasad eeeroH uno] Geency Eno)
t S429 40d @)fun Bbutetre
Phen) oH ePesed TR Prosee ©F vou Ay 1euag
* fea) ee | (9) een ‘ewes fue wy 2eT oul Je tere om Secespen () 21 bE O56
Me) vers @otEs ge fT 3 OO Ou) sere ov J® $52 Peeves oy V0~ SmeseG 2) 15 be Cog ePettiee
4 "Ste" Sapent **BeTe 7° Wasteu vow eevoNTe Tien durery (weespea 1) 12 be COO ORT tere Oley Ths 20
aw x - aed ceoeds 4 384208 OF sareow ou vee Wows 203 45 be OOSE (etemre) a2 &e ons - OTETI [me ‘esenoy que sece wensesy
4
‘ (€) #10"
7) @VOT 42u09 Atvone
"as be Const £1078 2) 43 8 COLT
Ml? Wy OST (4eev8 41) ts © ooet " pesone @% Veu ere2poT
wPr™ 33 OOF (ev 1) 3) &* oor 7 Stepswog yceons 42147059 whee y
. - SoH 010 Vy oF enve yee ve Ueu) fGel you Seb 610 VY ©F ewes VY ©T ©© pelatered coer Ite Tel wepteny
(1) 08 S2usPTIBG Ledpapeny ‘Comery
vw ot @VOT 4eus0> Yuorne aptard ‘eustvesecs resins
Seu) Fe, Ow eouty "a3 be oov‘oz 4078 2) 43 be Oost (@2uepteas [evessed tate Lawrie ‘(2 pasone
wl 40a: pus eple =t@e? 33 Ooze (42018 &1) W &8 CONT 2 J° Wwe wayn) @) Vou) Bsespe, 4 cseieeq
40tserut (2 MeN wis 3) oot (seve 5) a7 be Oct ‘eats Tewotsssjosd *‘spwmossletd ‘essed ‘sl oeyae seT4I6T9 Wy
° - eee) speed query yecel v8 suCND O62, Jou *edese? eee *eouaaye ‘Buttlenp Ar yeey Tes weep tery
Wie wie mel fie] sano rrr) Perry VMiets
ers jo hsoee ery
motuin wey
Aseweng voti205 buTencK *@2ueuTpso buywez pretjzueg
ria
LAPD LEVUELDrE99T AAs
t LVELOP WOT cost / bres OntT
DEemaTy - Buweuntds vits JA
7A Oot. ALL Rees
-
“— Genre ers :
*/j
4 8 1D 12 14 IG
~
Om <lso>
wwf
- 6059
‘x)
om
1,339
1,125
1,280
i al
7
[can
’
556
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX I
Ceontd.)
NOTES
1.
Corner lots (AA): Width - 125 ft
Depth - 200 ft
Area - 25,000
sq.ft.
No structure nearer than:
108 ft. from center line of highway
(certain main streets)
90 ft. - other main streets
83 ft. - all other streets (see
section 29-10 - zoning
ordinance )
Corner lots (A): Width - 125 ft.
Depth - 150 ft.
Area - 18,750
sq.ft.
Yards - Apartments or Multiple Dwell-
ings: No structure in excess of 3
stories shall be nearer than 20 ft.
to any interior side or rear lot line.
No structure from 4 to 6 stories
inclusive shall be nearer than 30 ft.
to any interior side or rear lot line.
No structure 7 stories or more in.
height shall be nearer than 40 ft.
to any interior side or rear lot line.
5.
go’
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX I
(contd.)
Town Houses - Side Yards: Setback of
t. required from center line of a
private road.
Setback of 60 ft. required from center
line of a public road.
Side yard setback of at least the
height of highest adjacent building
and no less than 20 ft. required
between building groups.
Town Houses - Rear Setback: At
least 30 ft. setback from any other
structure or external boundary line.
SINZASUI OOD Ghd TWOILIGIY WOd S2ION ZS
gest cor AVAILABLE
208
EXHIBIT A
909
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX I
(contd)
NOTES - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
g° =
i i if
$2 z
7
a4 3
4
s ¢ a
2 )
3 SSeesse
2 i 9 ©S$=3%3
w es ee
3 2 gee eeaa
af peetean &
é é ge 38253
S62oacd
ae | aie b)
3 B
ze H
33
z
d c)
i
2
j « ix |x x x 4 SS 7 [2
§ 5 js Is F 2 2 = ie
; cae OURktlUCUdaEUCURUCOdRR ee ER
5 tk of Ue UBEEe
: xRa BR » & RR ig - >
S < < < < ie >: ¢§ az
$ : . @ & oF AE d)
2 2 , g¢ 2 & j op
3 3 $ 3 2 ¢
3 , *
bf . ae * ° § i
2 aif gc Ho 4 8 gi.
. aes = © | FE8 e)
: —=se & Mm EF iéf'Re# Fis
gE oe F £ 8 © RE alt
: Pee 3s ‘s 2 2° 3 &F
gee ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ § ff
Ez? fF £ Et EG &
az : :
a 6
i124 s
2 5 e
is
age pege @ze 77 8
~ ~~ ~~ by
Soe oR 632 =r If
Te ao y Yrs
pre seer Efe 858 P
£88 68° 828 4
Horizontal Structures - including
garages shall not occupy more than
20% of the land allocated to the
multiple dwelling portion of the
PUD.
Parking - Each dwelling must have
(2) adequate parking spaces, (1)
of which shall be an enclosed
garage.
Average Density - 9 dwellings per
acre for town
houses,
12 dwellings per
acre for apart-
ments.
Distance between multiple unit
buildings - not less than height of
tallest building.
Front Set Back -
State, count major town roads -
109 ft. from ghway line
Internal subdivision feeder &
Collector streets - 50 ft. from
street line
Totally internal streets - 30 ft.
from street line
f)
g)
260
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX I
(cont .)
Accessory Commercial and Service
Uses - For those developments in
excess of 100 acres, commercial and
service uses of not over 2% of the
total acreage are permitted (where
such services are scaled primarily
to serve the needs of the PUD).
Customary Accessory or Associated
Uses - such as private garages, stor-
age spaces, recreational and commun-
ity activities, churches, and
schools shall be permitted or
required as appropriate to the PUD.
o64
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX J
ESTIMATE OF HOUSING COSTS IN PENFIELD'S
PROPOSE -U.D.S
All builders interviewed emphasized the
point that none of their price quotations
were "carved in stone", Every day of
delay forces prices higher.
WILLOW POND PUD - Standco
104 acres 5 Units per acre. 518 Units
Low High Type Sale or rent Cost
80 Elderly Rent $43.00 mo.
(sub.)
44 Town houses Sale low 20s
48 Town houses Rent 2?
l2 Garden Apts.
(1 B.R.) Rent $160-$200
mo.
121 Garden Apts.
(2+B.R.) Rent $200-$300
mo,
134 Duplexes Sale mid 20s
12 O Lot line Sale mid 20s
17 Single-A Sale $27,000-
$35,000
50 Single-B-C Sale $25 ,000-
$30,000
a62
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX J (cont.)
BEACON HILLS - J.Audino
97 acres 3.13 units per acre 313 units
134 above $25,000 \10% AA
161 Single 16% A
#27 - $22,130-
$24,900 7%
313 (840-1000
sq.ft.-
2-B.R.some
expandible)
152 Quadraplexes - rental only -
$200 mo. and up
*7% of 97=6.79 x 4 units per a. = 27 homes.
(These homes were originally planned for
around $19,800 - $22,000 when 378 units
were allowed. $172.90 a month would have
carried one of these. The $24,900 home
would now cost $189.85 a month (including
$50 taxes) with a conventional mortgage.
263
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX J (contd)
ROCK LAKE - J. Odenbach
168 acres 4.68 units per acre. 784 units
Open hearing of the Planning Board -
March 22, 1971
AA-2 per acre - 37
A -3 per acre - 76
B -3 per acre - 106
C -4 per acre - 90
Town houses - 136 (2-3 B.R.)
Apartments - 336 (1-2 B.R.)
No specific costs were mentioned. Homes
would range from the low 20s to the high
40s with "an effort to keep the mix toward
the lower end",
Mr, Odenbach says that at the present
density they cannot build the type of
community they had planned, so they are
virtually giving up the idea for the
moment and are in no position to estimate
costs of housing. Also the sewer problems
would limit any ground breaking in the
area till at least 1974.
964 |
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX K
FHA = Sections 235, 236 Summary
INTEREST SUPPLEMENTS ON HOME MORTGAGES
A program to enable lower-income families to buy a homo or a momber-
ship in 3 cooperative housing project
Nature of Procram
HUD makes monthly payments to the morigagee to reduce interest costs to
as low as 1 percent on a home mortgage insured by the Feceral Housing
Administration, The homeowner must pay at least 20 percent of his
adjusicd monthly income on the mortgage. Amounts of subsidies vary
according to the income of the individual homeowner and the total amount
of the mortgase payment at the market rate of interest. Family ir.come and
Morigage limits ere established for eligibility in each locality. Assistance
may be provided for new or substantially rehabilitated homes and, in a
limited number of cases, for existing homes without rehabilitation.
Applicant Eligibility
The applicant may be anyone whose income qualifies him for the subsidy
aid,
Application is mace to 8 lending institution approved by FHA as e@
mortgagee.
Information Source
HUD arca office or HUD-FHA insuring office.
Legal Authority
Section 235, National Housing Act (Public Lew 73-479), as added by the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-448),
Administering Office Function
Assistant Secretary for Housing Aid development and
Production and Mortgage Credit= construction
FHA Commissioner
Assistant Scerctary for Hous Management and foan servicing
inn Pfanscaameant far multifamily nrnieerre
INTEREST SUPPLEMENTS ON RENTAL AND
COOPERATIVE HOUSING MORTGAGES
A program to seduce costs on certain rental and cooperate housing
projects designed for occupancy by low-income families
Nature of Program
HUD -inakes monthly payments to mortgagees, on behalf of mortgogors, of
a part of the interest on market-rate mortgages financing rental or
cooperative housing projects for lower-income families. Interest-reduct.on
payments nay also be made on rental of cooperative housing frolcts
owned by private nonprofit, limited dividend, of Cooperative entities which
are finunced wonder a State of local program providing ac.istance throcgh
loans, low insurance, or tax abatement,
Interest reduction payments cannot exceed the difference betwcen the
amount required for principal, interest, and Mortgege msuratce premium
on a market-rate mortgage and the amount requied for principal isd
interest On a mortgaye at 1 percert interest. The purpose of the payments
is to bring the monthly rental charges down to a level that low-income
families can afford to pay with at least 25 percent of their adjusted
monthly income.
Applicant Eligibility
Applicants for mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Adminis:ration
and for interest-reduction payments may be nonprofit, lmitcd-dividend,
and cooperative entities.
Applications for insured mortgages are made to lending institutions ap-
proved by FHA as mortgagees.
Applications for interest-reduction payments where no FHA insurance is
involve! are made directly to the local FHA insuring office.
Information Source
HUD area office or HUD-FHA insuring office.
Legal Authority
Section 236, National Housing Act (Public Law 73-479), as added by the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-448).
Administering Office Function
Assistant Secretary for Housing Aid development and
Production and Mortgage Credit— . construction
FHA Commissioner
Assistant Secretary for Hous- Management and loan servicing
. “* . ae @.-e “*.
260
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX L
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
BUFFALO AREA OFFICE
560 MAIN STREET
BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202
SECTION 235 REGULATIONS
To assist lower income families in acquir-
ing homeownership through reduced interest
cost.
Minimum Interest - 1%
Maximum Interest ~— 7%
Maximum Term - 32 years (35 to 40 upon
special authorization).
Miminum Term - 25 years, or 75% of rem-
aining economic life of property.
Maximum Mortgage Amount - See Schedule A
for Mortgage Amounts in your locality.
Eligible Properties
1. New or Substantially rehabilitated
Single family dwellings approved by
HUD prior to construction or rehabili-
tation.
2. Rehabilitated two-family dwelling to
be owner-occupied, approved by HUD
prior to rehabilitation.
3. One-family unit in a condominium,
completed within past two years,
(project must have been HUD insured
if more than 11 units).
26?
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX L (Cont'd)
4, An existing family dwelling or a
family unit in an existing condom-
inium which is to be occupied by a
mortgagor of one of the following
types:
a) A family displaced by Govern-
ment action or major disaster,
b) A family moving from low-rent
public housing.
c) A family with 5 or more minor
persons living in the househdld.
ae Existing dwelling without regard to l
through 4 above, limited to the
availability of funds.
Refinancing transactions ineligible,
Sales price control - Property may not be
Sold to the purchaser
for more than HUD
Estimate of Value
(including closing
costs)
Minimum Investment - $200.00 may be applied
to pre-payable expens-
es.
Eligible Mortgagors
1. Family of two or more persons related
by blood, marriage or operation of law
who occupy the same unit.
2. A handicapped person (physical impair-
ment which is expected to be of a long,
continued and indefinite duration).
3.
263
DIX Pet A
APPENDIX L (Cont'd)
Single person 62 years or age or older.
Mortgage Income Limits
he
Regular adjusted family income - See
Schedule B,
Adjusted family income is calculated as
follows:
(Gross income of all working members of
the family excluding temporary over-
time ), less 5% (allowance for Social
Security, withholding, etc.) and less
$300 for each minor child living in
the household, )
Asset Limitations
1. Mortgagor UNDER Age 62* - $2,000.
2. Mortgagor OVER Age 62* - $5,000.
** PLUS $500 for each dependent child,
plus applicant's share of mortzage
payment. Auto and furniture not
considered.
Assistance Payment - Lesser of the two:
1. The difference between the total
monthly payment (mortgage insurance
premium, principal, interest 7%,
taxes, hazard insurance) and 20% of
the mortgagor's adjusted monthly in-
come.
e. The difference between the monthly
payment, principal, interest 7%, and
mortgage insurance premium under the
mortgage and the monthly payment to
the principal and interest that
o69
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX L (Cont'd)
would require an interest rate of 1%,
excluding HUD premium.
Re-Certification of Income - Minimum
every two
years.
Application Fee - $40 Existing.
$50 Proposed.
How to Apply for Section 235 Mortgage
Insurance:
1. Outstanding Conditional Commitment
issued under Section 203(b) or
Section 221(d)(2) may be converted
to Section 235 Firm Commitments.
