Appendix — Warth v. Seldin

Supreme Court brief1975

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page

SE eg waned id Renae ee ee v

ee SOO) ee Dee eee eee ee eee ee ]

Exhibit attached:

A. Amended Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Pen-

EER SIRS Paes OC tena ae ee eC ear ee eee 38

Notice of Motion to Dismiss Complaint ............. ever < fj

Motion to Dismiss Complaint .........--.. 0000s eevee 120

Affidavit of James M. Hartman ...........:----eeeeeee 124

8 in rrr Pree ee ree eT 134

Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff ...............-.-0005. 137

Affidavit of Sanford Liebschutz ............---s+-000- 139

Intervenor Afifilicant Complaint ...........-..-+--0e 144

Motion and Notice of Motion ............. ee eee eee nees 165

Aiidavit ob tobe C. MARE . 5.20620 esc c een sees 170

Exhibit attached:

1. Charter Membership List ..............------- 177

Affidavit of Robert J. Warth ..........2-2ceseeeccssoree 180

Exhibits attached:

A. Facts about Rochester Housing .............-- 1%

B. Housing Site Proposal ............-e+0--eee 201

C. Correspondence ........--....--sseee scene. 218

Eh Be ID 56 is be cee sc cccervcsceneeeeee 232

E. Proposal Regarding Low-Income Housing ...... 233

P. . Semnnty Mamert 2s cece ccc crvcence 245

G. Charter Membership List ..................- 321

Hi, CORPORDOMEORED 20. occ ccc cect creer ccsee 324

I. Statement to Ways and Means Committee ...... 328

ES I bodes seeks rcesancscscsenenerceds 334

K. Letter to County Legislator, dated 5-5-71 ....... 336

L. Suggestions by Special Committee on Housing 338

at iellia ia i alli at 5

Exhibits attached to Warth Affidavit (cont'd) Page

M. Letter to Chairman, Political Action Committee,

on mice MRE E ETE REET Oe EOEeE eae 340

N. Report to County Legislature from Special

ME TUNED 55 ok b kk dsc av Wineeasenne 343

PA IIIN oc n en new tn cate emdcupere: 348

i) Wok oo POa cisagte Wes ci eeayan earned 352

Q. Metro-Act Proposal:to the Penfield Town Board 357

PERO I ine sin evn een ss cawnee casnas 362

Exhibit attached:

A. Summary of Rental Information in Town of

REPT REE UT et ee 402

| MTT TORT Crete ee Cree 404

PET eee er eee 422

PO OE Rs TOI acces ge ek ence cueas 43S

Affidavit of Warth, Reichert, Vinkey and Harris ......... 456

Exhibits attached: :

A. Report of Housing Task Force on Moderate

statistic, CET TE POET On: 487

Appendices:

A. Penfield Housing Task Force “‘Charter” 524

B. “Moderate Income” Ranges ........... $27

C. “Opinion Survey — Tabulated Question-

gay ee Prey (ere ne or ee eam 6 $28

D. Ten Year Housing Targets for Monroe

a ee re rete $44

E. Excerpts from 1970 Census of Population

NE RINE i in tek oso nas nea kone eee S49

F. Distribution of Housing Units in Monroe

SURO Ee 5 bik n dd wOR TEC c pcan cn aes $51

G. Cost of Extra Features — Value Ratio

ee ery eee ST rie een $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)

I. Penfield Zoning Ordinance, Housing Sec-

SEROTEC CECE TELE 555

J. . Estimate of Housing Costs in Penfield’s

Proposed P.U.D.s 2... 0. ccc cece eees S61

K. Sections 235, 236 Summary ............ 564

L.. Section 235 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

a een Terre re rrr rs Tr tree ‘<a a

C. Charts Showing Population by Race ........... 583

D. Tax Information on the Town of Penfield ...... 589

E. Exempt Property Totals ..............-..68. 600

ae ne ee eee eee ee 606

G. City of Rochester Tax Rates .............-55: 607

H. News Article from the Times-Union, 4-26-72 .... 608

I. News Article from the Penfield Press, 6-1-72 .... 609

J. News Article from Rochester Democrat and

COIN, IE Wi in nc cane sncawnacraseses 610

K. News Article -from Rochester Democrat and

os ee Ae See eee 611

L. News Article from the Times-Union, 6-6-72 ..... 612

M. News Articleon Housing ..............+..+5- 613

N. News Article on Crime Statistics .............. 614

Affidavit of Ann McNabb .............. Sere ee ey 615

Exhibits attached: |

A. Town Zoning and the Housing Shortage ....... 643

B. A Model Planned Unit Development Article for

_ aTown Zoning Ordinance ..............:55-: 697

C. Planning Board Minutes, 6-9-70 .............. 756

D. Planning Board Minutes, 8-25-70 ............. 758

E. Planning Board Minutes, 5-10-71 ............. 768

arn : PETE ITER

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-

OE NE cn was View a ss He 04 We OR AA dee nalen we 800

J. Notice of Adoption of Amendment ‘to Penfield

MS 6 rib 5 heise ee ds 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

Pes IE is ei'Ss os xs ns Theessbckcneces 841

O. Proposal of Cooperative Homeownership for

Oo ER EE Se ree a ag COR 849

P. Soil Review of Proposed Apartment Site ....... 860

Wh RE I ooo e k eccae. 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

scasecdbagh gocting, RON PEE Care eee 900

X. Omitted here as contents appear herein as part

“vn checs coosoxaten Tutsi oT Oe. eM ey tes og oe 908

Y. Resolution for Rezoning, Penfield Town Board,

Ware es sawn was buss Wiancna, 909

eI 6k 8 ike 6 55 6h 6 6 ad 6 0S a cde 920

AA. . Minutes of Planning Board, 3-13-72 ......... 921

Affidavit of Kling, Taddiken and Farley ................ 925

M.S. Detrict Court Oniaae so eos vs cise c ce .. 948

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-

jent 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

i a

— CST

SED Pe ee SS

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

919

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. f

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

o20

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 aétual 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.)

EXHIBIT A

Assumptions

Area ‘

Density per acre

Number of dwelling units

Selling Price/Unit

Public school-age children

per dwelling unit

Number of these children

Net Cost/pupil

Total additional cost

Average full Suited. tak rate

Average assessed value tax rate

Assessed Valuation

Property Tax Paid

High Density

Development

37 acres

350

$ 18,400.00

)

175

$ 1,308.16

$228,928.00

$ 22.98

62.112

$2, 382,800.00

$147,872.00

Low Density

Development

37 acres

Aol?

$ 37.500.00

1.75

115

$ 1,308.16

$ 150,438.40

$ 22.98

$ 62.112

$ 901,875.00

$ 55,980.00

SSRN EDD

SET rye

RRR AE eM IGE RIN By

High density Low Density

Full Value Tax Rate ; +.21 +,43

1 year old development +.21 +43

2 year old development -.06 +.15

3 year old (& subsequent years) -,02 -.01

Ley Assessed Value Tax Rate

o &

uw A 1 year old development +,594 +1.17

rs. 2 year old development -.162 +.405

fx}

3 year old(& subsequent years) -.054 -.0297

a23

EXHIBIT A

The conclusions from the above are:

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.

a24

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. wWe hereby create

the Penfield Housing Task Force and charge

‘it with the oi, ea te 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: :

(529

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

520.

EXHIBIT A

_ APPENDIX A (Cont'd)

Governmental and Community Research,

Inc.), the previous Penfiela 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 requtred. 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 Forcé'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 Cw $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.

Opec were CRORE

- = ss . =“ oO pee ee ES TE LET OT IS Lg BO LPO 8 SRA ER ae There mag

228

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX C

OPINION SURVEY - TABULATED QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Penfield Resident,

We invite your participation in an

opinion Survey which will provide some basic

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.

At the regular meeting of March 6, 1972

the Penfield Town Board created the Penfield

Housing Task Force. The task force was

given the responsibility "to analyze the

various existing methods by which moderate

income housing can be built in Penfield and

to recommend the types and quantity that

should be built." A fundamental require-

ment was that the Task Force actively

involve as many Penfield Residents as

possible.

You are one of approximately 2,300

persons randomly selected from the Town's

voter registration lists to participate in

the survey. Results of the Survey will be

made public as part of the Housing Task

Force's report to be presented at the June

5, 1972 meeting of the Town Board (Penfield

Town Hall, 8:00 P.M.).

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.

529

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX C (Cont'd)

SRPrOR TAS FT

All replies will remain completely

anonymous.

Your participation is very important

to the success of the survey.

Thank you for your interest.

Robert A. Peterson

Survey Coordinator

152 Willow Bend Drive

Penfield, New York 14526

Penfield Housing Task Force

Philip Bailey 1912 Salt Road

Wendy Bickmore 1849 Blossom Road

Alan Bernstein 129 Shirewood

Pierre Costs 107 Woodhaven Drive

Roy Everson 2467 Penfield Road

Joseph Prate 38 Hitchcock Lane

Thomas Hammond 108 Henderson Drive

J.Donald Hare 52 Farmbrook

Clarence Heininger 2048 Five Mile Line Road

Max Holtzberg 50 Old Barn Circle

Thomas Johnston 29 Royal View

Evelyn Landon 56 Hilltop Drive

David O'Brien 2 Greenwood Cliff

Cornelia Patten 143 Brentwood Drive

Robert Peterson 152 Willow Bend Drive

Barbara Ruben 140 Holley Brook

George Shaw 1700 Jackson Road

Edith Wilcox 1736 Jackson Road

920

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX C (Cont .)