2. Approved mortgagees will submit
application, Form 2900, with the
usual exhibits and Form 3100,
Application for Home Ownership
Assistance under Section 235.
SPECIAL NOTE: Builders or sellers who
anticipate the sale of
homes under Section 235
may request the reserva-
tion of interest subsidy
funds from this Office.
SCHEDULE B
ADJUSTED FAMILY INCOME LIMITS
COUNTY OR
LOCALITY NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Alleghany 5,265 6,075 6,885 7,290 7,695 8,100 8,505 8,910 9,180 9,450
Seer engneS »STS 6,480 7,290 7, ,695 8,100 8. ,505 8: »910 9,315 9,585 9,855
eneca
<
_ Nation 4,320 4,860 5,400 6,010 6,550 7,155 7,695 8 »305 8,305 8,305
m & Chautauqua4 ,860 5,670 6,480 7,020 7,425 7,900 8,305 8. 9775 8 »775 8, 9775
ue m Chemung 5,400 6,210 6,885 7,290 7,695 8,100 8. »505 8. ,910 9, 180 9, "450
= Elmira 55350 6,240 6,535 6,835 6,980 7,130 7,425 7,725 7,725 7,725
es Erie 5,995 6,480 7,290 8; »335 8,335 9,545 9, ,545 10, 22510, 49510, 735
Lackawanna5 ,130 5,400 6,210 6,480 0 6,885 7,290 7.560 7,830 7,830 7, 830
Genesee 5,265 6,480 7,155 7,695 8,235 8,775 9,180 9,585 9,585 9,585
Livingston5,940 6,750 7,560 7,965 8,370 8,775 9,180 9, 585 9,855 10,125
Monroe 5,670 7,020 7,560 7,965 8,505 9,180 9, 5855 9,990 10,12510, 395
Niagara 5,400 6,480 7,290 7,830 8,370 8,910 9, 450 9.800 9,990 10, 260
Ontario 6,075 6,885 7,695 8,100 8,505 8. 910 9,315 9,720 9,990)0, 260
Orleans 5,940 6,750 7,560 7,965 8,370 8.775 9,180 9,585 9, , 855 10, 125
Schuyler 5,400 6,210 7,020 7,425 7,830 8. ,235 8 *640 9,045 9,315 9, 5585
>
>
>
>
>> f4
qo i) ) -) oO 4 @ | e)
4 i) o>) oO -) rT) Hi ©
E 2) oO oO -) n” >
wo ° = - . @ 0
i Oo -) oO eo) vi GH
i ~ ~ ~ ~N win
ul - we ered “ oad au
Sscec
e —~1 O «o
ip) > oo 7 1 ©
° E rr =) oO =) oO eornn
< Hl «i oO oO =) -) RDNA BE
< = | -) oO ro) uw Lomein ®)
bHH - - a a“ Sv °
<> & < a) &!l re 4 m4 OV Ge ft
re 4 t ~ N ~ 4 oO ie]
jee) — a; «* bee ey es S32
we OQ] w n Tw 2
. fx) © > 79) Me] > w » 4
pe = » wo a S GH » cB) avi > w
fx] © Oo > a ue) asl A © o ° h aH i OU EOwrn &
~ 4 & m Ww S Orv eB) OSes 4 ~O -
cm i O eocia “g> wo on woo& rt oc “gece
re) © CTriwTt W ri) wo oO oot O > w 3 4 S
= ~aegcea n>OoOs 8) i re 3 n>O0O @ >E | n°)
©» cOr t& aor oO c <yEno ss g2°8 —28°s
QnA SrA mx “@ “ari oo oO al on i a
geOo Os <x Ww Oo *.,.6on S>OWMNnnANS OO «a5 Eas To
~ © wo 1 bq O rb) » a i es? soe Cc Q,
n « “a art « NUYor * nm «fc aE 77) 3 GH O&
ieoo *«onzvwm moreno eowsco Bec 2ae o ow
> UVUHivUaA ce) SSSear - Ivonecook Up a & 9) -) fy
e poe Seg cnn SxAODO O3NLB AOONOD
HH How WM onmwo AAfCSA Bw <x<ric ro) He oor wWroOdete
4 x<ower acc Wo o ae or =) monvuvusad 2° & » S ta =
< mB ca Ne & Bow PS PB HecOogcedtk os ww AAaMO
& BAH COeS ae On > qMO ane ae oe 2SeL OS
I ree) ea {x] > ™
2L6T ‘YoueW pa zeg
Sa3ei om
yremen eS
SuTwo f{m
9 SHE ‘S
9 00n‘S
L She‘
lL ote‘
L 062° OSL‘9 OFTSS
4 S2n‘l ozo‘
lL o9S*l Sst‘
8 oOoT’g S69‘
€
8 OLESg S96SL 09S5L OSLS9 OF6‘S
6 O8T‘6 SLL‘Q OLESR S96*
6 ShO*6 On9'g SE2‘g O£R
6 .0T0‘°g Sos‘
6 0St‘
Ggs‘*6 STES
GTE*6 STES6 STES
G2T*0!SS8°6 S8S‘6 OgT‘’6 SLL‘
o2L‘
TTeqdwuey
UOSTPPYV
ueqneys
eoeuas
lL OSL°9 On6SS OFT‘SS
8 SOS"g OOT*g S69°L SEgt9 SloO‘s9
lL 09S*L GST‘
6 ShO‘6 SLL‘Q OLE‘g S96‘
6 STE*6 OT6S
092 ‘01 0666 oz‘
GTE §
OT
vid
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX M
COMPARISON OF TAX RATE IMPACTS OF A
HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AND A
LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ON A SCHOOL DISTRICT
To accurately determine the impact of a
future residential development of any kind
upon school taxes, one would require know-
ledge of all possible future changes in
educational state aid formulas which
largely determine the size of the local tax
burden. Such knowledge, of course, does
not exist. The only alternative available,
therefore, is to estimate present tax
impacts on the assumption that the residen-
tial development has already been built and
that its children are already attending
Schools. In other words, what would this
year's tax rate be if both a high density
development, and an additional conventional
development, had been built in the recent
past?
The tax impact of any residential develop-
ment with school children varies for three
years until it reaches a point of stabili-
zation. This is due to the present state
aid formula system and the Monroe County
Sales Tax distribtuion method which fully
recognize additional full valuation and
enrollment only two years after they have
been added to a school district.
In the interim period the state aid formula
provides a transitional "growth aid" for
the first year and a similar amount for the
second year resulting from the application
of an adjusted aid ratio to increased
old
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX M (Cont'd)
operating expenses eligible for aid. In
the third year after the construction of a
residential project the tax impact will
ote
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX M (Cont'd)
1. Computation of the Tax Base for a Low
Density (1.75 unit/acre) Project.
stabilize because its full valuation then a. 65 times $37,500 = $ 2 ,437,500.00
has been incorporated into the computation b. times $ = ¢
of the aid ratio for that year and its c. Sub total $
enrollment has been included in the distrib- d. Minus present Full
ution formula for the Monroe County Sales Value of site $ 30,810.81
Tax. e, Net increase in Full 7
Valuation $ 2,406,689.19
The calculations on the following pages f. Present Full Valu-
demonstrate in detail the fiscal effects ation of school
of the addition of the two developments. district $197.375.244.00
g. New Full Valuation SULPLATOEEL FUL
Computation of per pupil costs multiplier
a.
Total 1971-72
appropriations/
pupil $
Minus principal
and interest on
debt service/pupil $ 202.07
Minus Operation and
Maintenance of
plant/ pupil $ 132.06
Minus board of
education expense/
pupil $ 5.50
Minus other/pupil $
Net cost per
additional pupil $
1,647.79
1, 308.16
Additional cost for 115
150 , 438.40
new pupils $
atu
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX M (Cont'd)
2. Computation of the Tax Base for
Density (9.5 units/acre) Project
a High
a. times $ = $
b. 350 times $18,400 = $ 6,5090.000.00
‘¢.Sub total $
ad. Minus present Full
Value of site t 30,810.81
e. Net increase in
Full Valuation $ 6,409,189.19
f. Present Full
Valuation of
school district $ 197,325,244.00
€. New Full Valuation ¥$ 203,739, 033.00
Computation of per pupil costs multiplier.
a. Total 1971-72
appropriations/
pupil $ 1,647.79
b. Minus principal and
interest of debt
service/pupil $ 202.07
c. Minus Operation and
Maintenance of
plant /pupil $ 132.06
ad. Minus board of
education expense/
pupil $ 5.50
e. Minus other/pupil $
f. Net cost per
additional pupil $ 1, 308.16
Additional cost for 175 new
pupils $ 4228 .928.00
odd
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX M (Cont'd)
Average Full Value
Tax Rate/1000 $ 22.98
Equalization Rate $ oan
Assessed Value
Tax Rate/1000
Assessed $ 62.112
Tax Impact in 1971-72 if project had been
completed by first quarter of 1971-72.
Low Density High Density
Project Project
1. Growth Aid
a.
Actual 1971-$ -0- $ -0-
72
38,624.10
b. New $ 8,913.25 ¢$
c. Increase $ 5913.25 $ 38,624.10
1971-72 Tax |
Impact
a.
b.
Gross add.
cost $150, 438.40
Growth aid
incr.
Net cost
increase
Net change
in Pull
Value Tax
Rate #.43 If on 71-72
niet rolls +.21
$228,928.00
$ 8,913.25 $ 38,624.10
$141,525.15 $190,303.90
Net change in
assessed
value.
Tax rate/1000
assessed
value +1.17 +.594
a3
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX M (Cont'd)
Tax impact in 1971-72 if project had been
completed by first quarter of 1970-71.
l.
A
u
8)
E
A
a.
id ratio
nchanged 0.571
perating
xpense
id
WADA for $ 6,050.35
0.571
$ 6,050.35
aid
present
- WADA for
aid new $ 6,165.35
$ 6,225.35
. Operating
exp.aid
present $2,971,084.87
$2 ,971.084.87
. Operating
exp. aid
new $3,027,556.77
$3,057 .028 . 37
. Aid increase
$ 56,471.90
$ 85,935.50
Building Aid. No change
Transport-
ation Aid
$ 289,881.99
a. Present
b. New $ 295.391.00
No change
$ 289,881.99
$__ 298,206.52
c. Aid
increase$ 5,509.83
$ 8, 384.53
High Tax
Rate Aid
2
a. Present $ 2,135.79
b. New $ 24,661.52
c. Increase$ 2,525.73
$ -0-
vid
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX M (Cont'd)
6. 1971-72
Tax Impact
a. Gross
Addit.
cost $ 150,438.40 ¢ 228,928.00
-Op.aid
incr. $ 56,471.90 $
5,509.83 $
85 5935.50
8, 384.53
-Tr.aid
incr. $
-High tax
rate aid
incr, $
b. Net
cost
increase $
c.Net
change in
full Value +.15 -.06
d.Net change
in Assess-
ed Value
Tax Rate/
1000 Assess-
ed Value +. 405 ~.162
2,525.73 $ -0-
85,930.94 $ 134,607.97
Tax Impact in 1971-72 if project had been
completed by first quarter of 1969-70.
Low Density High Density
1. Aid ratio
a. Present 0.571 0.571
b. New 0.573 .
a8u
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX m (Cont'd)
. Op.,Expense Low Density High Density
Aid,
a. Present $2,971,084.87 $2,971,084.87
b. New $3,038,101.17 $3,090,958.07
c. Aid
increase $ 67,076.30 $ 69,874.10
. Building Aid
Present $ 513,883.51
: $ 513,883.51
. New $ 515,683.95 § 511,183.50
. Aid
increase $ 1,799.94 $ -2,699.91
. Transporta-
tion Aid
a. Present $ 289,881.99 $ 289,881.99
b. New $ 295,391.82 § 298 266.50
ec. Aid
increase $ 5,509.83 $ 8,384.53
. High Tax
Rate Aid
a.Present $ 22,135.79 $ 22,135.79
b .New $__ 35,787.86 $17,057.23
c.Aid
increase $ 12,652.07 $ -4,478.56
Additional
Sales Tax
allocation $ 9,048.20 ¢$ 13,769.00
1971-72 Tax
Impact.
a. Gross
Addit.
cost $ 150,438.40 $ 228,928.00
~Op.aid
incr. $ 67,076.30 $ 69,874.10
oS 4
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX M (Cont'd)
Low Density High Density
-Build.
aid incr.
$ 1,799.94
-Trans.aid
incr, $ 5,509.83
$
$
-High tax
rate aid
-Sales tax
incr,
b.Net incr-
ease (sur-
plus)
c.Net change
in Full
Value -.01 -.02
d.Net change
in Assessed
Value
Tax Rate/
1000 Assessed
Value -.029 -.054
12,652.07
9,048 .20
aed
54,352.05 $ 144,078.84
Summary
1971-72 Full Value Tax Rate Impacts
Low Density High Density
Project Project
lst Year Project +43 +,21
2nd Year +.15 -.06
3rd and Subsequent
years -.01 -.02
BEST COPY AVATLABLE
983
IBIT C
EXH
eC
Cu
“uy
Population by Race
Monroe County,
City and Towns
1960,1964, 1970
Total Pop. White Negro Other
Monroe County 586,387 561,321 23,184 882
City of Roch. 318,611 294, 383 23,586 642
Balance of
County 267,776 266 ,938 598
Brighton 27,849 27,762 51
Chili 11,237 11,195 23
Clarkson 2,339 2,297 4}
Gates 13,755 13,738 5
Greece 48,670 48,516 12
Hamlin 2,755 2,704 40
Henrietta 11,598 11,574 ll
Irondequoit 55,337 55,277 34
Mendon 3,902 3,894 5
Ogden 7,262 7,247 6
Parma 6,277 6,227 4k
Penfield 12,601 12,572 23
Perinton 16,314 16,299 8
Pittsford 15,156 7 15,134 16
Riga 2, 800 2,781 16
VS GovieCumrur OVTLAYS Fok wal OLS FuNcrions
- FISCAL YEAR
(mMicvions o} DOLLARS )
FUSCTioN 19) 19u2 \9b2 he ‘96S 19Gb 1&7 19bB 1969 Wo 199) 1972" 1973"
— os ths 98 37 8) 341 476 448 871 1260 1243 1674 L¢
S50 19) Q - -)anc Zi ; F : 2 OL6
ALL nis man een 18 se4 eS Bet Zee Fore 1961 2965 3357 $039 4 sis
18430 134 WS2 Ise 2s¢ 8 833 18+, S48 19% $88 211 425 234610 24425)
;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & HouSING
*
on ESTIMATED
7
= NoTES: ALL = ToTAL FEDERAL OVTLAYS FoR ALL PLR POSES
= SSO = TerAL FEDEPAL OUTLAYS TFo2
C INCLUDES HuD E CFO). NIEGAT iWe
PrCEIPTS From “MAINT EN) Ance
ANDO DEDUCTIONS For
TOTAL Ty:
)
NUMBI rS
INDICATE |REFLUENCE or
ING MORTGAGE mA2KET (Sse) ”
OTHER RECEIPTS
AND MoDERATE
OF Hous
OFFSET TING
ODERAL OvuTLAYS roe
D e a > Fok Low INCOME HOUSING
SvUeZSIUIizgeD HO
SUSING PAYMEWTs SPECIAL ASSIST
: N
& CEHARILIT AT Ion LoANS). : )
AiDs C INCLUDES
ToTAL. Sv@siDi2tD —p S
ry Ntiw € Re WAP. UNIT 34 » aes _ aad
1969 IG} bo 6 .
191, 600 198 4 “* Sovce-"Twi2o auuvaL ge -
1910 so + 806 3) .
: ; 31¢ 600 PoekT oN HOUSING Goacs”*
991 S36 200 SeS 600 J 2 '
, ~~) 2 UNE 9 1991 U. ‘ 2
wo a ci i pe ’ P 3. GevEeN MENT
PEIWTING Office
VF VinkeEYy
AIinmainng
Monroe County
City of Roch.
Balance of
County
Brighton
Chile
Clarkson
Gates
Greece
Hamlin
Henrietta
Irondequoit
Mendon
Ogden
Parma
Penfield
Perinton
Pittsford
Riga
Rush
Sweden
Rush
Sweden
Webster
Wheatland
1964
Total Pop.
625,128
305,849
319,279
29,898
13,068
2,807
16,405
59,059
3,152
17,821
60,704
4177
9,399
8, 350
17,337
20,416
18,962
;3,209
2,840
8,377
Total Pop.
2,555
7,224
16,434
3,711
1960
White
White
591,634
273,509
318,125
29,759
13,016
2,744
16, 385
58,995
3,077
60,711
4,175
9,379
8,294
17,288
20,393
18,922
3,191
2,703
8,289
2,439
7,186
16,406
35590
(cont'd. )
Negro
105
37
10
111
986
EXHIBIT
Qn
\
Monroe County
City of Roch
Balance of
County
Brighton
Chili
Clarkson
Gates
Greece
Hamlin
Henrietta
Irondequoit
Mendon
Ogden
Parma
Penfield
Perinton
Pittsford
Riga
Rush
Webster
Wheatland
1970
Total Pop.
711,917
296 ,233
415,684
35,065
19,609
3,642
26,444
75,136
4167
33,017
63,675
4541
11,736
10,748
23,782
31,568
25,058
3,746
3,287
White
655,821
244,118
411,703
34,453
19,417
3,575
26,280
74,704
4 093
32,259
63,355
4 534
11,656
10,652
23,625
31,446
24,879
3,697
3,137
1964 (cont'd.)
Total Pop.
19,284
4,014
White
19,050
3,903
oO
“uD
288
SXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
Re-Capitulation of the 1971-72 tax roll
Taxable and partially exempt properties
by Categories
Category
Residences
Farms
Vacant Land
Trailer Parks
Shopping Centers
Commercial Bldgs.
Industries
Gas Stations
Apartments
Country Club &
Recreational
properties
Utilities
Special Franchise
Railroad
No of Accts
assessed value
5143
322
692
$47,484,450
3,312,900
1,996,900
1,852,400
2,643,500
3,428,800
911,400
493,200
4,597,600
165, 300
2,498,288
2,266,605
10,700
Total 6352
1970 (cont'd.)
Total Pop.
Sweden 11,461
Webster 24,739
Wheatland 4 265
White
11,256
24,549
4 136
$71,664,043
102
O94
EXHIBIT D
290
XHIBIT D
bo]
J
os
Re-Capitulation of the 1970-71 tax roll
by Categories
Taxable and partially exempt properties
Category No of Accts Assessed Value
Residences 4g24 $45,568,800
Farms 322 3,235,500
Vacant land 731 2,274,200
Trailer Parks 5 1,811,900
Shopping Centers 6 2,147,200
Commercial Bldgs. 116 3,680,000
Industries 13 917,800
Gas Stations 21 540,100
Apartments 14 4 520,700
Country Club 1 70,400
Utilities 12 2, 387,700
Special Franchise 4 1,996,452
Railroad 1 14,672
Total 6170 $69,165,424
Veterans exemptions on above 1,237,900
Aged exemptions on above 117 , 300
Ministers' exemptions on above 3,000
Taxable and partially exempt properties (Cont'd)
assessed value
given by Veteran exemptions on above $ 1,270,900
vet .bur, Aged exemptions on above 262,250
(1500 ea) Ministers' exemptions on above 4 500
Fully Exempt properties
Churches 13 $ 1,141,600
Parsonages 12 107 ,000
School s 12 4 521,200
School land vacant 7 38,100
Church land vacant 4 8,500
Miscellaneous vacant land 16 87 ,600
Exempt properties _26 97,500
Total 90 $ 6,881,500
O98
EXHIBIT D
292
EXHIBIT D
Re-Capitulation of the 1969-70 tax roll
ty Categories
Taxable and partially exempt properties
Category No of Accts Assessed value
Residences 4801 $29,981,200
Farms 326 2,055,100
Vacant land 752 815, 300
Trailer Parks 5 1,128,300
Shopping Centers 5 1,303,500
Commercial Bldgs. 101 2,076,100
Industries 13 653,800
Gas Stations 23 234,900
Apartments 13 2,647,700
Country Club 1 44,100
Utilities 13 1,235,900
Special Franchise 4 1,297,960
Railroad | 1 11,696
Total 6058 $43,489 556
Veterans exemptions on above 1,110,900
Aged exemptions on above 72,000
Ministers' exemptions on above 3,000
Fully exempt properties
Churches 12 $ 756,000
Parsonages 12 107,000
Schools 12 3,897,000
School land vacant 6 , 74,600
Churah land vacant 5 8,500
Miscellaneous vacant land 15 111,700
Exempt properties 25 943,700
(Town, County parks,
cemeteries, etc.)
Total 87 $5,898,500
990
EXHIBIT D
o94
EXHIBIT D
Re-Capitulation of the 1968-69 tax roll
by Categories
Taxable and partially exempt properties
Category No of Accts
Residences 4669
Farms 301
Vacant land 771
Trailer Parks 5
Shopping Centers 5
Commercial Bldgs. 93
Industries 13
Gas Stations 21
Apartments 12
Country Club 1
Utilities 13
Special Franchise 4
Railroad 1
Total 5909
Veterans exemptions on above
Aged exemptions on above
Ministers' exemptions on above
Fully exempt properties
Churches 12
Parsonages ll
Schools 12
School land 6
Church land 4
Miscellaneous vacant land 14
Exempt properties 23
(Town, County parks,
cemeteries, etc.)
Total 82
Assessed value
$28,417,000
1,844,000
855,700
1,172,600
1,296, 300
1,918,600
634.700
218,900
2,217, 300
38,100
798 , 800
1,280,186
13,367
$40,708 ,553
970,200
73,750
3,000
$ 459,200
62,400
2,890,700
13,500
3,500
32 , 300
614,700
$4,076 , 300
097
qr
nd =)
<)
EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D
~ZANNWA
OnrP Deans
eoucrorrisc
35833394 ;
EBA SAA ¥ PROPERTY VALUES
) be “2p ©
aoe Dp i The relationship which assessed value of a
oc os an
Q
“ee a: municipality bears to its full value is
m
.. determined annually by the state in order
aa |
“es to insure the equitable distribution of
- items which are levied or disbursed ad
fe)
. o valorem among the various municipalities.
be be
ea This ratio of assessed to full value,
4)
A or "equalization rate," for the Town
3
= hs — of Penfield is shown for past years
= MLW OVM OM beg
| in Table. It is strongly
)
4s
@
%
ct
©
“”
a Aaa
WW MN
Xo OV ‘© -_
OV Nm Mme UU
W UWIMWw O NWO
rn yw =—N™
© > ee ee ee Ee)
© oh eke keh eke)
999
EXHIBIT D
o90d
EXHIBIT D
” n
S4 3)
= »
wo > @
GHilpeuw &
5‘
<i 3 oO >
On Cvs
4 oOo r;rocsc
ts] An 3 w
— Ai soaT po
Ae AKIO OV ado »
- VI Oia N c
» Aiic “7A o® ®
c Slice owes
° Oe anak @
©) =i | Fe oe
~~ wlolseore
n ©
ml oleloa 2
fx) =) <P oe
~
=) oPis SES.
rea) ol® Q, °
<| Ajela Sar m>
E ViDiWMw Ow
ciYPic ov c
HweHiDod
ms ma oO %EO
Gi o}eo wrt» +
ALCO oO ats.
VIPIO LT Oa wa
8) omawonaas
Ars OND aw
IO MQeHinoh
Source
TABLE B
ASSESSED VALUE OF EXEMPT AND TAXABLE PROPERTY REAL & FRANCHISE,
STATE AND COUNTY EQUALIZATION RATES, 1950 - 1965
Town of Penri (Current Dollars)
eld, New York
Taxable Taxable Total
Tax Real Franchise Taxable
Year aaa aoe ay psy
1966 2 , , y) ’ ’ , ’ 2
1965 28,619,595 1,065,933 29 ,685 ,528
1964 26,079,021 974,996 27,054,017
1963 24,248,420 875,284 25,123,704
1962 22,418,960 806,475 23,225,435
1961 20,125,660 686,185 20,811,845
1960 14,916,860 738,892 15,655,752
1959 13,033,460 713,817 13,747,277
1958 12,032,660 632,872 12,665,532
1957 10,780,960 544,292 11,325,252
1956 9,333,140 469,326 9,802,466
1955 8,249,660 496,215 8,745,875
1954 7,822,560 417,600 8,240,160
1953 7,117,652 335,120 7,452,772
1952 6,368,570 310,760 6,679,330
1951 5,755,130 284,360 6,039,490
1950 5,196,188 07,400 5,463,588
Wholly
Exempt
Property
2,282,700
2°168-800
1,963,800
1,225,700
948° 400
857,700
764, 400
447,900
464,724
294, 400
294, 400
294,400
294,400
294400
Equalization
Rate (2%)
County State
28 28
29 28
30 29
34 30
37 34
39 30
38 38
38 38
35 38
49 49
49 49
90 90
80 80
80 80
80 80
80 80
601
EXHIBIT E
E
EXHIBIT
Religious Communities
Churches
Parsonages
Clergymen, Residences
Paraplegic Pensioners
Fall Out Shelter
Housing Projects
Pensioners
Grand Total
United States of America
State of New York
County of Monroe
(Civic Center)
County of Monroe & City
of Rochester
City of Rochester
City of Rochester -
only
City of Rochester - Land
& Buildings
Subway
Public Schools
Educational
land
1962 - 1963 1963 - 1964 1964 - 1965
978,820 978,820 950,190
20,665,240 21,774,200 21,349,680
1,193,230 1,272,610 1,325,730
151,500 102,000 154,500
26,740 26,740 21,940
3,090 6, 390
0 0 0
170, 345,524 170,138,331 168,795,635
13,841, 330 13,917,555 13,800,715
184,186,854 184,055, 886 182,596,350
EXEMPT PROPERTY TOTALS
as of July lst,
1962 - 1963
3,970,770
26,186,551
5,071,286
1,180,943
31,736, 315
6,693,764
28,103,502
22,018,480
Libraries 1,420,644
Character Building Agencies 4,039, 330
Clubs and Associations 3,219,690
Charitable
Cemete rie:
11,063,042
1,302,910
1963 - 1964
3,970,770
18,637,082
6,039,223
1,190,943
32,188,445
1,151,198
273,050
6,695,274
32,140,652
23,124,510
1,338,044
4,049,950
3,215,010
10,663,810
1,302,910
1964 - 1965
3,970,770
18,631,500
7,110, 393
1,190,943
30, 862.764
1,394,405
Religious Communities
Churches
Parsonag
Clergymen, Residences
Pa araplegic Pens
Shelter
Fall Out
Housing Proje
sioners
CTS
21,605,180
1,355,550
148,500
21,940
6,390
0
1967 - 1968
912,830
21,867, 360
1,390,740
139,500
35,940
3,640
6,055,919
1968 - 1969
920,190
21,788,920
1,383,680
138,000
35,940
3,640
7,335,179
173,684,273
184,849,684
190,150,211
- Pensioners 13,963,525 13,797,045 13,481,745
ok
- ™ Grand Total 187,647,798 198,646,729 203,631,956
ra
= Aged Exemptions 5,646,590
209,278,546
Grand Total
United States of America 3,970,770 4,518,230 4,518,230
State dl New York 18,713,379 14,846,086 14,855,847
County (Mepreen. mater) 8,169,287 8,957,677 11,041,425
nte
County of Monroe & City
of Rochester 174,660 174,660 174,660
~) City of nochester 31,678,950 30,715,351 30 ,668 ,533
ape City of Rochester-Land only 1,046,257 3,228,231 4,752,361
=~, o City of Ro senha Land
es 4 & Buildings 267,470 3,760,930 1,954,516
= Subway 6,690,274 6,709,884 6.709.614
>< eu ) > > | ’ > 5)
ji Public Schools , 8,605,512 28,662,992 30 53.572
Educational 6,601, 850 28,288,290 28,588,290
Libraries 1,420,644 1,420,644 1,420,644
Character Building Agencies 4,059,140 4,064,540 3,960,420
Clubs and Association 3,369,980 3,141,480 3,077,030
Charitable 13,500, 34 14,628,250 15,246,710
smeteries 1, 326,810 1,326,811 1,326,810
680
G44
EXHIBIT E
1969-70 1970-71 1971-72
hurches 21,811,940 21,945,160 21,663,130
sande 1,466,260 1,438,160 1,664,010
Clergymen( Residence) 112,500 106,500 94,500
Paraplegic Pensioners 35 5940 35,940 35 5940
Pollution Control E.K.C. 1,225,000
Fall Out Srelters 3,640 3,640 3,640
Housing Projects 7,646,774 11,194,226 11,463,716
(2 $194,983,447 214,600,505 $219,113,269
EiPensioners 13,144,980 12,785,570 12,595,170
= $208,128,4527 227,300,075 231,700,439
T
°3 Aged Exemptions 4 493,460 4,903,110 5,214,530
Grand Total $212,621,887 $232,289,185 $236,922,969
EXEMPT PROPERTY TOTALS
as of July lst, 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72
United States of America 4,518,230 4,518,230 4,518,230
State of New York 14,0 34,187 12,848,792 14,956,298
County of Monroe 12,892,785 23,250,975 23,096,465
(Civic Center)
County of Monroe & City
of Rochester 174,660 1,111,000 1,111,000
City of Rochester 30,597,774 35,470,310 35,163,220
City of Rochester Land Only 3,348,275 3,589,200 2,281,854
City of Rochester Land
& Bldgs. 928,136 1,926,836 1,902,700
Urban Renewal Land & Bldgs. 4,645,168
Subways 6,709,614 6,709,614 6,745,006
Public Schoois 32,245,572 32,273,092 32,643,562
Urban Renewal Agencies 457,730
Educational 31,969,080 29,809,970 30,476,290
Libraries 1,999,670 1,987,670 2,014,970
Character Building Agencies 3,880,350 3,880,350 3,075,580
Clubs & Associations 3,086,930 3,563,530 2,609,430
Charitable 15,827, 370 17,273,570 16,296,510
Cemet@ ries 1,326,810 1,326,810 1,321,730
Religious Communities 366,950 336,930 547,590
CITY OF ROCHESTER TAX RATES
Figures in $ per $1000 assessed valuation
Services not included
# City School City Monroe County Total
Year Rate Rate Totals for City residents Rate
1959 24.50 17.56 42.06 14.12 56.18
60 24.30 21.09 45.39 14.23 59.62
61 24.30 23.22 47.52 14.14 61.66
©o 62 24.30 24.10 48.40 14.55 62.95
Ce, 63 24.30 24.27 48.57 14.18 62.75
Orn 664 (24.30) «24.27 48.57 15.78 64.35
“1 65 26.68 26.87 53.55 19.24 72.79
S266 27 .59 27.87 55.46 19.63 75.09
a 667 2.08 28.87 57.95 18.55 76.50
68 29.08 29.47 58.55 18.12 76.67
69 31.66 32.36 64.02 24.77 88.79
1970 31.66 36.25 67.91 22.56 90.47
71 33.68 42.68 76.36 27.16 103.52
72 33.68 47.27 80.95 28.06 109.01
* City & School rates are for Fiscal year -
July to July ending in Year listed HEB 4/72
=
oa
Y ig} Eatea = =
§ off Gt :
to & pe ‘= aL Ht ia] :
Saito Glut: :
> ; ES inca
2 § t ayiidaes bea Palh
4
603 609
SXHIBIT K ‘HIBIT I
es)
ae
I\ Radio «67 POMFIELD PRESS, Poof, N.Y., Jum |, WT
Tas Taxs-Umo’ LOCI Front... Stansten osall RIGHT PAGES Ds OME SECTION
Rorbester. N.\.. Wednesday Evening \pril 26, 1972 Suburb... . Moderate Income
The City’s Money Woes Grow Housing Favored
The Penfieki Housing Task force, appointed by the Town Board
to Study housing meeds in the town, has finished one of its tasks,
a> Opicics * attitudes toward moderate income
bowing iaPouneh oat tas pollisiee tee reoeta.