SOME POINTS TO CONSIDER.

The Monroe County Planning Council fore-

casts a need for 80,000 additional 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

mo:

WJ «-

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 onan

impact on property values.

aR Te

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX C

(Cont .)

TABULATED

ie © -

Number of replies

Percent oF Foplics

PLACE A CHECK MARK IN

THE BOX INDICATING

THE EXTENT TO WHICH

YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE a ® g

WITH THE STATEMENT z} wW Ba

~ e »

4 re) S n

wi °

31 a = o

Hy 2k §

eo}; oO a& @

5 bo x

= <i <« 2:A

19 |: ‘

1. Decent housing is 4 |248/3e¢/22 | oa |S4 “ig

the right of every 2] 3p 4s] 3] +3] TI%

citizen.

2. All families

should have a choice N

of housing regard- aM e263] 25) 247 nS ;

less of their income 3 | !3] 32] 3] 30] 1%

level. :

3. A shortage of low

and moderate income 13 {Ie} 350] 1101 $7 | 15 [No

housing exists in

Monroe County. 2 }22] 43] ai] ou 11a f%

4, Moderate income

housing is primarily rt

needed by minority 1%

235] 76] 317 | G4 |Ne

group families. 215129 9} 46/8 |%

es en

ms ?

asa ee

EXHIBIT A

5. Housing is an

economic issue-racial

discrimination and 13] 152] 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 ao

my neighborhood if I "4, 41} 204199 Jatt

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 ;

town house project in 16 [276] 32°} 23 | 20

my neighborhood if I 2)#1 47} 3 | lo

knew the residents

would be contributing

their "fair share" to

finance such town ser-

vices as schools,

sewers, roads, etc.

8. Penfield has the ‘

responsibility to 100 \

help alleviate the . . U4

shortage of moderate 2/12 q 123

income housing in

Monroe County.

ood

EXHIBIT A

9. The idea of living

in a town house or

condominium is 7 (33 1139) 93 1367 172 No

appealing to me.

10. The idea of living

in a town house or

condominium would 19 55 |251] 130243] 112 Wo

appeal to me when my

family has grown up. 2

ll. I approve of the

federal government |

assisting a moderate re \

income Peekis in the !5 | 50 {168/43 [275 |2¢1 [Ne

purchase of a home by 2] G]|2I| S| 34] 32/%

paying part of the :

interest cost of the

mortgage. \

In 00 | $5 [-60 1-35 [-10 1415 [+40 [465 ]490

A I-40 65]-40}-15 [410] 436 | 460 |4gS +10

GmBeR) 11 [40 166 |50 1103 [19 | 10 1205 Oo |27

(rercent) } 015 1% Jo] 13 [15 [14 125 | 9 3

930

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.

PR es cere peg eecurcenme

Not Answering

LGN Se pc Sai OT a alga.

> S

fon | Oo

80 ee

S rs)

Oo S Y

£, O

» “i i) cd)

Y . © o

“4 & 4

o 10) Q a0

i . o& 4

u & n n

0 OO wd wx

Me & 2

718 | 220] 18 | 239 NS |No

10] 33] 10} a9} 14 1%

2 | 130] 30 | 254 264) No

3/16] 10 | 32 133 |%

(34 [371] TW | 168142 INo

11/46] 9 | 20 5 |%

536

EXHIBIT A

> S

ao °

... & 4

~~. ee ~ rt)

. © : n

So -& re)

: 4 o Wo

n w i Se

S — =k

« oF of

4 . es se

» 4 & n n

° » © a4.

ica =. &£ 2

15. Most people I .

know feel that when

moderate income

groups move into a

neighborhood there ol >

follows a downgrad- 33° 155 | a0] 1231355] 45 Ne

ing of neighbor- 4 11125] 15 | a4] © %

hood appearance and

property values.

16. I would not =

object to the pres- =

ence of moderate : oh

income dwellings 32 | 63 }277| St | 239] 149 Me

withing 1/4 mile from

where I now live

(visible from

present residence)

17. I would not

object to the pres- ne

ence of moderate G7 1336] G2 |I91 120 We

income dwellings 35 [67

withing 1/2 mile from 4] 8 |41] 8 [24] 15 Pe

where I now live

(would pass by them

frequently)

a py,

537

EXHIBIT A

Not Answering

18. I would not

object to the pres- 33,

ence of moderate

income dwellings

within 1 mile from 4

where I now live

(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

houses near Penfield

Road and Nine Mile 4

Point Road is a step

in the right direction.

> S

oon Oo

a0 %

S »

(@) ‘ ~Y

sy (@)

» od o o

ep) 4 co) c)

oo sy %&

cc) o Q, oO

4 c=

Su 4 n n

oD (e) od 4

<x oo 4 QA A

18 1431 1G1 | NG)92% = [Ne

olssle lulu %

nor TABULATED |

1h lap | 128 | Me | IGG No

9 138116 |20}20 %o

- 938

EXHIBIT A

Disagree Strongly

No Opinion

Not Answering

Agree Strongly

21. There is no

shortage of moderate

income housing in

Penfield.

124 [Mo

S 8 Disagree

Le)

22. I approve of

tax abatement of

local property 7 | 133 386 5A | l40 8) flo

taxes to provide é

moderate income 2 16 [M6 | 1117 [lo

- housing in Penfield

for the elderly.

23. The shortage

of moderate income

housing for factory °

workers is one of

the reasons some NOY TABULATEG °

corporations have

left the Rochester

area.

24. |The only way

moderate income

housing could be We

built in Penfield is

to modify the zoning Noy TABULATED

ordinance to permit , .

a greater number of

dwelling units per

acre, * )

539

A hat ani a Babee

EXHIBIT A

> =

o 4 fe)

Sc... ty

“4 = re)

i 6; S n

Go ft io)

= p CD) )

n ~Y v4 0) ce)

re 4 fe

ne, 2 a

‘ ; 6.3

ree * alae * n ww

(e) io%4) (e) “d “4

S 2:4. 2 A

25. The Planning

and Zoning Boards

are obliged to 12 }265 | 350] 53} 1038 23 >

enforce strict

zoning laws in ) | 33] 43) 1) 3] 3 fh

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 27] !47 |4% 59195 | 57

provide moderate :

income housing of 3| 1% SH) 7110) 7

the type and in the

locations which best

serves the progress

of the town.

540

EXHIBIT A

/ r4

> Ss

00 ‘rH f te)

4 re)

4 Oo S a)

Oo & 1?) i

= an cy) cB)

re “— oo Pp

HEE:

> & Sy n n

12) we Oe oA

na = A 8

eS Senior citizens "

and young families | 7 No

are usually found ; ;

in moderate income NoT TABULATED |%

brackets,

28. Most Penfield ”

residents I know im ti

would oppose any 28 |'14 | 212 | 207] 267 23 fe

moderate income é 3 | 9} 26] 26] 33) 3 Ph:

housing ‘projects.

‘29. Property taxes

are the best: way to 26129 1199] Wal44iaiolh

finance schools, | _ 314 [237 HT 30] 20h

roads, etc.

30. What alternative

to the property tax 2 | |N

, would you suggest? Not TABULATED i

‘

“

——— a

Answering

Not

31.

26/3

32.

59/7

241

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

33. What is your sex?

54/7

34,

34/4

35.

81/10

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 “aaa

50/

The moderate income range lies

between ($/yr.):

al 2,000-$7,000 25/3 b) $3,000-

$ 8, 000 63 _ ¢) $5,000- $10, 000

226/28 d) $7,000- $12, 000 234/29

e) $3,000-%13, 600 277

f) $7,000-$10,000 156/19

942

EXHIBIT A

36. What type of dwelling to you and

your family reside in ?

28/3 a) Apartment 30/4 b) Town House

7/1 c)Private Home 709/88

d) Mobile Home 34/4 e) Other

2/0

37. Does your family own or rent

present dwelling?

30/4 a) Own (includes mortgaged homes)

731/90 b) Rent or Lease 47/6

38. How many members of your immediate

family are under age 18?

32/8 =a) 0. 279738 b) ln? 299/796

3 3-4 167/21 4d) 5 or more

0/5

39. Where does the principle wage

earner in your family work?

111/14 a) Penfield 63/8 b) Webster

104/13, c) Other town in

Monroe County 95/12 4d) 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

543

EXHIBIT A

41. Do you feel that you understand

the main issues related to housing

in the Town of Penfield?

57/7 a) yes 556/69 »b) no 197/24

42, Would you attend a public meeting

to obtain more information and

express your views?

a) Yes b) No

NOT TABULATED

544

EXHIBIT A

MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL

TEN YEAR HOUSING TARGETS FOR MONROE COUNTY

Monroe County should consfruct

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

549

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 12.2 32

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 wae ig

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 29a

Result is number of occupied

housing units by 1980 273,230

tere rccczes ue

mo) CRN ELTA NT PMN A ey a

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

ee 228 554

Needed additional housing

units for growth 54,236

Housing Needed to Replace Existing Sub-

andar oc

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 plumbing 2,792

1/3 of Deteriorating with

4 788

all plumbing

Unfortunately, the 1970 census does

not use these definitions of housing

quality. Instead, it measures various

indices of quality, such as presence or

| 5a?

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 roon,

while the 1960 census showed 9,966 such

units.

Housing Needed to Replace Existing Standard

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

a SDP NSCS RRR ASR CERN TERER EES

NLT Te ey

248

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 j 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,

—— =

549

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX E

Excerpts From

The 1970 Census of Population and

Housing

1. Penfield population: 23,782

2. . Housing Units: 7,039

3. Age of population: Under 5 - 2076

5 = i8 = 5770.