Taxes Will Rise. Pierre Caste of Woodhaven “ por coat
wore in the asgative 66% do not presently find
» wp Kemeny —- €@ -+- ~ con © pesces wore & the idea of living in a com-
. Task Force eats — the positive range. Peterson diminium appealing. This re-
Ma ‘or Confirms casothat ‘a majerity of the peapie = commented that (his difference duces to 44% if the family is
¢ Pentex ~ ~~~ is statistically signtfieast and not grewe up (quest. He, 16).
a ewer some “ ramiom chance. »
By; TOM MINWER) - oo oe the y- -¥— ome incorma = howsteg ia the Pierre Coste, Housing Task ot a
Cit) and schon) tame ic been reduced io 4 mille -— ; Force Chairman, saic “I be- moderate ‘ncome families.
Rochester wil be imcrested Rumered cus @ (ve and pe Caste added: “Actually the love the survey axcurately re- 65% feel e shortage af mod-
for the pext fiscal year, start. ber racks would aot be secu Opimion Survey was ome part of Mects the opinions of Penfielf- oe a
Lawea 2s2—se the three month Task Forceef- = org im geusral. We seat quostion- + B, 4g le
“an op > omen oe fort. We studied housing meds aires to every fifth person inthe in Monroe County. .
Orw tax rates would be Ad aud @ & Salem All three in the County, Penfield’s ‘fair voter registration lists aad the + 65% do aot approve of tax
munttration efficuls appar. unions rejected ube offer share” of these meeds, styles af Sil returas, seem to be repre- abatement af local property
eully have oot yer seltied ee 86 Hil) woul! oot claborste on comstruction for moderate in- sentative of the peopk of tazes to provide moderate in-
te TL = = a exupieye salar) problem come housing, Peafieki’s Zoning Pentieki, For example, 608-1 come housing in Penfield (in
sessed property vahr and the an use’ later prontee’ iy Ordinance, andgoveromenthous- me rcespendents live in & private quaseet,
sebool tax rate us 47.77 commenting while segue im programe. At this Monday's bome; 60% have lived is Ben-
Cty Manager Kermit Hill ons contimer (Jum Sth) Penflekd Town Board fielé-ever Gve years and 4%
formes he ny Portes of tee mes city meeting the Housing Task Farce weare bewween 34 aad 55 pears 0 64% approve of tax abate-
fms ‘hat te money will be nd ol be comt out bor ri. wilh gveseat its report which is- age. 1 thiwk this reflects the = Se ae Se
able io the ves budge 2” * odes some specific §6rec- heurtinad of Peafiehi reetdsats.”” © prov m
+ —-- — } a r Af . Gmmemiations for action by the a a@ qpinice in which housing in Penfield for the ekier~
=. iregpaare ets 2G 2. heme gered a ! yy rave responses were 60% above or be- ly (specifically).
¢ 9 we budget prepesnl as turnost mocting low the aputral range were som-
Ch, bergunag ages fer ge Con Gaeta ont so that questions can be raised = marised as follows: 64% feel mere housing is
resentung cher employes arc F nic hearings on beth the . Peters on, 6urvey Ceordin- able to a0 apartment house
Toate net So eee oe Touran from the aslo qucten, «LOWE bause IF'it was known 69% woud no cbpct tov
ay om mi -
— aa mam = cntree eniled. Wo wore very Geir “muir share” cf tows erate income Gwellings. This
—— pleased with this rewra. services. reduces to 48% if the distance
a eae See eee es is reduced to 1/4 mile (quest.
stamawats to which Penflelers a ore) cme, No, 16),
were ashes uf they a ge the Plaaniog and
Strongly, 00 — A Zoning Boards are obliged to 63% feel more housing is
“ eo ve- enforce strict soming ews to) 8=—_ needed for moderate income
SS ee a. protect existing property owe- = industrial and public service
raph questi ow workers,
Gicated that responses to sight feel mare bous s mong Data Ques-
af te statements were scored ant a. — amen
to form as wee lene “4 BS feel the Town shouki 90% own their present dwell-
7 a why 4 by --- tepamints plans and take ac- = ing,
responds Optatan Gens which will provide mai- reside ine private home.
lngea in the novtral range while erate income housing which roa sd4
best serves the progress of fied for more than five years.
te Torn. 69% have lived in Penfield
for more than five years.
69% fee! they understand the
main issues.
Amalysis is contiming to sum-
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
619 Ii
SXEIBIT J 2\HIBI™ x
6B ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE — june €. 197: Penfield Homes Poll ‘Surprise’
Moderate Income Housing SEi its Sages mens meee
couming (Oe + (hes be wwerd ef sperument De. J. Donald Rare, wer come housing * -
ut boume @ tween house ect councilman gad cocaeirms Perrre Coste task farce
« Howws Task i» @y Meighbormwec U | keew of the tanh force sad 6 By [ cheumer sed the groups
* — e Perce mem vers and tows offi. be reextents would be cos. and Woge Os surprvang anc re ommendations w th town
cals sad they were = ributing Geir ‘fair Gare’ to encom aig the! theres 4] bosrd wun'l be made public
; adi ee e in pred” and encourawed be fmapee such ‘own services as sronger positive feeling then | ur’) wmerrow ogh ss wen
° the remulis of the \ast-force schools, sewers rowds ec" pegalve beard meeting. but he hinted
“l ess say it's an over “Ip general. ‘the task force! ( ma) recom Mend (anges LW
Thirty Ave per cear ow they relmug Masdeir te way I mer hers lee he we tows the ‘owe ’ for ng aol Geass
= severe Focran Sc ee kt mae tos
Wi BRAD KNICKERBOCKER months ago by the board v jot sizes Priva unde try. but comiq.. @ tum ee euenes te Peter, wwe cousc
Penfield will have to allow analyte the need for moder- * Adopt changes (0 the goveramer subsidized Pry “paniuee” epinions of ‘
Ciiructon of at least 2000 ale income housing and rec- preset seamng erdimence nec- posals as wel! cletaceme hous a
mederate income housing ommend the types and quan- ausary © permit the broad _ © Encourage such NOUS ing cout ware “negaiive and is
units by te mestdteWalr tity that should be buill, also yanel, el_appousches (0 (aod in artas of the town in ads per cost were “pe vtra!
shete of the county'e ceed advised the board to Ale income teasing recom. tion to the Penfield The to fied
lor such Seumng. Town Board * Permit and cncourage mended. i +E Road are, he ELD
members were told last night. the construction of a variety . a *Review and update (.. (hese percents gee +:
De Penfield Housing Task of beusing styles, iypes of ecoce for of task force's recommendatio,,. ~- why] ~ #
Perce appointed = ihree construction and hous» and mederate income housing by every two years Be. ~ —A Ut
; wed fe 6 6mh | (hong
; whether the persoo whe as
Task force chairman Pierre agree on a recommendation such ordinances contain no ~task teres found tha mod, seared ebyected wo voderste
Cosie sad the group did mot comcerning the town's planned density requirement and Pen- aie imeome housing WO ig inceme housing nea: hus beme
recommend specific changes unit develépmeni ordinance field Supervisor Irene L. Gos- cost laspapers less than higy and whether (he lows should
in the owns zoning ordi: The ordinance originally sin said last April, “The coo- iecome housing. revide modersteiecome
nance, but cauuoned that, called for a maximum density cept of the unit devel- “The residents in the moy “which ocest serves Tine 4 fy "
“higher densilies per acre of 5.2 units per acre, but was opment is and if you erate intome developmen .. the pregress of the tows.” ~ y
than those allowed by the pres- reduced last year to 4.0 unis pay sy tf poring thnle “air share’ by Thary-tee per cont agrend
em ordinamce may be re per acre. cosis ya share P i —_——
quired." The Monroe County Pike § Based on current figures c fer than the residerts io 't: + SS CST AD ANAS
He sasd Ube group could not ning Council recommends that state aid to local ethools, tke high income development grempe mere wees cwighber. q unday - i
a heed Gere foliews « deee =
wreding of erigntorhord ap
peeremee sac preper’y vel
os
The percestage jumped to
@ per comet whee that ques
Cee ee asked soem mmority
owe weed 6 moose we
|
|
g-k
ge
ii
tt
i
lf!
wwn
Ged = aperimeets cod
beweee wo Peofiew & « ' nep
@ Ge righ dGrecuen” Bu
Gey oereheimegs Gee
prewed af propertyiat sbeio
= BEST COPY AVAILABLE
ial
[tHe
iM
i sr piiieeal
THE TIMES-UNION Su b U r b
a A
pt 18 ii
rt ae!
i nan i :
it i
fi bs
i ii
THEIL
Rochester. N.Y.. Tuesday Evening, June 6, 1972
ie
“
il phe
Pretested vesterde,
the proposed budget and the
wial they call lack of pro
Geom Some teache
ay ihey vatir
Ors yaty telertion with Who is
“ress on contract ne gote
f+ demonstreted again todey and «nd
ble (abet issue NOt only
By LINDA VAN KIRA
Emory W Miller u one per
on who was disturbed last
mgt by the report meade by
the Penfield Housing
borce
Je.
po leu
@ consultant
awe ©
~yt -
noome houwdng @() push hus
te tw Ld
Housing plan opponent
Says, ‘I can’t afford
field should be picked as «
‘or = moderate wrome
ow! of tissue pepe
Mule twee of 77 Hillary accepted
ome wh * 0 000) home He | Gon! want Penfield w& ?
jor Eaplewes became « lowcost develop
Ragineering Services He hes ment community U I wanted
four children. three of whom thet | could move to the conn e
Peafiesld uhookk He ter « he says
Os meet & force gowg to heve io mo
Gly cithe: ts statwtors or as
Aut Milew oat want lo § velues
j , - 1 more moderetein Penfield supervisor
eachers ! i hee ! Susie henry waite io Pen Govern says thal some medi
id by 1@mp cotwns may te made
ewe ere some of the Penfield sch: ol iwsachers whe Whe w gem to pey for re-om meade’ ions Wut net ne
a school district offices ageinst) (he auxtersie come housing’ — esserily the newt |
se
© pay ihe lames oy
dale Wel) be om ~ 6
worm @ ol euhoole’ over pretty bar: wough the
we until the Jeoe 13 wnual meet The ovtehiished remit are whale summer’ he seve
re st an impasse in contract talks 8°" ; ret haow Uf we!) act oo the
whom report We mey ean! lo
me Womme particulier rece
Memlieliom owt end ect of
‘em Al any rete. before ox
wh take any ection, oot told
(he (ast force s recommenda publ "werings
lo five of years
any moderals incume housing
project wil) be o Dig «
great, big WOecre biight
The task force repart recom- Multi femidy units ere built
mended among other things
thet the toon bw Mill’ saya he will Be at Une
SS ee om next town boerd meeting to
ne by check on whether the
fcces r commendsthons ore
The recommendations of une
by Pierre Coste. were
‘nan 6150 per month
THE TAXPAYER
€)
~
i | : in
2
ul
~ That muder ete income
housing be exouraged
areas of the lowe we eddiuan
to Ge Peatield Reed . Wete
tr Faerpert Reed ore
(There are currently 678 curt
wus propored for thie ofee
howe \edog « projert planmed by
the Urtee Development Car-
por een |
That the recommends
ons of te teak force be re
viewed end updeted ie two
years
The (asa force fownd "het 19
per ceet of the housing in
Penfield isn the moderateta-
rome rang | (he suburban
“hs only Brighten Pitts
lore Hem SS a.
fFges
gist;
hekt C Wsequam mt y
force recommends
‘even @f town
houses ead mulliplex units te
Uve price range
Me seve thet although the
wp Gd not osk for any wo
owe charges w the we wo
‘0g ordinance = >igher densi
les (ee presently allowed
may be) equir ad
sere met Penton
as
f
i
|
aphly;
nit
u,
4a
:
5
¥
Where You'll Find
6
EAHIBI
1s
}
=
N
+
Crime in the City
<
?
ive
feue
iis
lit
3 ut
ne
|
=<
Q
5
TV
The Locations
‘a Avenue ann iawn
are Sure was the worst
‘Serpeed am the city for
>
» ‘eam crenes. Four hom-
, Onles. & rapes, $2 robberies
reverded there lest
By contrast. ne homicides,
rapes of robberie were re
ported i ereas 3° and 4), the
only neichborhonds with no
\imlent crimes reported
Wee 2 alse led the city in
hur clerws vith 46 162 mere
than *cund-pisce ares 14
Mastieila sad police heave
tried "© comber the probiens
i Deeh-crome ereas by using
more men and more intensive
pe roiling metnods
“We use monthly computer
Printouts to show us where
the bad spots are and thes
concentrate op them,” he
said.
The police Tectical Unit is
moved eround the city to add
more peice ( wgh crime
atea:, he sant
The Model Cities Neighbor.
hoed ir ine rortheast. and the
sov.inwest sections of the city
ae petroliwt by Coordinated
Team Patrols. They operate
closcly © ty to solve more
crumes
Shooting Case
Trial Begins
ALBION — Trial of Sendra
Nichols. 3. of Hemiock Ridge
Pead Alton, and Robert Roy
Whvte. 19 of Raot Reed Al
tien. both charged with first
deyree asseull, opened in Or.
leans County Court yesterday
before Judce J Kenneth Serve
anc « jury of six men end six
women
Testemony was heard from
witnesses for the plaimtiff.
Harvey Bonk of Clarendon.
“ho vas ailcgedly injured by
@ shotgun Diest on Now 1 on
the property of James Reamer
ef Upper Holiew Road. Town
of Clarendon Testifving were
Reamer. Laura Whete, wile of
dclendan. Whe. and Morns
Lamice Of Barker
Plaintiff's testimony will be
resumned of 10 a.m. today.
6l4a
EXHIBIT N
The Breakdown
Stolen
District Hemiede Rape Robbery Asssctt Bergiery Lerceny Vehicles Tevet
i 3 2 4 a) i 1080 4) 1728
Py ‘4 $ . “in uS e! 1287
3 2 2 4a zm 220 Re ie}
4 j 3 x 3 206 4n a3 107)
> 2 2 aa 26! is $23 e. 1058
e 2 —_— 215 _ 70 ~~
? U) i 210 jar 402 43 913 ‘
e 2 3 “ iss 148 480 a2 wo?
~ ) i rs) ine in SO “ Lad
10 ‘4 _—=— ez 203 ™ - LL)
oun c — wa aE ee + &S
2 j j & 163 2 383 at
ih 0 j 16 1” 108 426 im) 7
4 3 3 2 2 a ~ a “ a
15 0 4 » i’ 135 2 a
6 — 143 wo “ rs
17 i 0 13 iis 109 30 24 ce
is 2 i 2 431 19 215 31 ere)
— am 2 8 i on 7% — 2) 587
20 j 0 4 7 14s tm it +“
ra v 0 $ « _ rd 7
2 i j ie es * iad is ae
23 o 9 16 99 “ 312 rr) ~~
24 0 j t 105 as 223 n —
23 0 c iz hal Ba) a” 2 44)
— | UJ 2 ie s 2 236 4s ‘v
2 0 i UJ #” 80 24 it 41°
a ') s 2 Z a El
— j 0 4 o _ 216 4 MS
— a 7 i e .'% 71 198 is 34)
2 0 j 2 ___2 9 235 iF
ee 0 i 7? BS} »® 31) ig ca
33 () l 4 6 1M 2 ”"
M i 0 a “a xs et | = a
3s 0 o i 38 * ry 12 ~—
cd 0 0 i np yn 183 6 259
zn v ] i 20 v is} if , —_
ws 0 i > Sy 25 i r! ml
Pad 0 t 0 Bb Pa] a 7 a
— £ s J = | = = 32 ee oe
4 -= G Q — e cal ‘
— 0 ‘ i i? 2 z= i —
0 Zz i i 19 0 27
7 0 i 1 j 5 is
Map shows crime reporting tenes, trict numbers on the map. Chart list
numbered ing “unknown” refers to fact that rer-
(1) to the lowest (43).
lists break- ords do not show district in which
down of major crimes in each ares.
Nambers on chart correspond with dis
t
6109
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
¥
m2 ]
vitie
~taya *# AFFIDAVIT
Omitted we
In
* Civil Action
Printing No. 1972-42
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF MONROE ) SS:
CITY OF ROCHESTER)
ANN McNABB, being duly sworn
according to law, deposes and says:
1. I ama private citizen residing
at 1966 Penfield Road, Penfield, New
York. I am a member of Metro-Act of
Rochester, Inc. and a member of the
Housing Task Force for Metro-Act of
Rochester, Inc., one of the plaintiffs
in the above noted lawsuit. I am also
a resident of the Town of Penfield, one
of the defendants in the above noted
lawsuit. As a resident of Penfield, I
616
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
am a member and director of Penfield
Better Homes, a non-profit corporation
organized for the purpose of building
low moderate income housing in the Town
of Penfield to help alleviate what is
a critical need for low and moderate
income housing in the Rochester metro-
politan area including the Town of
Penfield. I make this affidavit in
opposition to the motion of the defendants
herein to dismiss this lawsuit.
2. I have been involved in
Metro-Act since 1966. I have been in-
volved with Penfield Better Homes since
its organization in 1968. Penfield
Better Homes is a charter member of the
Housing Council in the Monroe County
Area, Inc.; the Housing Council seeks
with the consent of the present plaintiffs
to become a plaintiff in this lawsuit. From
617
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
my participation in both of these
organizations, I have an on going
knowledge of the various attempts to
bring low moderate income housing to
the Town of Penfield. I have personal
knowledge of the attempts of Penfield
Better Homes to bring low, moderate
income housing to the Town of Penfield.
I have a knowledge of the proposals which
have been submitted to the Town of Penfield
from time to time to provide low and
moderate income housing. I have
attended and/or participated in many of
the public meetings held in the Town of
Penfield in connection with the providing
of low and moderate income housing since
1968.
3. From my experience in efforts
to bring low and moderate income housing
. construction to the Town of Penfield, I
6138
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
can personally attest to the findings
made by the Metropolitan Housing Committee
in its study "Housing in Monroe County,
New York" and the study entitled "Town
Zoning and the Shortage of Moderate
and Low Income Housing, Monroe County,
New York" prepared by Rochester Bureau
of Municipal Research, Inc., now the
Rochester Center for Governmental
Research, as being conclusions which
are directly applicable to the Town of
Penfield with respect to its policies
and practices on zoning and with respect
to its zoning ordinance. The Rochester
Bureau Of Municipal Research, Inc. (now
Rochester Center for Governmental
Research) in its study of April 1967
entitled "Town Zoning and the Shortage of
Moderate and Low Income Housing, Monroe
County, New York" found that town zoning
619
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
practices which mandate large lot sizes,
large structure setbacks and low density
occupation of the land, are a major
contributing factor to the maintenance
of the suburban towns of Rochester as
enclaves for middle and high income
residences only. (See Town Zoning and
the Housing Shortage, Monroe County, pages
19 and 20, Exhibit A attached hereto
and made a part hereof.) Further, the
Metropolitan Housing Committee in its
report "Housing in Monroe County, New
York", Summary Report, April 1970, found
that there was a critical need for the
construction of low and moderate
income housing in the suburban towns;
that the necessary land available for
the construction of low and moderate
income housing was to be found in the
629
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNAEB
Suburban towns.
The complete rejection by suburban
communities of all low and moderate
income housing is testimony to
the severity of the problem of
prejudice involved. While many
of the community ~roups and agencies -
aS well as individual citizens -
have been working for open housing,
their various efforts have proved
insufficient. Racial prejudice
and discrimination must be con-
Sidered one of the most serious
obstacles blocking the construction
of low/moderate income housing
where it is needed.
(Summary Report, Housing in Monroe
County, New York, page 10, Exhibit
F of Robert J. Warth affidavit
Submitted herewith. )
4. As a private citizen I have
been continually involved in advocating
the construction of low and moderate
income housing in the Town of Penfield
Since 1967 and have been a participant in
the submission of proposals for the
construction of low and moderate income
housing in the Town of Penfield since
1969. The Penfield town board and planning
621
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
board have, through a combination of
actions as more particularly set forth
below, either 1) delayed action on
proposals for inordinante periods of
time, 2) denied approval to a proposal
for the construction of low and moderate
income housing for totally arbitrary
reasons, 3) failed to provide necessary
Supporting services for low and moderate
income housing, 4) amended the zoning
ordinance to make nearly impossible the
approval of low and moderate income
housing proposals.
5. In May of 1970, the Town of
Penfield was the first suburban Rochester
community to adopt a planned unit develop-
ment section of its zoning ordinance.
The Planned Unit Development (PUD)
concept involves planning on the
level of a neighborhood or community
rather than on the level of an indi-
vidual lot or single use. Generally,
622
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
the PUD concept applies most
effectively to project areas
exceeding 100 acres in size. PUD
objectives are comprehensive and
involve viewing the components of
a development as they relate to
the needs of an entire town and,
even, to a metropolitan area. A
PUD achieves flexibility and
efficiency in land use. A PUD
conserves our limited land re-
sources by stopping current patterns
of urban sprawl development. A
PUD provides a more convenient,
conflict-free environment through
the integration of commercial,
recreational, educational, vocational
and open space land uses with
residential uses at neighborhood
levels. A PUD includes a variety
of residential types suitable for
all age groups and income levels.
In short, a PUD provides a living
environment superior to that
generally achievable under standard
zOning and subdivision regulations.
Attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit B is a copy of
A Model Planned Unit Development
Article for a Town Zoning Ordi-
nance, Monroe County Planning
Council and the Rochester Center
for Governmental Research and
Community Research, Inc., March
1970 (Third Draft).
Because high cost of land and construction
in suburban towns makes it impossible or
623
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
extremely difficult for the developer to
build low and moderate income housing,
the clustering and use of higher density
in the planned unit development allows
the builder to reduce his costs and
then rent or sell his property at
relatively lower prices.
6. A review of the courses of the
following planned unit development
proposal is an index to the Town of
Penfield's action to discourage and
prevent low and moderate income housing
in the Town of Penfield. A PUD plan
was submitted by Mr. Joseph Audino for
the Beacon Hill site in Penfield. In June
1970, this proposal was for the con-
struction of 490 single and multi-family
units including a commercial area.
Attached nereto and made a part hereof as
Exhibit C are the Planning Board Minutes,
624
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
June 9, 1970. The proposal was tabled
by the planning board of Penfield. I
understand that people who lived in
neighboring areas objected to the apart-
ments and the commercial area which was
apart of the plan.
7- In August of 1970, Mr. Audino
Submitted a second, different plan for
a PUD; the planning board, in September
of 1970, denied this proposal (a more
conventional proposal omiting the
commercial area and not as diversified
as the former in mixture of housing types)
aS a proposal not consistent with the
best overall use of the area. This
proposal consisted of the construction
of 316 units. (See Planning Board
Minutes attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit D.)
G29
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
8. An additional proposal for a
planned unit development was submitted to
the planning board by Mr. Audino for
the Beacon Hill area in May of 1971.
This proposal provided for the con-
struction of 474 units. (See Planning
Board Minutes attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit E.) The Monroe
County Planning Council approved the
plan. (See Exhibit F attached hereto
and made a part hereof.) The plan
also was approved by the Town of Penfield's
planning board with the proviso of
reducing the density from that proposed.
(See Exhibit G attached hereto and made
a part hereof.) The number of units was
reduced to 387 at a later stage. A
description of the plan is attached hereto
and made a part hereof as Exhibit H. At
the time the Audino application to re-zone
626
AVIT, ANN McNABB
the area from residential AA to PUD
District (for the purpose of implementing
the Beacon Hill’s PUD) was presented
to the Penfield town board, the Penfield
town, apparently responding to citizen
pressure, held a hearing on amending
the PUD ordinance. The Planned Unit
Development ordinance was amended
reducing the permitted density from
5.2 to 4 dwelling units per acre and
further providing for every multiple
dwelling unit or duplex unit there must
be a single family dwelling. (See
Exhibit I attached hereto and made a
part hereof. )
9. The Beacon Hills PUD was passed
by the Penfield town board with the con-
dition that it conform to the density
limitations in the PUD amendment. (See
Exhibit J attached hereto and made a
§ 2?
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
part hereof.) In January of 1972, the
Penfield town board repealed the re-zoning
from AA to PUD of the Beacon Hills PUD and
referred the matter to the Monroe County
Planning Council for its recommendations.
(See Exhibit K attached hereto and made
part hereof.) The Monroe County Planning
Council recommended disapproval for the
re-zoning change. (See Exhibit L
attached hereto and made a part hereof.)