15 - 24 - 3113

25 - 34 = 3096

35 - 44 - 3477

45 - 54 - 3038

55 - 64 - 1788

65 + - 1364

]

4, Population by pace: White - 23625

Negro - 60

Oriental- 71

Indian - 16

Other - 10

5. Housing Units:

Owner occupied: 5681

Renter occupied: 1190

Vacant: 168

6. Housing Units:

One unit structures: 5123

Two + unit structures: 1110

Mobile homes: 800

PLETE N ELO PTE. KOEI LE NPI LT INES

900

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX E_ (Cont'd)

7. Population Owner-Renter:

In owner occupied units: 20,653

In renter occupied units: 3,080

8. Value of owner occupied units:

Less than $5,000 ~ 8

$5 ,000-$9 ,999 - 34

$10,000-$14 ,999 — -

$15,000-$19 ,999 =~ 872

$20 ,000-$24 999 - 857

$25 ,000-$34 ,999 - 1860

$35 ,000-$49 999 - 1199

$50,000 Or more = (263

Note: Total of above is 4562 units.

Mobile homes are not included;

nor are homes with business or

medical offices on the

property.

9. Cost of renter occupied units:

Cash Rent No. Units

$99./mo or less - 92

$100-$119/mo. - 65

$120-$149/mo. ~ 95

$150-199/mo. ~ 567

$200-299/mo. - 265

$300 & up - 12

No cash rent - (2?) 43

Total: 1139

‘Gdanr2v2 Gay DuIeWw)syamwAL 3!

“W4VE saswad pl “wsvay YO Bawa kf CILVIINOWI LO ZIIM ATHL “AyrDAIV) WveIaw wi riwia a

492994 89 WO SLIOM OSS 92 aINEm FZsvIIaeWw Q7d'4~94 g

‘HLCOM YIA ASIF DANY AvLWIA ANY ‘CODE, sAcDdY BarwvA Yawmo $8an12Wi w Hol,

‘Hamed 23d ‘aS19 01 ‘038 WOI4 DuLODY any "0009 £ yah o00'os g WO¥d Bnrwa

dwesty SIV Sahel Qu20/

Yawma SBenai aivaadots

al HLOW BIL "AD y 0172 YWHIY ANY ‘C00'0lg 0132 SnwWA Yanmo SBQnr2w {m07,

} “SWIVI BWeS aey SFmew0g BsN-rvawsassay -wely ewvsyTa? ganrIWl Svosnra19

“Wadd BO Bows AQ Aaiv2awews ByIM KUNWN gmsnen TeLeL 3O G00] 40 Bsav22k $1 Sine

00! aL TWHOD TOW SI W>IN+ Gow seo? FO 4092934) ‘SLIM BWSROH Fuel BO ima—rvad DIY un37v24 NY «

ts sean) TSauoH

MW [se] 49 [44 | GA) ot | th | 57) 15 | 55 | se | b9 | oul se | 9] a7] re] s9 | 8] wm | s9 | on (anaovad) worn

25 | Me] re SC) or] Mh] Bt) ie] Bt) oe | oc | se | ss | uel ec} ot] eel ut Ol | bl At | bf |remm) avracow

TTT ele es CURT AL CLL teal gtel iia TY] t ] tL S| & | Cammyse) 07

< meee ees perk te He miner Liat Ane cre seein ci pd cs ge

ont EF matey heaters bharags leona loner! meses cements PARE Pea IAS a pele) ee, BOS DiQwaw “Avice |,

wn AB | 18 1% | 58 | su | 9b [sb job | hd! 56 | et | oe ise | on $b Ab | 8L | tb | se | rh | th | os | _S2err2m can _s

Is i aiid eM, PETE et ns Pas BEND Wwe 3d UN9DYIG

/ 4 4 ¢ 4 '

FeS'bS| ASA |$9h'1] Of | 191 | 19h | arr [see les | 01g Isch 50'S |292'l 15h JAsi'L [eso's| bSE | AIS I] Int'l Lass’) 8b’ ben's (S170) Guvazaow

cine GES ESR SBE: a ¥ ries :

wets eel | ser | Lb | £81 $9 | tbl | $9¢)] gs) 1 96 | bb | sth 26 [Sb [AM | Sil | eer foes | Lb | tb | Las ‘gsr (ssa) mo}

CSE ce i

a ; w Sa] wilol|]e H SFiTrlatstalslna X ~z A?

a SVEy E/E] SIRT ESV ELEI E/E VB le] S121 gees

“ & A] & Ss ~ id ™ & is?

s1 e/a] 8 a al ltley ays] era | 4 21E lei k.

® § a é 3 Fy VSR es

> f esi ot

& aS

0d SED Osh) : B>DE0S

(He) Army remy ste Berney go meprqugng

d XTGNadddV

EOP RR Pee

“ah:

nail

952

BXHIBIT A

Alirines . se

Cost of Extra reaturecs

Valuc Ratio Curve

Sandor Festmres Below

Fe owwces

Comrere Duvewoy Asphslt Drweway

Front twn oe Nelowner

Leades ong Londac oping

Foum Sprmblers = Ne Sprinblers

Paral Corperung We Corpeung

One fuepleced * Wo Pucploce

theme

Wend Shake or Comporiion Root

Shongie Rot

Dube ashes No Drthe= ssher

TwoCor Carsge One-Car Corsce

Twe Car Canon

One-Car Carport

6.090 Swware Foot Less than 6,000

Lot Size Square boot Lor

Suc

2Roths i tiome 1% oF Fewer

Less Than 2.000 is

Square fet 2

SBsths ditome =—- 2%, or Fewer

2,000 of More Baths

Square Feet

Ne Au Conditioning NA.

Neo Deaxs NA.

Ne Pauo NA.

No Wet Bar NA.

Neo Fencing NA

No Bonus Arce Unfinished Bonus

feaite Fushed

Bonus Area 3800 N.A—No Applicable, None

Adjoreed price enalysis shoes lists mont common lesrures thet prece, deters are added 10 mdebal 1 locks an mem, echerwne

Rory freee ene bears tm aie c'ne The standend hewse bares wars ST rerirT

a ] eevee we

whe ae CURVE

* .

oud -}— j— tn ae pO 4 +

ink OM OOF ey et INS ee Fe me eo Uae tw fiw thw im ee

fuveur Toeveus

Vober vette geree mm phan J tmam the sutsge sleet d pene oot ste ott ermdew dual mn ts gummns onthe lett al the curve npre:

A comgeims westhhs weseved Recatered pomes wn rtesent St IE NOEE © atom © Oar the Come tetmem tery

o th «

Mer Pewee obi

553

XHIBIT A

a |

| <= & c! S 2 t

¥ \

y/¢ Maa eeu. = ALi 1By

Moin ena / isco Gan i

SAIS Bey CIALISTIAG oe Ors

.—

LOE POLL IO

ee TAA hw

TAM

a f « ry. *

DUES LIE LIES IRE LRG baad BERENS ony te

ee a) Be

soe Nepgeaeaar

POOR LOOPNET RD a LORE *

pes

# Levexom nny coor / bwet nse UDiIT

: : - bevurty — Pewee Uroy

4 WA po. ALE Rees, T/A

‘ GNEN REI 10% 2 4 ‘ ;

= 8 1D 14 o a

. ~ f ——

Ne) .

wat . 2m fie

559

‘HIBIT A

swase 40)30q pede scpwey

Parurefpe Steveqro< 4 Cyaye VW OS © Be WeTER JO

P2T2VETD TeTVerPTe se fee zo OuTT ews Je 12 OS2 VTNTTS

Perec peso? Oe Tle ue 420d eT Fe2y Ave Oy wOTIIppe on

(S$) ere erret epte

*eywesj Mt W2TK® Bo pees

PVInhs UO G4EE selene

#2 2 0) WR fete

ew *syeost VE waTKs ve

BO2XVVE Fanat went

sapees OF 1 Sy WE

aastze ow ted Weosy

edeqwors 13 08

VeROT VO anny tene

(2) wren ‘ene fue wy VOT Ow) Je faze on

2® JS Peeese ©) YOu

@snyomsze Vien Butete

vee wave 403 13 be COST

@yeT 2202 Yto8e

He Vy fe euve tyeern

(t) eee

as ot WOT sousea yore

wer

eyeret y

wt wT

ous

wmotuin

Aseemns

eTeeddy Jo preg

Burvez ew 49 parsucee

eo Jere fase! series

@) Asoetanee aq Ave ee

- S28 [UL 2e2e> Ye

sees eT n erat

82 be Cort VeeeT Ve ereyues ‘ease wolleatee OF

Tereopiowy eaneirtees

ecoss gig weN etow

eu dimare wer eeitptieg

Segoe add Oyen Batt tene

6 pasane ©) Vou Ai levay

e290 2ad Byyue betett

(eteere) v2 &* cos

heeye 2) V2 COLT

(Asere 40) Us be CORT

(4eve 1) 3) 86 goat

seem feel vee

dere 2) W2 b® GOST

ST 68 peviiered eoce TIy

§ pesome @ yew eselpeT

@ Ssepewog yCooee 12140019

‘Ve &S ©@ perrrused comm tie

e2uyer ree Lecpatwes ‘Z2e2erT

te Te *eesed *slo04e

( e&t) *2 ee

(deere Lat ts coat

tury) @6¢

odes? eape

Tape a

pry heeseorwy

Suywez pretsvea

556

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX I

(contd. )

NOTES

1. Corner lots (AA): Width - 125 ft

‘Depth - 200 ft

Area - 25,000

sq.ft.

2. 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 - soning

ordinance)

3. Corner lots (A): Width - 125 ft.

Depth - 150 ft.

Area - 18,750

sq.ft.

4, 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.

(

Rt ve Tan

BO ¢

EXHIBIT A

“APPENDIX I

Ccontd. )

Town Houses - Side Yards: Setback of

35. ft. 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

Teast 30 ft. Setback from any other

structure or external boundary line.

District Uses

Planned Unit Developnent Veriety of residential types

ard non-resivential uses.

Centeirs doth individual

" dull¢ing sites and cormon

preperty which are planned

ard cevelomd a3 @ unit.

(a planned reaghborhood)

998

EXHIBIT A

SEZ KOTES POR ACDITIOML PUD REQUIREMENTS

eo Average Censity not to exceed 3 dwelling units per acre. He etructure nearer than 6 ft to interier side or rear let line.

Area of Structures

Minimwe Areas 100 scree of contiguous land

Reqai renent

Fininun « 10% ty acreage

Minirum « 14% by acreage

Mintrus « 7 £ by acreage

Maximum = JOS by acreage

Yaxinua « 27%

Miniwum = 10%

Hoxton = 28

Residential Usess May be of ary type, Must be « variety as fellave:

Ize

single family detached

Single fanily detached or

double homes ©

ingle family detached oe

may contain multiple dvellings

must be set aside for recreational eso

accessory commercial and service usage

(eee Mote £)

aimee tiie tenet aeatindcameetateceenee

RPT A Yer I Nea ee

ee A Ree ee

ecco eirvie

1609-1360 fay

11-2200 cia

999

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX I

(contd)

NOTES - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)

BBA 2m SENET TES IR OEIEM S

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

buiidings - not less than height of

talles uilding.

Front Set Back -

State, county, major town roads -

100 Tt. from highway line

Internal subdivision feeder &

collector streets - 50 ft. from

street line

Totally internal streets - 30 ft..

from street line

960

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX I

(cont .)

f) 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).

g) Customary Accessory or Associated

ses - 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.

o61 7

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX J ‘

ESTIMATE OF HOUSING COSTS IN PENFIELD'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 22

12 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

80 438 >

se ers:

: APSE RAT aE

Se. nea

262

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 9726.79 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.

963

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.)

1-2 B.R.)

Apartments - 336 (

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.

564

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 ia 2 cooperative housing project

Nature of Program

HUD makes monthly payments to the mortgagee to reduce interest costs to

as low as 1 percent on a home mortgage insured by the Federal Housing

Administration. The homeowner must Pay at least 20 percent of his

adjusted monthly income on the Mortgage. Amounts of subsidies vary

according to the income of the individual homeowner and the total amount

of the mortgace payment at the market rate of interest. Family irccome and

Mortgage limits ere established for eligibility in each focality. Assistance

may be provided for new or substantially rehabilitated homes and, ina -

limited number of cases, for existing homes without rehabilitation.

Applicant Eligibility

The applicant may be anyone whose income qualifies him for the subsidy

aid. toe

Application is made to 8 lending institution approved by FHA as a

mortgagee.

Information Source

HUD ares office or HUD-FHA insuring office.

Legal Authority

Section 235, National Housing (Public Lew 73-479), as added by the

Housing and Urban Development of 1968 (Public Law 90-448).

Administering Office Function

Assistant Secretary for Housing Aid development and

Procuction and Mortgage Credit= construction .

FHA Commissioner

Assistant Sceretary for Hous Management and oan servicing .

ina PAanzaament far multifamily aeniorte

960

c<HIBIT A

INTEREST SUPPLEMENTS ON RENTAL AND

COOPERATIVE HOUSING MORTGAGES

A progam to reduce costs on certain rental and cooperative housing

projects designed for occupancy by low incorse families

Nature of Program

HUD -inakes monthly payments to morigagees, on behalf of mortgagors, of

a pat of the interest On market fale mMorigaqes finuncing rental or

cooperative housing projects for lower-income families. Interest reduc:.on

payments may alsa br made on tental of cooperative housing Fro.cts

owned by private nonprofit, limited dividend, of Cooperate emtiters wc

gre financed under a State of locel program providing aeistance throcgh

loans, lu. insurance, or tax abatement.

Interest reduction payments cannot exceed the difference betwcen the

amount requited for principal, interest, and mortgoge insurarce PremiemM

on a market-rate mortgage and the amount requaed for principal od

interest On a mortgaye at 1 percent interest. The purpose of the payments

is to bring the monthly rental charges down to a level that low-inso.ne

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 Administration

and for interest-reduction payments may be nonprofit, limited-dividend,

and cooperative entities.

Apnlications for insured mortgages are made to lending institutions a>-

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 acded by the

Housin 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 Conimissioner

Assistant Secretary for Hous- Management and loan servicing

- o* e ef @ee -“@.

APIA: me 5 I

2 7 ia ail

26%.

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% > Gene

Maximum Interest - 7%

Maximum Term - 32 years (35 to 4c 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

l. 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, a,

completed within past two years,

(project must have been HUD insured

if more than 11 units).

‘

: VRS ae ne Bere

a6 /¢

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX L (Cont'd)

4, An existing family dwelling or a

family unit in existing condom- aki

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 household.

os 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).

TE ERS BY GLEE BOY BL: LLOLLDILED AVI DLT LL IE

Le ae a oe ee ot at

a ible

tr AA ed thai

Jape Ben “tid

di taoy

268

Ty ett A

APPENDIX L.(Cont 'd)

Single person 62 years or age or older.

Mortgage Income Limits

bY e.-

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% (alhowance for Social

Security, withholding, etc.) and less

$300 for each minor child living in

the household. )

Asset Limitations

Mortgagor UNDER Age 62* - $2,000.

Mortgagor OVER Age 62* - $5,000.

** PLUS $500 for each dependent child,

ities nieiticeialiccnnde i ant Sl jis ih cA ith cl ivi et

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, .

2. 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

TS TR Re Py eT OE ye

S69:

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX L (Cont'd)

would require an interest rate of 1%,

excluding HUD premiun.

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.

aWal

EXHIBIT A

SCHEDULE A.

MORTGAGE LIMITS.

LOCALITY 1-Family, 2-Family

BUFFALO - Base City $21,000* $30,000

includes City of

‘Buffalo, Grand

Island, Counties

; of Erie, Wyoming,

: Orleans, Alleg-

hany, Niagara and

Genesee,

ROCHESTER - Base City $21,000# $30,000

includes City of

Rochester, Counties

: of Monroe, Wayne,

: Livingston,

i Ontario, Seneca and

; Yates.

| ELMIRA - Key Area $21,000* $30,000

; includes Cities of

Corning, Elmira

‘ and Counties of

‘ Stueben, Schuyler

and Chemung.

JAMESTOWN - Base City $19,500 $27,000

includes City of

Jamestown, Counties

of Chautauqua and

Cattaraugus.

' **Single family limits can be increased

F up to a maximum of an additional

$3,000 on an individual case basis for

, homes of 4 or more bedrooms and five

or more persons.

| FACTTIGAMRI RET RINE exe ho SRR MNEEIETTON

eee

SCHEDULE B

ADJUSTED FAMILY INCOME LIMITS

COUNTY OR

LOCALITY NUMBER OF PERSONS IN FAMILY

2 3 u 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

Cattraugus5,670 6,4

80 7,290 7,695 8,100 8,505 8,910 9,315 9, 585 9,855

Seneca

Nation 4,320 4,860 5,400 6,010 6,550 7,155 7,695 8,305 8,305 8,305

Chautauqua4 ,860 5,670 6,480 7,020 7,425 7,900 8,305 8,775 8, »775 8,775

Chemung 5,400 6,210 6,885 7,290 7,695 8,100 8. ,505 8,910 9, * 180 9,450

Elmira 5,350 6,240 6,535 6,835 6,980 7,130 7, 425 7,125 1,125 7,725

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 6,885 7,290 7, °560 7,830 7, ” 830 7,830

Genesee 5,265 6,480 7, 153 Ts °695 8,235 8,775 9,180 9,585 9,585 9,585

Livingston5,940 6,750 7, 560 7,965 8,370 8, 3775 9,180 9, 585 9, °855 10, 125

Monroe 5,670 7,020 7,560 7,965 8,505 9, ” 180 9, ” 855 9,990 10,12510, 395

Niagara 5,400 6,480 7,290 7,830 8,370 8,910 9, "450 9,800 9,99010, °260

Ontario 6,075 6,885 7,695 8,100 8,505 8; 910 9,315 9,720 9,990 10,260

Orleans 5,940 6,750 7, 5560 7, "965 8,370 8,775 9,180 9,585 9, B55 10,125

Schuyler 5,400 6,210 7,020 7,425 7,830 8.235 8 °640 9,045 9,315 9, 585

avd

EXHIBIT A

Seneca 6,075 6,885

Steuben 5,130 5,940

Addison

Campbell

Corning

Erwin

Horby

Lindly

Wayne 5,940 6,750

Newark 5,130 6. »750

Yates 5,400 6. »210

Wyoming 5,345 6, 345

EXHIBIT A

3 4 5

5695 8,100 8,505

6,750 7,155 7,560

7,560 7,965 8,370

7,290 7,695 8,100

7,020 7,425 7,830

7,155 7,560 7,965

8,775 9,180

8,505 8:010

8, 5235 8, »640

8;370 8; 9775

Dated March, 1972

pare 5 9,720 9,990 10,260

8,775 9,045 9,315

9,585 9,85510,125

9,315 9,315 9,315

9,045 9,315 9,585

9,180 9,450 9,720

Pe OR ET en ee ee

pea TD Ate Clint La ae RE Ree I NES be ERA pe AEP ND EAA ALLE ELAS AA

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,

thereforé, 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

avd

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

stabilize because its full valuation then

has been incorporated into the computation

of the aid ratio for that year and its

enrollment has been included in the distrib-

ution formula for the Monroe County Sales

Tax.