10. According to Mr. Audino, the
Beacon Hills PUD proposal is under
tabled matters under consideration by
the Planning Board pending results of
court action taken by the neighbors
around the Beacon Hill site and attempts
to arrive at a compromise on a further
lowering of the number of units. According
to a recent news article, Exhibit M
attached hereto and made a part hereof, a
compromise on the number of units has now
628
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
been made.
ll. Prior to the hearing on the
amendment to the PUD ordinance, noted
above, Penfield supervisor, Howard J.
Frank, commented (see news articles
attached as Exhibit I above ) that
because the planned unit development
proposals submitted to the Town of
Penfield had thus far included a high
percentage of apartments, Penfield would
need to amend the ordinance. Supervisor
Frank was quoted in the newspaper as
saying,"You've got problems when you have
apartments and you're putting them in
residential AA areas next to $40,000.00
homes." The amendment to the planned
unit development ordinance in the Town
of Penfield was passed over the strong
opposition of builders interested in
629
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
constructing low and moderate income
housing as well as the Monroe County
Housing Council who described the
proposed amendment as a "foolhardy attempt
to impose even more stringent regulations."
(See full statement of the Monroe County
Housing Council and correspondence
attached hereto and made a part hereof
as Exhibit N.)
12.An application by Penfield Better
Homes for the re-zoning of land in the
Town of Penfield from A to Townhouse
Dwelling District for the construction of
low moderate income housing met with
a pattern of frustration delay and
ultimate denial. In September 1969,
Penfield Better Homes Corp., of which
I am a member and director, made a proposal
to the Penfield Planning Board at a public
630
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
hearing for the construction of a project
"Highland Circle", a complex of cooperative
housing units which would be sold to
persons earning approximately $5,000.00
to $8,000.00 a year under §236 of the
Federal Housing Act of 1968. (A copy of
the proposal is attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit 0.) This
proposal was submitted to the Planning
Board after comprehensive Studies had
been made by Penfield Better Homes
Corp. on all aspects of the effect of
this proposal on the Surrounding community.
(See attached Exhibits P through Q
attached hereto and made a part hereof. )
The background work on the proposal
included the securing of a legal opinion
by Penfield Better Homes from Robert M.
Anderson, Esq., zoning expert at. Syracuse
University Law School, in anticipation of
631
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
the concern the Town of Penfield might
have for rezoning and creating a
"spot zoning" problem. (See Exhibit R
attached hereto and made a part hereof.)
A second public hearing was held in
November 1969.
13. By resolution of the Penfield
Planning Board, a copy attached hereto
and made a part hereof as Exhibit S, the
proposal of Penfield Better Homes Corp.
was denied on the grounds that the
1) townhouse construction proposed would
constitute an inappropriate use of the
land and would not be consonant with
existing character of the neighborhood,
2) the proposed use would create traffic
problems within the area and 3) the
proposed use would create problems of
erosion during and after the construction.
Data previously supplied to the Planning
632 633
7FIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB AFFIDAVIT, Al
14. To my knowledge, Penfield Better
Board directly contradicted the specific
Homes is the only corporation to present
reasons for denial of the application -
a plan to the town involving a subsidy
a survey by the County of Monroe, Director
program in order to provide low moderate
of Public Works, had revealed that
income housing for individual persons
increased traffic would not create any
ana particularly for families, with the
problem with respect to the existing
exception of the recent, April 1972 UbCc
traffic facilities in the area. Further,
proposal.
a thorough review of the proposed apart-
15. In September of 1971, O'Brien
ment site demonstrated that, following
Homes, Inc. submitted an application to
certain precautions, construction could
the Penfield Planning Board for the
well proceed in the area without any
re-zoning of 17.1 acres in Penfield from
detrimental effect. The town board
AA to apartment zoning of approximately
further denied an application by Penfield
12 units per acre. On the basis of a
Better Homes for a public hearing to
County Planning Council recommendation,
consider further the Question of re-
O'Brien Homes, Inc. had previously committed
zoning for the Highland Cirele Project.
itself to the Town of Penfield to set
(See Exhibit T attached hereto and made
aside a portion of land in a townhouse
a part hereof. )
development O'Brien Homes had underway to
634
AFFIDAVAT, ANN McNABB
be used for low to moderate income
housing.
16. O'Brien Homes outlined a
proposal for a condominium development of
apartment homes, including a Home Owners
Association to guarantee exterior main-
tenance, consisting of 51 four-family
buildings with garage for each family
as an integral part of the building
(two hundred and four units). A copy of
this proposal is attached hereto and made
& part hereof as Exhibit U.
17. The project was described as
one to offer single people and small
families of low income with accumulated
funds and those of moderate income with
limited funds for down payment the
opportunity to enjoy the advantage of
home ownership.
635
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
18, The O'Brien Homes proposal
was denied by the Planning Board
following the September hearing. (See
Exhibit V attached hereto and made
a part hereof.) There was further
discussion by the Planning Board on
March 27, 1972. (See Exhibit W
attached hereto and made a part
636
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
hereof.) A modification of the original
proposal was heard by the Planning Board
on April 24, 1972. (See Exhibit X attached
hereto and made a part hereof.) To date
it remains under tabled items and has
been referred to the Monroe County Planning
Council for its recommendation.
19. At this time there are only
two PUDs which have received the first
Stage of approval in Penfield. (The
Audino PUD has been repealed. See above.)
The first is known as the Standco PUD -
approved in 1970 for re-zoning and before
public concern focused on the PUD issue
in Penfield. The second is known as the
Rock Lake PUD (which was 4.67 units per
acre) and was approved for re-zoning in
September 1971 under the condition that
it conform to the density limitation in
the PUD ordinance, as amended. (See
637
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
Exhibit Y attached hereto and made a
part hereof.) The PUD ordinance requires
three stages of approval 1) re-zoning 2)
preliminary site plan 3) final site plan.
The Standco PUD is awaiting further
public hearing. (See Exhibit Z attached
hereto and made a part hereof.) Persons
connected with the Rock Lake PUD say
that at the present density they cannot
build the type of community they had
planned, so they are virtually giving
up the idea for the moment.
20. Most recently has come the
Suggestion by the Town of Penfield board
officials that sewer services are inadequate
in the Town of Penfield for the increased
density that would be involved in the
construction of low and moderate income
housing and therefore such a proposal must
be denied. In March of 1972, the Penfield
638
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
planning board announced that it was
the town's new policy not to allow any
more building in Sewer District #3 in
Penfield because the sewer services in
that district were now operating at 1 1/2
times its capacity.
21. According to minutes of the
planning board attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit AA, an application
of Philip Prinzi for Zuric Development
Corporation, Lyell Avenue, Rochester,
New York to re-zone from residential AA
to residential A, sections 3 and 4 of
Independence Ridge subdivision in order
to build smaller homes on lots of the
same size as originally planned was
denied by the planning board. A represent-
ative of Domus Homes which planned to
construct the homes, argued to the planning
board that there was a great need and a
639
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
market for homes in the $25,000.00 to
$30,000.00 range.
Additionally, from minutes of
planning board in March of 1972, the
Penfield planning board denied the applica-
tion of Angelo Castronova, 1766 Empire
Blvd., Rochester, New York for re-zoning
of two acres of land on the west side
of Creek Street from commercial to apart-
ment house and multiple dwelling for the
purpose of constructing 24 apartment
units.
The Beacon Hills Planned Unit Develop-
ment proposed by developer Audino,
referred to above in paragraphs 6 through
10 is located in Penfield Sewer District
#3 On which the planning board of Penfield
now imposes a complete construction moratoriun.
Mr. Audino to cope with this situation,
640
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
is planning to pump sewer into another
Penfield sewer district. The Housing
Task Force of the Town of Penfield by
its Report of Penfield Housing Task Force
on Moderate Income Housing, June 5, 1972,
has acknowledged the insufficiency of
present sewer facilities in view of
its proposals for moderate income housing
construction in Penfield.
In contrast the sanitary sewer
Situation is too complicated to be
dealt with effectively within the
scope of the activities of this Task
Force. At present there is insufficient
capacity to handle 2000 additional
dwelling units in Penfield, regardless
of their location or cost. In fact,
certain approved developments cannot
Start construction until portions
of the sanitary sewer problem are
resolved. The Town Board is aware
of these problems and is evaluating
solutions. This Task Force assumes
that satisfactory solutions will
be identified and that the appropriate
action will be taken to permit the
normal growth of Penfield as well as
the construction of the recommended
moderate income housing.
641
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
e2. As is illustrated above, the
town board of Penfield, and the planning
board of Penfield have either individually
and/or in concert, directly or indirectly
in the past, and continuing to date,
frustrated attempts at the building of
and prevented opportunities for low and
moderate income housing units in the Town
of Penfield, amended the PUD ordinance
SO aS to make more difficult the
availability of low and moderate income
housing through planned unit develop-
ment in Penfield and have failed or
refused to re-zone as might be required
for the construction of low and moderate
income housing in the Town of Penfield.
Such policies and practices have the
effect of specifically excluding low and
moderate income persons, blacks, Spanish-
642
AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB
Americans, and other minorities from
living in the Town of Penfield.
4s/ Ann McNabb
ANN McNABB
Jurat
Omitted
In
Printing
643
EXHIBIT A
TOWN ZONING AND
THE HOUSING SHORTAGE
ROCHESTER BUREAU OF
MUNICIPAL RESEARCH,
INC.
A CITIZEN AGENCY
644
EXHIBIT A
TOWN ZONING AND THE SHORTAGE OF
MODERATE AND LOW INCOME HOUSING
Monroe County, New York
A Study Memorandum Prepared for the
CIVIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce
by
Friedrich J. Grasberger, Principal Research
Analyst
ROCHESTER BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL RESEARCH,
INC.
37 South Washington Street
Rochester, New York
14608
April, 1967
649
EXHIBIT A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The Scope of the Problem
Definition of Low and
Moderate Income Housing
The Demand for Low and
Moderate Income Housing
Supply of Low and Moderate
Income Housing
Reasons for the High Cost of
Housing
Residential Zoning in the
Towns of Monroe County
Optimum Average Residential
Densities
Residential Zoning Practices
in the Towns of Monroe
County
Reasons for Low Density
Zoning
Conclusion
646
EXHIBIT A
Introduction
Within the last few years the
Rochester area has experienced a phase
of unprecedented economic growth. Total
employment figures, which increased at
the average annual rate of 3,000 during
the 'fifties, increased almost 12,000
annually between 1960 and 1966. In fact,
during 1966 the Rochester area experienced
its largest one-year increase in civilian
employment on record--almost 20,000
new employees were addea.+
The rapid
expansion of employment was accompanied
by equally impressive increases in ‘
industrial production and per capita
lNew York State Department of Labor:
Manpower Trends, 1950-1966.
647
EXHIBIT A
income. The dollar value added by
manufacture per employee in Monroe
County rose from about $10,000 in 1958
to almost $15,000 in 1963 when all
other metropolitan areas of New York
State including New York City were
Still hovering around the $10,000 level.
The 1960-1964 growth in per capita
income in Monroe County was almost
twice that of its neighboring metropolitan
counties of Erie and Onondaga.*
In the last year or two, however,
this exciting record of economic
expansion has been marred by the realiza-
tion that commerce and industry are
tuus. Census of Manufactures: New York,
preliminary report.
2 New York State Department of Commerce:
Personal Income in Counties of New York
State, 1960-64.
648
EXHIBIT A
running into severe difficulties to
recruit the manpower necessary for the
continuation of their growth. Recent
Surveys of Rochester industry point
to a current manpower shortage of more
than 10,000. Considering the extremely
low current rate of unemployment (slightly
more than one percent) these manpower
needs must be met primarily from inmigration.
However, repeated efforts by local
industry to attract new manpower into
this community have met with very little
Success because of a serious lack of
low and moderate income housing in Monroe
County.
This housing shortage is rapidly
assuming proportions that pose a serious
threat to the future growth and the
economic as well as social health of
the Rochester community. Low and moderate
649
EXHIBIT A
income earners are crowding the older
sections of the city, the aged are
unable to exchange their dwellings
for smaller homes or reasonable rental
units requiring less maintenance
efforts, and the community's youth
entering into the manpower market are
finding it increasingly difficult to
remain in the Rochester area because of
the lack of suitable housing.
If this community is to continue
to grow and prosper, immediate attention
must be focused on the problem and
coordinated efforts directed towards its
solution must be undertaken without delay.
interestingly enough, the severe
housing shortage has arisen at a time when
the construction of new homes and apart-
ments has reached record levels in Monroe
650
EXHIBIT A
County. During the six years from 1960
through 1965 in the county's towns alone
the construction of 26,852 new dwelling
units was authorized by building permits,
7,221 of which were apartments.+ Unfortu-
nately, however, almost all of this
construction occurred in price and
rental categories which are beyond the
means of the moderate and low income
earner.
Traditionally the blame for the
high cost of housing has been placed on
rapidly rising construction costs and
On the booming cost of land. Increasing
attention in recent months, however,
has been directed towards a third cause--
IMonroe County Planning Council: Sixth
Annual Building Permit ana Population
Survey, Monroe County, New York, June,
1966.
651
EXHIBIT A
zoning. It is contended by builders
that the towns' zoning ordinances
prevent the construction of needed
moderate and low income housing by
imposing excessive requirements for
lots and buildings.
This study memorandum will examine
the extent of the housing shortage,
analyze its causes, and develop
recommendations to alleviate the problem.
The Scope of the Problem
In order to determine the extent of
the low and moderate income housing
Shortage it is necessary to (1) define
the term low and moderate income, (2)
leasure tne demand for such housing, and
(3) measure its Supply.
Definition of Low and Moderate Income
Housing
The average weekly earnings of
652
EXHIBIT A
Rochester production workers, including
pay for overtime, amounted to $120.96 in
1965+ or, converted to an annual figure,
to $6,290 per year. Since a significant
proportion of production workers are
Single individuals who normally are con-
sidered more a part of the demand for
rental dwellings, a better income
criterion for the potential buyers of
low and moderate income houses is the
average or median income for families.
Since most of the families constituting
the demand for moderate and low income
housing are in relatively low age brackets
the estimated 1965 median income given
lNew York State Department of Labor:
Employment Review, New York Manpower
Profile, 1965 in Perspective, May, 1966.