The calculations on the following pages

demonstrate in detail the fiscal effects

of the addition of the two developments.

a¢u

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX M (Cont'd)

1. Computation of the Tax Base for a Low

Density (1.75 unit/acre) Project.

a. 65 times $37,500 = : 2 , 437,500.00

b. times $ =

ce. Sub total $

dad. Minus present Full

Value of site $. 30,810.81

e. Net increase in Full

Valuation $ 2,406,689.19

f. Present Full Valu-

ation of school

district $1 8 aD

g. New Full Valuation $199,/31, .

Computation of per pupil costs multiplier

a. Total 1971-72

appropriations/

pupil $ 1,647.79

b. Minus principal

and interest on

debt service/pupil $ 202.07

c. Minus Operation and

Maintenance of

plant/ pupil $ 132.06

dad. Minus board of

education expense/

pupil $ 5.50

e. Minus other/pupil $

f. Net cost per

additional pupil $ 1,308.16

Additional cost for 115

new pupils $ 150 ,438.40

i a a ate

Q¢0

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX M (Cont'd)

2. Computation of the Tax Base for a High

Density (9.5 units/acre) Project

a. times $ = $

—b. 350 times $18,400 = $ ~6,910.000.00

‘¢.Sub total

d. Minus present Full

Value of site $ 30,810.81

e. Net increase in

Full Valuation $ 6,409,189.19

f. Present Full

Valuation of

school district $ 197,325,244.00

g. New Full Valuation § 203,734,4533.00

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 |

d. 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 $ 2228 , 928.00

o¢¢

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX M (Cont'd)

a. Average Full Value .

Tax Rate/1000 $ 22.98

b. Equalization Rate $ ~3f

c. 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

. Growth Aid

a. = 1971-$ -0- $ -0-

b. New $ 8,913.25 $ 38,624.10

c. Increase $ 8913.25 $38,624.10

1971-72 Tax

Impact

a. Gross add.

cost $150,438.40 $228,928.00

b. Growth aid

iner. $ 8,913.25 $ 38,624.10

c. Net cost

increase $141,525.15 $190,303.90

d. Net change

in Pull

Value Tax

Rate 4.43 If on 71-72

rolis +.21

e. Net change in

assessed :

value.

Tax rate/1000

assessed

value +1.17 +.594

973

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX M (Cont'd)

Tax impact in 1971-72 if project had been

completed by first quarter of 1970-71.

1. Aid ratio

unchanged Pipe yg 0.571

2. Operating

Expense .

Aid

a. WADA for $ 6,050.35 $ 6,050.35

aid

present

b. WADA for

aid new $ 6,165.35 $ 6 , 225°. 35

c. Operating

exp.aid

present $2,971,084.87 $2,971.084.87

: d. Operating

i exp. aid

new $3,027,556.77 $3,057.028.37

e. Aid increase

$56,471.90 $ 85,935.50

3. /Building Aid. No change No change

4, Transport-

ation Aid

a. Present $ 289,881.99 $ 289,881.99

F b. New $ 295,301.00 $ 098,260.50

4 c. Aid

increase$ 5,509.83 $ 8, 384.53

2 5. High Tax

| -Rate Aid

a. Present $ 2,135. B 2235.

b. New $ 4.661 23,435.79

c. Increase$ 2, 225: 45 a =

CMe eB a A ee AB ee let a be rn ie ye lant et tl

avd a

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 $ 85,935.50

-Tr.aid

incr. $ 5,509.83 $ 8,384.53

-High tax |

rate aid

incr. $ 2,525.73 $ -0-

b. Net

cost

increase $ 85,930.94 $ 134,607.97

c.Net

change in

full Value +#.15 -.06

d.Net change

in Assess-

ed Value

Tax Rate/

1000 Assess-

ed Value +. 405 ~.162

bh)

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

— LD SNR TI AE IR te i a =) SR ERR

a i i a at

98d

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX mM (Cont'd)

2. Op.Expense Low Density

High Density

2,971,084 .87

Aid.

a. Present $2,971,084 .87

—b. New $3,038,101.17

c. Aid

increase $ 67,076. 30

$ 69,874.10

$ 513,883.51

$ SBOPLERLL

$. -2,699.91

$ 289,881.99

$298,206.52

$8,384.53

3. Building Aid. ,

a. Present $ 513,883.51

b. New $ 515, 603.455.

c. Aid

increase $ 1,799.94

4, Transporta-

' tion Aid

a. Present $ 289,881.99

b. New $ 295,391.80

ec. Aid.

increase $ 5,509 .83

5. High Tax

Rate Aid

a.Present $ 22,135.79 $ 22,135.79

b .New cI LY LS OY

c.Aid

increase $ 12,652.07 $ -4,478.56

6. Additional '

Sales Tax

allocation $ 9,048 .20

7. 1971-72 Tax

Impact.

a. Gross

| Addit.

cost

$ 13,769.00

$ 228,928.00

$ 150,438.40

-Op.aid |

incr.,

$ | 67,076.30

$ 69,874.10

oS 4

EXHIBIT A

Low Density

‘APPENDIX M~¢Cont 'd)

-Build.

aid incr.

1,799.94

High Density

-2 ,699 . 91

-Trans.aid

incr.

5,509.83

-High tax

rate aid

12,652.07

-4 478.56

-Sales tax

incr.

a an ir &

9,048.20

$ 8, 384.53

13,769.00

b.Net incr-

ease (sur-

plus) $

54,352.05

$ 144,078.84

c.Net change

in Full

Value

d.Net change

in Assessed

Value

Tax Rate/

1000 Assessed

Value

-.01

-.029

Summary

-.02

-.054

1971-72 Full Value Tax Rate Impacts

lst Year Project

2nd Year

3rd and Subsequent

years

‘

—_ IONE LSE ALC IIE RT Ny sete

Low Density

High Density

Project Project

+,43 +.21

+.15 -.06

-.01 -.02

—_ OS SET Pe OME! ROSIE NOTES EIR oe a

" POO GTS eee ten: —_— ” 2

VS GoviCument ovutLays Fok VAR iouS FUNCTIONS

ZY FiscAL YEAR

(Mittions oF poLLars )

FUNCT ion 19U) 192 \462 194 1905S 196% 1467) 19bB 99 990 = 199) 1972" 197.3"

SSS ISS 0188 sy 8341 418948 Bt 2801243 1,64 2, ob6

so 191 S89 -880 - 18S 268 244 Que 4070 et 2965 3387 4039 4844

ALL 97,745 106813 131) 18 S84 18,430 134 wS2 IsB2s¢ 118,833 184 548 14% Ses 2,425 236010 246257

* EstimareD

se) " °

4 ~

C2 f, NOTES: ALL * ToTAL FEDERAL OVTLAYS FoR ALL PURPOSES

=: SSO = ToTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS FoR Communiry DEVELOPMENT & HousING

fx;

Ciwecupes Hun & OEO). NEGATIVE NUMBI?2S INDICATE INFLUENCE oF

: PrcEIPTs From “MAmtT en ANCE OF HOUSING MORTGAGE mae KET Csse)"

AND DEDUCTIONS For oF FSETTING oTHEz Receipts.

SSS = TOTAL TEDERAL ouTLAYS FoR Low anno MODERATE INCOME HOUSING

AIDS ( INCLUDES Sue@siUietD HovsING PAYMENTS, SPECIAL ASSISTANCE,

& CeMmaRiriT ation LoANS).

Fy CeO Bue a,

1964 191, Goo 198 600 “* Soutce-"THi20 annual PE -

190 32% 800 310 000 PoRT ON HOUSING GoALS*,

1991 S30, 000 £2S 000 Some 291991 U.S, Gove Qn ment

1972 645 000 &5* 000 PRiwTING OFFicE

Monroe County,

1960,1964, 1970

Total Pop.

586, 387

318,611

267,776

Tack ar be Ne wee

583

EXHIBIT C

Monroe County

City of Roch.

Balance of

County

Brighton

Chiti

Clarkson

Cates

Greece

Hamlin

Henrietta

_ Irondequoit

Mendon

Ogden

Parma

Penfield

Perinton

Pittsford

Riga

Population

27,849

11,237

2,339

13,755

48,670

2,755

11,598

55337

3,902

7,262

6,277

12,601

16, 314

15,156

2,800

City

White

561,321

294,383

266,938

27,762

11,195

2,297

13,738

48,616

2,704

11,574

555277

33894

7,247

62227

12,572

16,299

Qa 15,134

2,781

by Race

and Towns

VE eee

SESE T SNS Ba TANI RORY ORY:

1960 (cont'd. )

Total Pon. White Negro

' Rush 2,555 2,439 105

Sweden 7,224 7,186 37

Webster 16,434 16,406 10

Wheatland Sethe 3,590 111

EcHTBIPO d

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

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

4,177

9,399

8, 350

17,337

20,416

18,962

33,209

2,840

8,377

White

591,634

273,909

318,125

29,759

13,016

2,744

16, 385

58,995

3,077

yy gy bo

60,711

4,175

9,379

8,294

17,288

20,393

18,922

3,191

2,703

8,289

Negro

32,561

31,751

810

ROT RR SN)

haat

—

EI, PEER Tye AC Ney aout eR NS SENN RL OAR Horn tae rten ae

286

EXHIBIT C

Webster

Wheatland

1964 (cont'd. )

Total Pop. White

19,284 19,050

4,014 3,903

Negro

a iad eee eee vk! Dee

Other

ot Gata

]

587%

Peni SAS OE ig ort hal RE ie Bo REE ee

IBIT C

we kaa ee Stee ate

ban)

lal

—

Monroe County

City of Roch

Balance of

County

Brighton

Chili

Clarkson

Gates

Greece

Hamlin

Henrietta

Irondequoit

Mendon

Ogden

Parma

Penfield

Perinton |

Pittsford

Riga

Rush

1970

Total Pop.