653
EXHIBIT A
for families with family heads under
thirty-five years of age and children
under six should serve as an appropriate
definition of "moderate income" in this
context. The median income for such
families is $7,560 per year in Monroe
County. 1+
Experience indicates that the average
family can afford to purchase a home
costing the equivalent of twice its
e Another commonly used
annual income.
yardstick suggests that an individual's
or a family's monthly expenditures on
housing should not exceed one week's
income. Thus, for the purposes of this
lEstimate based on 1960 U.S. Census figure
and per capita income growth as reported
by the New York State Department of Com-
merce.
°This ratio would rise with an increasing
amount of cash down payment.
654
EXHIBIT A
Study, moderate and low income housing
will be defined as Ppurchasable homes
costing in the neighborhood of $15,000
or less and as rental units with monthly
gross rents of $140 or less.
The Demand for Low and Moderate Income
Housing
The aggregate demand for additional
housing of all kinds in the Rochester
area consists of (1) internal population
growth, i.e. young, Single adults and
newly married couples leaving their
parental homes, and (2) single and married
in-migrants moving in from outside the
county.
It is difficult to estimate from the
available data even the approximate
numbers of potential home renters and
buyers entering the market each year. It
is possible, however, to indicate the
655
EXHIBIT A
relative changes on the housing demand
Side which have occurred since 1960. As
a result of the rapid increases in the
Monroe County birth rate beginning in
1942, the 1960's are, and will be
experiencing the entrance of unprecedented
numbers of young adults into the home
rental and buying markets. As shown in
Table 1 on the following page, the
younger age groups preceding age group
25-29 exceed the latter by 12.4%, 41.7%,
and 63.4% respectively.?
lpeath rates for the above age groups
are uniformly low and will not affect
the validity of the comparison.
656
EXHIBIT A
TABLE 1
SELECTED AGE GROUPS, MONROE COUNTY,
1960 and 1964
Age Number of Persons 1964 Age Group
Group 1960 1964 25-29 = 100%
25-29 34,665 35,045 100.0%
20-24 30,847 39,417 112.4%
15-19 37,549 49,670 141.7%
10-14 50,888 57,278 163.4%
Sources: 1960 U.S. Census of Population
1964 Special Census, Monroe
County, New York
On the basis of these data it can be
Safely concluded that the annual number
of new family formations which ran
at a level of approximately 3,500 in
1960 was at least ten percent higher
in the early ‘sixties and will in all
liklihood reach a level of almost 5,000
a year in the late 'sixties. Correspond-=
ing relative increases have taken and will
take place in the number of young
Single adults looking for their own
1
New York State Department of Health, Vital
Statistics Review, 1960.
7
eat
homes. Due to the very young median
ages of the brides (21 years)?+ and
grooms (23 years)+ it can be assumed
that the vast majority of them will be
looking for either low or moderate
income housing. On the other hand,
the young single adults will probably be
in the market for mostly low income
housing since, unlike some young couples,
they are dependent on only one person's
income.
The net in-migration component of
housing demand has also been increasing
steadily. According to data from the
Monroe County Planning Council annual
net in-migration into Monroe County has
risen from about 3,000 in the ‘fifties
1New York State Department of Health,
Vital Statistics Review, 1960.
658
EXHIBIT A
to about 5,000 in the middle ‘sixties.
Previous studies of in-migration
patterns have revealed that the majority
of the incoming adults are in the 20-35
year age group. For this reason they
can be expected to add considerably to
the demand for low and moderate income
housing.
Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing
Net additions to the supply of low
and moderate income housing have failed
completely to keep pace with the growth
of the demand for such dwellings. A 1965
survey of rental vacancies conducted by
the Rochester Bureau of Municipal
Research indicated that the number of low
and moderat rental vacancies had dropped
drastically below the 1960 level. No data
are available reflecting changes in the
Supply of rental housing in the City of
659
EXHIBIT A
Rochester. In the towns of Monroe
County, 7,221 multiple housing units
were authorized for construction between
1960 and 19651 virtually all of which
rent at levels considerably above $140
per month.
A more precise but equally
discouraging picture is offered by the
following data depicting the annual
supplies of low and moderate income
homes which were purchased between 1960
and 1965.
IMonroe County Planning Council: op.cit.
660
EXHIBIT A
TABLE 2
NEW HOUSES COMPLETED AND SOLD IN MONROE
COUNTY, 1960-1965
Homes Selling For
$15,000 or less $15,001-20,000
# of Total # % of Total
1960 61 4.3 697 49.3
1961 20 1.2 670 39.0
1962 40 2.0 837 42.5
1963 4 4 842 34.6
1964 13 5 793 27.6
1965 3 i. 604 20.0
Source: First Federal Savings and Loan
Association: Annual Surveys
of New Construction in the
Rochester Metropolitan Area,
1960-1965.
As shown in Table 2, new houses
costing $15,000 or less have virtually
disappeared from the market. New homes
in the $15,000-20,000 class which in 1960
accounted for almost fifty percent of
all new homes sold have dropped drastically
to represent a mere twenty percent of the
market in 1965.
661
EXHIBIT A
Table 3 shows that the sales of
existing homes have also failed to
rise sufficiently to keep pace with the
growth in demand. Total 1965 sales of
all existing homes under $20,000 were
only thirty -seven units above the 1960
total. A closer inspection of the
"$15,000 or less" data, furthermore,
reveals that the existing homes in this
category sold in the towns of Monroe
County. actually decreased from 758 units
in 1961 to 407 units in 1965. The compen-
sating growth in this price class,
therefore, occurred within the City of
Rochester. But unfortunately many of
thése units are located in relatively
undesirable neighborhoods and are con-
sequently unacceptable to a large portion
of the demand sector.
662
EXHIBIT A
TABLE 3
EXISTING HOMES SOLD IN MONROE COUNTY,
1960-1965
Existing Homes Selling for
$15,000 or less $15 ,001-20,000
# % of Total # % of total
1960 1,756 53.4 935 28.4
1961 1,761 52.8 979 29.4
1962 1,756 48.9 1,132 31.5
1963 1,717 47.3 1,106 30.5
1964 1,629 4u5.4 1,080 30.0
1965 1,634 43.3 1,094 29.0
Source: See Table 2
Reasons for the High Cost of Housing
The primary determinants of the cost
of a new home are the size and quality of
the structure and the size and location
of the lot. Both construction costs
and land cost have risen continually for
several decades now particularly in urban
areas, and indications are that this
trend will continue to extend into the
future. But what about personal income?
663
EXHIBIT A
Has personal income not also grown to
maintain an equilibrium between the cost
of housing and the ability to purchase
a new home?
TABLE 4
GROWTH OF BUILDING COSTS AND PER CAPITA
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
INCOME
Average Building Cost Per Capita
Index(United States) Income Index
(Monroe County)
100.0 100.0
103.6 102.5
106.9 100.5
111.6 104.8
114.0 107.8
115.8 108.0
118.2 112.9
121.0 116.7
124.7 125.6
127.7 135.6
Sources: 1. Engineering News Record,
1957-1966.
2. New York State Department of
Commerce, Personal Income
in Counties of New York
State, 1950-1965.
664
EXHIBIT A
Table 4 above reveals that per capiti
personal income in Monroe County has
kept pace with the increases in average
building costs over the past ten years.
Unless evidence can be introduced Showing
that average building costs in Monroe
County have risen Significantly faster
than the national average the blame
for the shortage of moderate and low
income housing cannot be placed on the
rising costs of construction.
Unfortunately no precise statistics!
are available which might reflect the
increases in the cost of land in Monroe
County. It is safe to assert, however,
that the cost of land in and immediately
“A National Association of Home Builders’
Survey published in the January issue of
the Rochester Home Builders Monthly showd
a 1960-1964 price increase per lot of
31.3% in Rochester. However, the survwy
neither defined"Rochester" nor the “ype
and location of lots Surveyed.
6695
EXHIBIT A
adjacent to urbanized areas has risen
much faster than both construction costs
and personal income. Ten years ago the
per acre cost of residentially zoned
land was selling in the hundreds of dollars,
today builders talk in terms of thousands
of dollars per acre of raw land.
"While every segment of our economy
has experienced rising prices, the
pronounced increase in vacant land
costs throughout the state has
far exceeded the 'norm' established
in these other segments. In the
last decade average land prices
have more than triplet and some
urban and subruban land has
Skyrocketed as much-.as 2,000 per-
cent. . ."i
In addition to the growth of the
costs of raw land builders are being faced
by more and more demands for investment
lNew York State Home Builders' Association:
1966-67 Housing Report, p. 14.
666
EXHIBIT A
in community facilities such as sanitary
and storm sewers, sewage treatment
plants, water lines, streets, curbs,
and park and recreation areas. The
expenses for these investments are
added to the cost of land to the home
buyer who then must finance them with
prevailing mortgage interest rates.
"These costs, plus the land cost,
now represent approximately
twenty-five percent of the purchase
price of the house. In the 1940's
the average figure was 8-9 percent
of the cost of the house. md
Thus, rising land costs have been a
Significant factor contributing to the
shortage of low and moderate income
housing. Of course, land costs could be
lipid.
667
EXHIBIT A
reduced by building at farther distances
from urban centers, but increased commuting
expenses and the scarcity or lack of
municipal services would tend to offset
the increased price attractiveness of
Such homes.
In view of these rising per unit
costs and the increased demand, it
would seem logical that builders would
attempt to satisfy this demand for low
and moderate income housing by building
more instead of less or the smaller
homes on smaller lots, thereby counter-
acting the cost trends discussed above.
Probably the major deterrent to this
solution is ZONING.
Residential Zoning in the Towns of
Monroe County
The general city, village and town
laws of the state provide that any city,
668
EXHIBIT A
village or town may adopt zoning
regulations. Under the law municipalities
are empowered to regulate and restrict
the size and use of buildings, structures,
and land.1+ Within the context of this
Study we may ignore city and village
zoning since very little vacant land is
left in these urban centers which can
be used for residential development. The
primary concern is with town zoning, the
zoning for the vasc areas of vacant land
Surrounding the urban cores and urbanized
rings. To provide a basis for evaluation
of zoning practices, the following
sections centain: (1) a review of
current expert opinion on optimum densities
for residential development in suburban
New York State Department of Commerce:
Local Planning and Zoning, 1966 Edition.
EXHIBIT A
areas; (2) a description of prevailing
zoning practices. in the towns of Monroe
County; and (3) an analysis of the
reasons for these practices.
Optimum Average Residential Densities
Planning experts are in close
agreement on the optimum ranges of housing
and population densities for various
types of communities and different
types of structures. The following
densities are considered optimal in
terms of neighborhood planning, cost
of construction, market absorption and
long-term values:
1. According to the American Public
Health Association! a desirable
average residential density consists
of 5 dwelling units per acre with a
lamerican Public Health Association:
Planning the Neighborhood, Standards for
Healthful Housing, 1943.
670
EXHIBIT A
maximum of 7 per azre. The recommended
minimum lot size is 6,000 square
feet,the minimum structural Square
footage per family is 870.
2. Professor Kevin Lynch of M.I.T.
cites a standard density of five
Single dwellings per acre and a
recommended size of the structure
equal to 20 percent of the lot.1l
3. The optimum residential density
envisioned for the planned community
of Reston, Virginia is fourteen
persons per acre which roughly
corresponds to four families per
acre.
4. The Ubran Land Institute in
"New Approaches to Residential
Land Development" describes many
new community developments with
density objectives ranging from
four dwellings per acre in suburban
areas to seven families in qrene
closer to the urban center.
The most concise treatment of optimum
lkevin Lynch: Site Planning, the M.I.T.
Press, 1962, p. 145.
eR.E. Simon: Planning a New Town-Reston,
Virginia, American Society of Planning
Officers, 1964.
3Urban Land Institute: New Approaches to
Residential Land Development, Technical
Bulletin 40, January, 1961.
674
EXHIBIT A
residential density has recently been
prepared by the Federal Housing Administra-
tion.+
Its optimum range for one story
detached dwellings consists of a minimum
of 4,356 square feet and a maximum of
7,840 square feet of floor area per
gross acre. For one story structures
averaging 1,000 square feet the resulting
optimum density range would thus be 4.4
-7.8 dwellings per acre, for one story
Structures averaging 1,500 square feet
the range would be 2.9 - 5.2. Its optimum
range for two story detached dwellings is
4,356 - 8,712 square feet of floor area
per gross acre which is equivalent to a
density range of 3.6 - 7.3 for dwellings
lP.H.A.: Land Use Intensity, Land
Planning Bulletin No. 7, 1965.
672
EXHIBIT A
of 1,200 square feet or 2.7 - 5.4 for
dwellings averaging 1,600 square feet
of floor area. Converted to net acreage
requirements the above density ranges
would be equivalent to lot sizes ranging
from 6,500 square feet to 13,000 square
feet.
Residential Zoning Practices in the Towns
of Monroe County
The zoning ordinances in the towns
of Monroe County have traditionally
restricted residential land use to one
family houses. Some of the more urban-
ized towns have recently provided some
land for multiple dwelling but virtually
all of the apartments constructed are for
high income families only. Most of the
land zoned for residential purposes still
consists of large areas in separate
zoning categories, each catetory restricting
673
EXHIBIT A
land use by clearly defined minimum
sizes of lots and structures. AS a
result the residential patterns show
clearly delineated economic stratifications.
Areas in which minimum standards
governing the size of lots and structures
are high are primarily occupied by high
income families. Areas with lower
minimum standards have attracted pro-
portionately less affluent segments of
the population. This type of zoning
and the accompanying economic stratifica-
tion of the residents has led to a high
degree of uniformity of developments
within the same zoning areas and of homes
within the same developments. Tne
acceptance of such uniformity in turn
has acted as a strong impediment to
zoning for smaller lots and homes because
674
EXHIBIT A
while uniformity appears proper in the
case of middle and high income houses
it is not acceptable for the moderate
and low income homes. In spite of
ample evidence to the contrary, par-
ticularly in the towns of Brighton and
Irondequoit, small lots ani homes are
popularly viewed as unsightly and
undesirable, and any action to relax
zoning to permit such lots and homes
in large areas would be most likely
considered at attempt to create large
scale slums in the suburbs.