711,917

296,233

415,684

35,065

19,609

3,642

26, 444

75,136

4,167

33,017

63,675

W541

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

SIRES AIPM Yo Ts

APB Bie. Cm sgenn »

eS SG

met

eae >E

BRAUN:

1970 (cont'd.)

Total Pop. White

Sweden 11,461 11,256

Webster 24,739 24,549

Wheatland 4,265 4,136

288

EXHIBIT C

Re-Capitulation of the 1971-72 tax roll

by Categories

a Taxable and partially exempt properties

Category No of Accts assessed value

| Residences 5143 $47,484,450

: q Farms 322 3,312,900

o> Vacant Land 692 1,996,900

| oy & Trailer Parks 5 1,852,400

ud M Shopping Centers 8 2,643,500

x= Commercial Bldgs. 116 3,428,800

5 Industries 13 911,400

Gas Stations 19 493,200

Apartments 15 4,597,600

Country Club &

Recreational

i properties 2 165, 300

Utilities | 12 2,498,288 i

Special Franchise 4 2,266,605 :

Railroad 1 10,700 £

Total 6352 $71,664,043 bs

al ¢

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 4

- Fully Exempt properties

S?m Parsonages 12 107,000

ae School s 12 4 521,200

fj School land vacant 7 38,100

Church land vacant 4 8,500

Miscellaneous vacant land 16 87,600

Exempt properties _26 917,500

Total 90 $ 6,881,500

Re-Capitulation of the 1970-71 tax roll

by Categories

Taxable and partially exempt properties

Category No of Accts

“Residences 4g24

Farms 322

A Vacant land 731

4 & Trailer Parks 5

o> m Shopping Centers 6

uot Commercial Bldgs. 116

} mS Industries 13

| ™ Gas Stations 21

Apartments 14

Country Club BE

Utilities 12

Special Franchise 4

Railroad 1

Total 6170

~~ Veterans exemptions on above

Aged exemptions on above

Ministers' exemptions on above

ace en,

Assessed Value

$45 568,800

3,235,500

2 274, 200

l, 811, 5900

2 "147, 200

3, "680 ,000

917, ” 800

540,100

4 »520,700

- 70,400

2,387,700

1, 996, 452

14 *672

$69,165,424

“1,237,900

117, 300

3,000

Ei Pee

AOL LOL LN OI OT PCT rt RE Om ee a

992

EXHIBIT D

Churches

Parsonages

Schools

School land vacant

Churah land vacant

Miscellaneous vacant land

Exempt properties

(Town, County parks,

cemeteries, etc.)

Total

Fully exempt properties

$ °756,000

107,000

3,897,000

74,600

8,500

111,700

943,700

ave ee

$5,898,500

; Re-Capitulation of the 1969-70 tax roll t

by categories :

. Taxable and partially exempt properties e

i Category No of Accts Assessed value .

A Residences 4801 $29,981,200 5

@> & Farms 326 2,055,100 e

o> ti Vacant land 752 "819; 300 E

wH Trailer Parks 5 i. 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, 5900 &

Special Franchise i 1,297,960 E

Railroad : 1 11.696 :

or ;

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 $ 459,200 :

Parsonages : 11 ~ 62,400 .

Schools -12 2,890,700

School land | | 6 © : 13,500

Church land ; \ | . - 35500

- Miscellaneous vacant land 14 ; 32 , 300 -

q Exempt properties . . 23 614,700

(Town, County parks,

= FE cemeteries, etc.)

M4 , :

- ei Total 82 | $4,076, 300

[x :

emt a di

990

EXHIBIT D

Category

Residences

Farms

Vacant land

Trailer Parks

Shopping Centers

Commercial Bldgs.

Industries

Gas Stations

Apartments

Country Club

Utilities

Special Franchise

Railroad

Total

Re-Capitulation of the 1968-69 tax roll '

by Categories {

Taxable and partially exempt properties é

No of Accts Assessed value f

4669 $28,417,000 :

301 1,844,000 i

771 855,700 f

5 1,172,600 ;

5 1,296, 300 i

93 1,918,600 k

13 634,700 5

21 218,900 §

12 2,217, 300 Fe

1 38,100 &

13 798, 800 ‘

4 1,280,186 e

1 13,367

5909 $40,708,553

Veterans exemptions on above 970,200

Aged exemptions on above 73,750

Ministers' exemptions on above 3,000

Fully exempt properties

Churches 12 $ 459,200

Parsonages 10 52,400

Schools 12 2,810, 300

School land 6 13,500

A Church land 3 2,700

oo g. Miscellaneous | 31 | 625,100

(Town, County parks,

cemeteries, etc.)

EXHIB

Total 74 $3,963,200

Steet ain a hen ded ie nt ee i RR

997

EXHIBIT D

PROPERTY VALUES

The relationship which assessed value

municipality bears to its full value i

determined annually by the state in or

to insure the equitable distribution o

items which are levied or disbursed ad

valorem among the various municipaliti

This ratio of assessed to full value,

or "equalization rate," for the Town

of Penfield is shown for past years

in Table. It is strongly

098

EXHIBIT D

TABLE B

ASSESSED VALUE OF EXEMPT AND TAXABLE PROPERTY REAL FRANCHISE,

own of Penfield, New.Yor urrent Dollars

Taxable Taxable Total Wholly Equalization

Tax Real Franchise Taxable Exempt Rate (%)

Year Propert Propert Propert Propert Count State

1966 25,806,105 T-TTTEYT 31-bTgsbr2 —OPeTty County

1965 28,619,595 1,065,933 29,685,528 28 28

1964 26. 3979,021 "97h. 996 re ,054- 017 29 28

1963 24 *248- ,420 875, °284 25,123,704 2 ,282 »700 30 29

1962 22 °418 *960 806. 3475 23,225, * 435 2 °168 * 800 34 30

1961 20 gaa e 660 686, » 185 20, 811, 845 1 ,963, 800 37 34

1960 14, °916, 860 738, 892 35. °655, 752 1,225,700 39 30

1959 33, 033, 460 tise °817 ste 747; 277 "948° 400 38 38

1958 12 »032,660 632, 872 12 665, 5 32 857, 700 38 38

1957 10 °780, 960 544,292 11, 325,252 764. 400 35 38

1956 §=9,333,140 469; 326 = o9, B02 » 466 447? 900 4g 4g

1955 8 5249, 660 496,215 8,745, ;875 464,724 4g 4g

1954 7% * 822 »560 417, *600 8, >2h0, 160 294. 400 90 90

1953 Toaket o °652 335,120 ts 452, 772 294, * 400 80 80

1952 6, 368, 570 310, 760 6, 679, 330 294; 400 80 80

1951 5. 755, 130 284,360 . ,039, 190 294, * 400 80 80

1950 5,196,188 267,400 5,463,588 2943400 80 80

293

EXHIBIT D

TABLE B (Cont'd)

\ Source: Special Report of Municipal Affairs

y the State meperolier, 1950-1963:

roceedings o e Monroe County

Board of Supervisors, 1949-1965;

1964 & 1965 NYS equalization rates

supplied by the Monroe County

Department of Assessment and

Taxation.

PEE REEL ITED OIE EROS

EXEMPT PROPERTY TOTALS

as of July lst,

1962 - 1963 1963 - 1964 1964 - 1965

United States of America 3,970,770 3,970,770 3,970,770

State of New York 26,186,551 18 »637, "082 18 °631, 500

County of Monroe

(Civic Center) 5,071,286 6,039,223 7,110, 393

1) County of Monroe & City

> ce | of Rochester 1,180,943 1,190,943 1,190,943

>) fi City of Rochester 31, 736, 315 32, *188° » 445 30, ° B62 » 76H

S> 4 City of Rochester - land

5 only 994,877 1,151,198 1,394,405

m™ City of Rochester - Land

& Buildings 317,890 273,050 363,250

Subway 6,693,764 6,695,274 6 20952874

Public Schools 28,103,502 32,140,652 28,539,892

Educational 22,018,480 23,124,510 25,514,100

Libraries 1,420,644 1,338,044 1,338,144

Character Building Agencies 4,039,330 4,049,950 4,049,950

Clubs and Associations 3,219,690 3,215,010 3, 353,580

Charitable 11,063,042 10,663,810 10,669, 330

Cemete ries 1,302,910 1,302,910 1,302,910

seatee

Religious Communities

Churches

Parsonages

Clergymen, Residences

Paraplegic Pensioners

Fall Out Shelter

Housing Projects

Pensioners

601

EXHIBIT E

Grand Total

eves

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

TEIN TI RE Ye PO be tr

RIES

BOSTON,

Git2

EXHIBIT E

EXEMPT PROPERTY TOTALS

United States of America

State of New York

County of (MOOT eecenter)