As shown in Table 5 below, the
average minimum lot sizes in the various
zoning categories in the towns of Monroe
County, with the exception of Irondequoit,
are far above the optimum standards
discussed in the preceding section.
679
EXHIBIT A
TABLE 5
MINIMUM PERMISSIBLE SIZES FOR RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND TWO STORY STRUCTURES
TOWNS OF MONROE COUNTY, 1966
Minimum ground
Minimum lot area floor area
(Square feet) for 2-story
residences
(Square feet)
Greece 7,200-20,000 600-1,200
Gates 8,000-15,000 625- 875
Irondequoit 9,600- 9,600 500- 660
Brighton 11,250-23,125 500- 900
Henrietta 12,000-20,000 480-1,000
Chili 12,000-20,000 650- 700
Parma 14,450-20,000 600- 800
Wheatland 15,000-30,000 500- 650
Penfield 15,000-20,000 650- 750
Clarkson 15,000-20,000 640- 840
Hamlin 15,000-15,000 768- 768
Perinton 15,750-20,000 650- 925
Pittsford 16,000-25,000 750-1,000
Ogden 17,500-20,000 660- 768
Webster 18,000-28,125 660- 864
Sweden 20,000-20,000 576- 576
Riga 20,000-20,000 884- 884
Rush 30 ,000-30,000 575- 750
Mendon 30 ,000-30,000 800- 800
Source: Zoning Ordinances, Towns of
Monroe County, 1966.
676
EXHIBIT A
Table 5 also indicates wide
disparities in the minimum requirements
regarding sizes of residential lots and
structures in the nineteen towns of
Monroe County. The minimum lot sizes
in the towns of Rush and Mendon are
more than four times as large as the
minimum lot size in the town of Greece.
The minimum ground floor area for two
story structures in the town of Riga is
almost twice as large as that in the
town of Henrietta.
Only six of the nineteen towns
provide for lot sizes within the optimum
range and of these six only Irondequoit
keeps the minima for all single residential
zoning categories within this range.
The minimum ground floor areas for
two story structures is in all cases
higher than the minimum of 435 square feet
677
EXHIBIT A
recommended by the American Public
Health Association (see page 9), although
the four towns with minima of 500 square
feet or less are very close to this
standard. The remaining fifteen towns,
however, exceed the standard by 32 to
103 percent.
Returning to the crucial issue of
permissable lot size, Table 5 shows that
six of Monroe County's 19 towns do have
zoning provisions permitting lots of
size deemed optimal by plamnere. The
existence of a zoning ordinance pro-
viding for such land use, however, is no
automatic guarantee that a sufficient
supply of such land is available in the
proper locations. In fact, the zoning
classification may simply encompass an area
which is already filled by the permitted
uses or it may be located in an area
6738
EXHIBIT A
unsuited for such use.
A comprehensive land use inventory
for Monroe County compiled in 1963 by the
New York State Department of Public
Works as part of its Metropolitan
Transportation Study demonstrated this
lack of available land in the smaller
lot categories. Using a computer
print-out supplied by the department
which listed all parcels of vacant land
zoned for residential use, a tabulation
was made of vacant parceis twenty acresl
or larger located in the six towns with
the optimal minimum zoning provisions.
This showed that only a few of the optimum
type parcels were still vacant in 1963 in
the towns of Chili, Henrietta and Brighton,
lowenty acres were considered the minimum
Size for efficient tract development.
672
EXHIBIT A
and most of these were situated in
undesirable or unsuitable locations
(e.g., around the airport, along the
river, in areas of hilly land.) A
relatively large number of vacant parcels
in the town of Irondequoit are located
in areas of steep slopes in the vicinity
of Durand Eastman Park. According to the
Monroe County Planning Council:
"Development possibilities (in
these areas)are extremely restricted.
Much of these areas should remain
permanently in open uses, and
where urban development does take
place it should be on a very low
density basis to minimize 1
problems of site development."
This leaves only the towns of Gates
and Greece with significant supplies of
yacant land in optimal density categories.
But even in these towns natural character-
lMonroe County Planning Council: Background
for Planning, December 1962, p.9.
6°90
EXHIBIT A
istics make efficient development of many
of these parcels impossible:
"Along the shore of Lake Ontario
the land is almost continuously
flat or marshy.
"Areas with problems of intermeidate
degree .. . Occur most extensively
in a band extending along the north
side of Ridge Road where shallow
soils and flat terrain combine
to cause difficulties.
"South of (the area between Ridge
Road and Spencerport Road) none
of the wet lands or flat lands
are very extensive, but interspersed
as they are among areas of sloping
ground, they will have a retarding
effect upon the overall deve}opment
of this part of the county."
Two additional factors to be con-
sidered in this context are: (1) the
available supply of vacant land of
optimum density. zoning has most certainly
lipid., pp. 11,12.
681
EXHIBIT A
shrunk even further since 1963 when
the land use analysis was conducted,
and (2) the fact that land is zoned
for a certain type of residential use
does not necessarily mean the present
Owners will make it available for such
use.
It is clear that a serious imbalance
exists between the demand for low cost
homes and the willingness of the towns to
provide a zoning framework which would
permit their construction. In fact,
while the demand has been increasing,
seven of the nineteen towns have raised
their minimum requirements for lot and/or
dwelling sizes over the past three years!
Town zoning is running on a collision
course with the needs of the metropolitan
community.
G82
EXHIBIT A
Reasons for Low Density Zoning
So far it has been established that.
the density ranges and structural sizes
mandated by the zoning ordinances in
the towns of Monroe County are considerably
above those recommended by planning
experts, and it has been shown that even
in the few towns which have allocated
some land to zoning categories fully
within the optimum density range the
supply of such land is dwindling or un-
usable due to locational disadvantages.
Thus, the question arises: Why are the
towns so unresponsive to the demonstrated
needs of the county as a whole? There
are three major reasons for this un-
responsiveness which can be categorized
under the headings of aesthetics, economics,
and desire for exclusiveness.
683
EXHIBIT A
The first of these reasons, aesthetics,
has already been discussed in the
preceding section. It derives from the
absence of mixed and flexible residential
zoning. Each zoning category consists
of large plots of land upon which a rigid
stamp of uniformity is impressed by
prevailing zoning restrictions. While
this type of uniformity appears to be
desirable to the towns for medium and
high cost housing it seems to be unaccept-
able for low cost housing.
The economic reasons for low density
zoning are perhaps more significant
than any of the others. Fiscal pressures
on local government have evoked increasing
concern with land use and its fiscal
consequences. Today the so-called "fiscal
zoning game" is played by virtually all
684
EXHIBIT A
developing suburbs. Its rules are simply
to permit only those types of land uses
which add@ enough assessed valuation to the
tax base to finance the municipal services
required. In the case of dwellings the
paramount consideration revolves around
school taxes. School taxes in the towns
of Monroe County account for the lion's
share of the total fiscal burden. Since
experience shows that low income families
tend to have more children than high income
families the addition of low cost housing
results in an incremental expense for public
education which is much larger than the
incremental yield of the expansion of tho
tax base.
To illustrate the severity of this
problem, the school district of West
Irondequoit would presently reauire an
addition of $32,464 in full value to its
689
EXHIBIT A
tax base to fully finance the additional
property tax levy required for one addition-
al public school pupil! The Pittsford
School District, to cite another example,
would need a full value increment of
$38,280 for each additional pupil!
Thus, it is quite apparent why the
suburban towns are attempting to maximize
their tax base by reserving their land for
primarily high value uses,
"There was a county in northern New
Jersey which acquired a very large
industrial plant. It promptly rezoned
the rest of its land as far as
possible to one acre lot zoning. In
other words, the community was saying
"now that we have the plant, we would
like to house the executives of the
plant, but the workers with their
children may go somewhere else with
their lower cost houses'. . ."
The only way to stop the fiscal zoning
game and thereby eliminate a primary motive
for low density, high value zoning is to
I-Jerome P.Pickard: Opportunities and
Problems, American Society of Planning
Officials, 1966.
68%
EXHIBIT A
sclve the fiscal needs of communities on
something more than a small local unit basis.
The most obvious approach to the solution
of this problem is to find a way in which to
decrease reliance on property taxation for
the support of the broader eovernmental ser-
vices including public education, health
welfare, etc.
", . . property taxation is not a fair
source of revenue for the Support of
services benefiting the entire urban
area. Some other tax source, which
reaches all the people (benefiting
from these services) would be more
equitable,"1
Some degree of equalization of
educational cost burdens has already been
attained through state aid for education
and the allocation of a sizable share of the
county sales tax to school districts. Even
greater equalization is necessary, however,
to deprive the fiscal zoning game of one of
TUniversity of North Carolina, Institute of
Government, Greensboro Suburban Analysis.
687
EXHIBIT A
its prime incentives.
The third reason for low density zoning
stems from town residents' desire for
exclusiveness. Many suburban residents
formerly lived in cities. Their move to
Suburban surroundings was often motivated by
the desire to leave a deteriorating environ-
ment. To prevent the recurrence of such
deterioration they developed into avid
advocates of "exclusivity zoning." Insist-
ing on their inherent rights to preserve
and even upgrade their chosen Surroundings,
they have denied the rights of others by
molding their zoning ordinances to make it
financially impossible for them to live in
Similarly desirable areas. Thus it happens
that in some suburban towns of Monroe County
individuals working as school teachers,
production workers, etc. are unable to make
their homes in the towns in which they work,
688
EXHIBIT A
This third reason is probably the
least justifiable argument in support of
restrictive zoning, pasticnlarly since most
new building would take place in areas which
are as yet completely undeveloped and
would, therefore, not affect existing
residential developments.
Conclusion
It has been demonstrated in the pre-
ceding analysis that the demand for moder-
ate and low income housing, of both rental
and purchasable units, is growing at a
rapid rate. It has also been shown that
the supply of such housing has failed to
keep pace with the growth in demand. The
resulting gap between Supply and demand has
been widening each year and now poses a
serious threat to the economic health of
this community. It is Stymieing industry's
efforts to attract needed manpower, it is
689
EXHIBIT A
crowding a large portion of low income fam-
ilies into city Slums, it inflates the
price of available units and land, it
prevents older couples from Purchasing
smaller homes requiring a minimum of main-
tenance efforts, and it may soon make it
impossible for many young newly married
Rochester couples to find decent dwellings
So that they may remain in this community.
The basic reasons for the lack of
Supply have been identified as rising
costs of construction, soaring costs of
land and town zoning practices.
Although unit costs of construction
appear not to have risen faster than per
capita income and should, therefore, not be
viewed as a major cause of the housing
Shortage, a breakthrough in the technology
of home and apartment construction could be
699
EXHIBIT A
@ Significant factor in reducing the gap
between demand and Supply.
Land costs must assume a large share
of the blame for the Shortage of moderate
and low income housing and should be a
principal target of any corrective action,
While the Rochester area has vast reserves
of vacant acreage, much of this acreage is
controlled by interests withholding it from
the market and thereby Stimulating the soar-
ing growth of land prices. To solve this
problem a new approach to the taxation of
vacant land may have to be developed which
would make it Substantially less profitable
for land speculators to limit the Supply of
land,
Town zoning which could have mitigated
the impact of rising unit costs of land and
construction by providing an adequate Supply
694
EXHIBIT A
of reasonable sized lots and Structures
has, instead, compounded the rise in prices
by mandating even larger lots and larger
homes than even before. Proper remedial
action for the situation must include an
attack on the basic causes responsible for
current zoning practices.
The economic causes, consisting
primarily of the tax advantages which are
the prize of a well-played fiscal zoning
game, can only be removed by county and
state legislative action. Such action
should be aimed at broadening the property
tax base for the financing of the costs of
public education beyond the present tax
district boundaries and at greater emphases
on revenue sources which are not related to
real property.
Town residents' opposition to less
G92
EXHIBIT A
restrictive zoning for reasons of aesthetics
and exclusiveness can only be overcome
through more imaginative zoning. New com-
munities now being planned and constructed
in many parts of this nation offer convinc-
ing proof that combinations of low and high
density land use can result in both aesthet-
ically attractive and marketable residential
developments. A first and very promising
step in this direction is contained in the
proposed zoning ordinance for the town of
Pittsford. The Monroe County Planning
Council which prepared this ordinance sug-
gested that average density development be
permitted in the town for the purpose of
allowing:
"Variation in lot size in areas propos-
ed for development ... to encourage
flexibility of design, to enable land
to be developed in Such a manner as to
promote its most appropriate use, to
facilitate the adequate and economical
693
EXHIBIT A
provision of streets and utilities,
and to preserve the natural and
scenic qualities of open space
_wl
The major impetus for a change in the
towns' current zoning practices must come
from two sources, the Monroe County Planning
Council and the informed citizens of this
community.
The county planning body should study and
quantify the need for the various types of
land uses required by this growing community.
It should be given the power, by state law,
to determine which general areas in the
county are best suited to accomodate the
needed land uses and to advise and assist
the towns in the implementation of these
broad land use mandates into actual zoning.
This 4s an extremely important responsibility
which requires the utmost in ingenuity,
imagination and good judgement. It is not
: Proposed
roe County Planning Council
. oe Ordinance, Town of Pittsford, 1965.
694
EXHIBIT A
intended to deprive towns of their zoning
powers but rather to assign to each town a
share of suburbia's responsibility for land
use benefiting the entire metropolitan area.
It is the task of the individual towns to
discharge this responsibility in a manner
which adds rather than detracts from the
desirability of the town as a community.
An informed citizenry can be of
invaluable help in bringing town zoning up
to date. A growing number of community
leaders are becoming aware of the potenti-
ally disastrous consequences of our housing
shortage and its relationship to town zoning.
They realize that the welfare of the well-
to-do is closely intertwined with that of the
moderate and low income earner, that the
City of Rochester is limited in its ability
to provide additional housing for this latter
695
EXHIBIT A
group due to lack of land, and that, con-
sequently, the continued growth and
prosperity of the entire metropolitan
community hinges on the towns' willingness
to take steps towards a solution of the
grave problem. It is this type of citizen
who must provide local leadership and
convince his elected governmental officials
and the members of his planning board that
the time has come to create a more flexible
zoning framework which, while protecting
existing development, permits the develop-
ment of available vacant land to serve the
needs not only of a favored segment of the
population but of all citizens of our
community.
If such leadership is not provided by
the planning council and the citize
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.