County of Monroe & City

of Rochester

City of Rochester

as of July lst,

1965 - 1966

3,970,770

18,713,379

8,169,287

174,660

31,678,950

City of Rochester-Land only 1,046,257

City of Rochester-Land

& Buildings

Subway

Public Schools

Educational

Libraries

267,470

6,690,274

28,605,512

26,601, 850

1,420,644

Character Building Agencies 4,059,140

Clubs and Associations

Charitable

Cemeteries aN

3,369,980

13,500, 340

1, 326,810

1967 - 1968

4,518,230

14,846,086

8,957,677

174,660

30,715,351

3,228,231

3,760,930

6,709,884

28,662,992

28,288,290

1,420,644

4,064,540

3,141,480

14,628,250

1,326,810

1968 - 1969

4,518,230

14,855,847

11,041,425

174,660

30,668 533

4,752,361

1,954,516

6,709,614

30 253.572

28,588,290

1,420,644

3,960,420

3,077,030

15,246,710

1,326,810

603

EXHIBIT E

Religious Communities

Churches

Parsonages

Clergymen, Residences

Paraplegic Pensioners

Fall Out Shelter

Housing Projects

Pensioners

Grand Total

1965 - 1966 1967 - 1968 1968 - 1969

951, 390 912,830 920,190

21,605,180 21,867, 360 21,788,920

1,355,550 1,390, 740 1,383,680

148,500 139,500 138,000

21,940 35,940 35,940

6,390 3,640 3,640

0 6,055,919 7,335,179

173,684,273 184,849,684 190,150,211

13,963,525 13,797,045 13,481,745

187,647,798 198,646,729 203,631,956

Aged Exemptions “ 5,646,590

Grand Total 209,278,546

Wee 4

eae PN ees ot csr PRA

vey .'

MeL oat

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

fy City of Rochester Land Only 3,348,275 3,589,200 2,281,854

<1 City of Rochester Lan@é

as & Bldgs. 928,136 1,926,836 1,002,700

eo 4 Urban Renewal Land & Bldgs. 4,645,168

i: Subways 6,709,614 6,709,614 6,745,006

?j Public Schools 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

es Drala a.

A ements chem,

680

EXHIBIT E

Churches

Parsonages

Clergymen( Residence)

Paraplegic Pensioners

Pollution Control E.K.C.

Fall Out Shelters

Housing Projects

ensioners

Aged Exemptions

Grand Total

1969-70 1970-71 1971-72

21,811,940 21,945,160 21,663,130

1,466,260 1,438,160 1,664,010

112,500 106,500 94,500

35,940 35,940 35,940

| 1,225,000

3,640 - 3,640 3,640

7,646,774 11,194,226 11,463,716

$194,983,447 214,600,505 $219,113,269

13,144,980 12,785,570 12,595,170

$208,128,427 227,386,075 231,705,439

4,493,460 4,903,110 5 5214,530

$212,621,887 $232,289,185 $236,922,969

;

cep bi 0,

° a a a re aot

g ole qt an

=. oie i it i Hi

~s = 3 8s ,

2 §8 ii te

CITY OF ROCHESTER TAX RATES 5

Figures in $ per $1000 assessed valuation i

. 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 A

60 24.30 21.09 4539 14.23 59.62 bs

| 61 24.30 23,22 47.52 14.14 | 61.66 ji

i O& 62 £24.30 24,10 48.40 14.55 62.95 q

: Pee, 63 24.30 24,27 48.57 14.18 62.75 . ¢

SH 664) (24.30) 24.27 48.57 15.78 64.35 :

‘Orn 65: 26.68 - 26.87 53.55 19.24 72.79 }

$66 )«=«27.59 27.87 55.46 19.63 75.09 |

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

T2 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

IV Radio

Iheater.. |

Suburb . ..

“7

The _— Money Woes Grow

a maronor LOCAl Fron

BS.

esth

Heal

pial

gts

rata

enti in

nel i ei

ie itiafliy ie

a3 sass Beary pa itt.

yt itt at i

arte i,

Sneha tts sual

Mite IP Be.

6093

EsHIBIT I

--——. —

~ $1 PEMFIELD PRESS, Posies, ¥.Y., Jum 1, 92

EIGHT. PAGES It OME SECTION

saieiite via i iy ult lt id (iy i

seas edaty E v2 eG u

et i WT

it editeeite eit oul Hil silt aoa Hit

ee H ii i ss °

PE ae

= 5} wp Hi li if ili if He ai

Seri Ht AT it Hut hile

3 Silt i tai (ighesia agttys

soi ff aan i ial Hee tae tte My

ruil ah Had

iit fis! ite fei uli A i i

te 2

EDREAMS: 2S HS

PIL OTIS

ing

se LP be

Le in |

it He alt 3

aay iia

i hat

ifasth

ita Fy

i ; mat

it ini

8 neat 3

esa it

iit Ht sl }

me aon yh 4,

Tuesday. June €. !37:

4, ~~

Hi i

619

EXHIBIT J

roy x

POOR COPY

CHESTER DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE

—~

oderate Income Hous

hescax =. in ich oc

EaAEIBI™

pH;

= Hise

iit!

2 g.featiedes : -

- Shi AT e

os, it iyi :

oe) ih ss i it \ %

a. } ita | 4 e 3

}- Ei a

g I ity 2H

Oo if |

x jt i i a.

=e ruTEe Af

® 43 “at ite ATP fi 7 F TG

Herth tft ep yypain

. ie nal

THUG

. if H ’ cabbage sbe

ale dni i if ut iff in

Ba Fi é |

eae il ti

Pa i pili

SURE. CRIN Ga)

RES

BEEGLET?

HHH

ie a a if

rhe rignect

i ith Lh i

il,

ert gis iyagsst

ey te aK ste it

est fits til bt ti

er ee

[ite

HE i

iy Fy stat

iy x =

(L wl i te care nH ia :

| rm by HP HEAI TULTETE Gn

4 if it ue i wielat Se

cat et i i real 4 fay ¥

it EE #y

Hi Pte HE ca i a Ie ele re = =

Moats Exelerced G4e07 suevies ster & 3

me rf mc ane Tb Hae S >

iit ie i cil fH i i =

ii oT be 52 ty ii fee HF 5 S

pte 2 =

iil il ii Hie le ui hi = 3

WHAVdXVI FAL

ZLOL ‘9 aunf ‘duusag hepvany *4A°y ‘ssIsoqvoy

qingqng NOIN)-SIWLL, FHL

2 Survey by the Housing

itd

13 Ht uw}

iff: ity ai. HI

: Hs af]

; Hanne

Uh jaa

bid -sg?

492236]

' Vs cine

uh eg s

ital! i

Mi HEY fay 1334 *

Hil

uae

©)

—_—

}

SEAT NEE ey

peas

PRT FE

—F

W here You'll Find

; He 5 4 aH i! I Hi] nl ay aay Hi .

i HE i ihe : nt il a i

} ficial an cade il 1 alle piel

61l4a

EXHIBIT N

e ”

+ @aare Aapesea Beoee

‘ ava Avenue and Gene-

sce Sireet. was the worst

‘ peicbherhoad in the city for

| aiet's sae, & neu The Breakdown

Ver.

_ By contrast, no homicides,

rapes er robberies were re :

ported in areas 28 and 43, the Stolen

only peichborhonds with no District Hemicide Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicles Toral

violent crimes reported. 1 3 2 4 31 227 1080, 4) 1728

. _ 2 yecrge Bag haan Hg 2 + $ _32 24 «5 31s é 1267

eigierics vy

7 7 3 2 2 42 zm 488 175

ton ernantpines Seas A. 4 1 3 ea 306 - 42 3 _—

aon a Lagos have 3 2 3 ™ 261 196 $23 =. un

tried to combat the problems =

a) bigh-crime areas by using . 2 $ oJ ak 218 346 70 8

more men and more § @ 1 zr 210 137 402 43 13

pairoiting methods. e 2 2 a i84 18 40 2 97

- : ™ & i Sot “a ee

“We use monthly computer 10 4 1 _ 202 290 rv) 885

Ss ee Se eee Se ee ee ee eT

penn on them,” he 12 4 A & 163 2 382 J Bs

13 © 1 16 148 108 426 ™ 7738

14 3 3 2 207 244 207 4 Ry

The police Tectical Unit is 15 0 4 _ 138 155 302 3 +8

moved sound the city to add 16 0 1 18 rs 143 00 “ - En

SS ee 7 1 @ 13 1s 169 3s 2 oH

anny. te ames. 18 2 2 2 131 i) 215 3 ™~,

The Model Cities Neighbor- _ 19 0 A i “ 7 06 2 337

hood in ine northeast. and the 20 i ° 14 78 143 ze 18 404

southwest sections of the city 2. 0 U $ Cy Ls] 37. x at

= — by Coordinated 2 1 1 10 95 78 298 15 7]

im Patrols. They operate 3 0 0 16 89 47 312 16 a»

closcly to try to solve more 24 nN 1 2 105 85 223 2 444

23 0 0 2 EY] Fr ) 2 4

pear 2 £ 40 2 236 4 _ ae

pee 0 Be D SRE 244 i6 43

Shooting Case — : . - 7 —-

. * Fs) 1 0 4 “a 2 216 4

Trial Begins = : ; we ~ mag

2 0 1 2 22 5 238 2 2?

wee

Road. Albion, and Robert Roy 9 ——33 _ ae M 128 20 1m z cl

White. 19, of Root Road. Al Bal i 0 & 48 Ss Se 1 >

charged with first o 0 i ED x 193 22 ae

degree assault, opened in Or- x 0 ) 1 rs) 37 182 36 259

leans County Court yesterday 3 fy 0 i 20 3B 153 16 02

before Judge J. Kenneth Serve oT ° i 3 39 2s 6 - A saase

and e jury of six men and six —_—- 0 ry 0 2 3 rT] rex) 137

sr onal o o 1 20 18 | ae |

Testimony Sigg heard from 4 0 0 () 13 6 6 t 83

Witnesses the plaintiff, 2 Q zy L 7 2 “« 1 “i

Harvey Bonk of Clarendon, 3 0 2 1 4 i 19 0 27

who was allegedly ey ~ unknown 0 1 1 x 1 124 5 166

12,763 1 Fr)

i zones, trict numbers on the map. Chart list-

the oer ime area ing “unknown” refers to fact that ree-

break- ords do not show district in which par-

Plaintiff's testimony will major crimes in each area. Ucular crimes occurred.

resumed at 10 a.m., today. Numbers on chart correspond with dis-

se Sata nig SE DR te he eA) aA ROO AS roses a Satan AOL A Ne tO nc I sade Mies 9 Maat Nisa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Title .

Omitted AFFIDAVIT

In ‘

Printing Civil Action

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

reece: RETR SET RD rep rT Rete Cor pn a nets

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

iia PIES CIOS RIE PEGS A iy ne

138

AVFIDAVIT, 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 siesta 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

620

AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB

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 ‘groups 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.) °

vi 4, As a private citizen I have

been continually inwarved in advocating

the construction of low‘and moderate

income housing in the Town of Penfield |

since 1967 and have been a participant in

the jiiateaton 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

ordinanée to make nearly impossible the

approval of low ae moderate income

housing pedsebais.

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,

bee... ne ee

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 lafid 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 Penfiedd. In June

1970, this proposal was for the con-

struction of 490 single and multi-family

units including a commercial area.

Attached hereto 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

a part of the plan.

7. In August of 1970, Mr. Audino

submitted a second, different plan for

QL 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.)

6295

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 unitS5 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

AFFIDAVIT, 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 press

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

627

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.

11. 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 subeitted 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

Sem

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

OSE De te ROE RE

~~ 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 wai 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 surround i 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 Syracus

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

f i NS

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

_— FE TEAM RE OE ISL STON GE LLG LOT eae

632

AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB

“

Board directly contradicted the specific™

reasons for denial of the application -

a survey by the County of Monroe, Director

of Public Works, had revealed that

increased traffic would not create any

problem with respect to the existing

traffic facilities in the area. Further,

a’ thorough review of the proposed apart-

ment site demonstrated that, following

certain precautions, construction could

well proceed in the area without any

detrimental effect. The town board

further denied an ‘application by Penfield

Better Homes for a public hearing to

consider further the question of re-

zoning for the Highland Circle Project.

(See Exhibit T attached hereto and made .

a part hereof. )

memes.

633

AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB

14. ‘To my knowledge, Penfield Better

Homes is the only corporation to present

a plan to the town involving a subsidy

program in order to provide low moderate

income housing for individual persons

and particularly for families, with the.

exception of the recent, April 1972 UDC

' proposal.

ioe 28 September of 1971, O'Brien

Homes, Inc. submitted an application to

the Penfield Planning Board for the

re-zoning of.17.1 acres in Penfield from

AA to apartment zoning of approximately

12 units per acre. On the basis of a

County Planning Council recommendation,

O'Brien Homes, Inc. had previously committed '

itself to the Town of Penfield to set

aside a portion of land in a townhouse

development O'Brien Homes had underway to

A '

| TE: COREE MEL DT ANI ee LHL PILI TAS: i Re ei as nn

634

AFFIDAVAT, ANN McNABB

be used for low to moderate income

housing, '

16, O'Brien Homes outlined ae

proposal for a condominium development of

apartment homes, including a Home inners

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

a part hereof as Exhibit U.

“a9, The project was described as

| one to offer single people and small

families of low income with accumulated

funds and those of moderate income aeen

‘limited funds for down payment the

opportunity to enjoy the advantage of

home ownership.

PEE AE ROP ay

Aa aE 8 Ott An A DN ae nd At ts eh ie be AM i Slat Lena ah silt ow 6 "shh te

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

apart hereof.) There’was further

discussion by the Planning Board on

March 27, 1972. (See Exhibit W

attached hereto and made a part

Ba ethos SOIR ce ATE THRO I 5 56s: .

f ,

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 3

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

att 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-sqning 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

sieienton 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

*g ~

™

— PERRET Y Bia EE ETRE OS TET Ne eRe Ie ASSO

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 aebitine at 2\ 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

flanning 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 Pianned 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 moratorium.

Mr. Audino to cope with this situation,

i SN ee

eae

6-640

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 faet,

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

22. 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

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 practives have the

effect of specifically excluding low and

moderate income persons, blacks, Spanish-

i SE CANE R PO OE R 35

642

AFFIDAVIT, ANN McNABB

Americans, and other minorities from

living in the Town of Penfield.

Zs/_Ann McNabb

ANN McNABB

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

Friedrich J. Grasberger, Principal Research

Analyst

ROCHESTER BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL RESEARCH,

INC.

37 South Washington Street

Rochester, New York

14608

April, 1967

LLM LTT ITT NEE NIG HEH NMI a

6495

x EXHIBIT A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

The Scope of the Problem

Definition of Low and

Moderate Income Housing

The Démand 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 + ERE

Residential Zohing Practices

in the Towns of Monroe

County

Reasons for Low Density

Zoning

Conclusion

— PATS IRS 1 eaten: ne

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 ring

the 'fifties, increased almost 2,000

annually between 1960 and 1 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.t 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 valye 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

Saaou 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 réaliza-

tion that commerce and industry are

ty.s. Census of Manufactures: New York,

preliminary report.

@New York State Department of Commerce:

Personal Income in Counties of New York

PDI LAT IRI BON, ROSE

648

EXHIBIT A

running into severe difficulties to

recruit the manpower necessary for the

continuation of eae growth. Recent |

Surveys of Rochester industry point

to a current manpower shortage of more

than 10,000. Considering jin extfemely

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 3

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 i

economic as well as social health of

the Rochester community. Low and moderate

' ments has reached record levels in Monroe

ete PLE AMO nae Oh a ate ale ve

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-

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,

: . FT, a4. Of (ie vows apartments. Unfortu-

nately, however, almost all of this

construction occurred in price —

. 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--

ImMonroe County Planning Council: Sixth

Annual Building Permit and Population

Survey, Monroe County, New York, June,

1966. |

4 °

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)

measure the demand for such housing, and

(3)-measure its manwiy:

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,

: a a ’

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.+

Experience indicates that the average

family can afford to purchase a home

costing the equivalent of twice its

annual income.*

Another commonly used

yardstick suggests that _ 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.

eThis ratio would rise with an increasing

amount of cash down payment.

654

EXHIBIT A

Study, moderate and low income housing

will be defined as Purchasable homes

costing in the neighborhood of $15,000

or less and as rental units with monthly

gross rents of $140 or less.

Housing

The aggregate demand for additional

housing cf all kinds in the Rochester

area consists of (1) internal population

growth, i.e. young, Single adults and

newly married ccuples 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

rene

=—— — * ~

659

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.

—

° Ee Re ROR AE ey ene

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 3,5002 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

lNew York State Department of Health, Vital

Statistics Review, 1960.

EE EEL ABIL PRE Ie “Sp etre

Bier.

4 . a> te -

657

EXHIBIT A

homes. Due to the very young median

ages of the brides (21 years)! and

wioous (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 a aa 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 —" County has

risen from about 3,000 in the 'fifties

New York State Department of Health,

Vital Statistics Review, 1960.

FLEE) TE FIRE INE atte

———

nee

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 eye vacancies conducted by

the Rochester Bureau of Municipal

Research indicated that the number of low

and moderate 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 annua:

supplies of low and moderate income

homes which were purchased between 1960

and 1965.

ImMonroe County Planning Council: op.cit.

TE ANETTA GS BLN OTEI IOS Be Pn IAB ai gts ap gree

VEL RELY | AONE

660

EXHIBIT A

TABLE 2

NEW HOUSES COMPLETED AND SOLD IN MONROE

COUNTY, 1960-1965

p Homes Sellin For

15,000 or less 15 ,001-20 ,000

# f of Total #F % of Total

1960 61

43 697 49.3

1961 20 2 670 ° 39.0

1962 40 2.0 837 42.5

1963 y 4 842 34.6

1964 13. 45 793 27.6

1965 3 a 604 20.0

Source: First: Federal Savings and Loan

‘Association: Annual Surveys

of New Construction in the

Rochester Metropolitan Area,

1960-1965. 8

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

te 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 couas ot 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

these units are located in relatively

undesirable neighborhoods and are con-

Sequently unacceptable to a large portion

‘of the demand sector.

he Pat

ee a en ee eee

a aahtinn ella

LM ALLIED GARD ts 5 LB a GAA OR SE CR Share nea

662

7 EXHIBIT A ‘

TABLE 3

EXISTING HOMES SOLD IN MONROE COUNTY,

1960-1965

Existing Homes Selling for

$222000 or less $15 ,001-20,000

# of Total # 2 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 45.4 1,080 30.0

1965 1,634 43.3 1,094 29.0

Source: See Table 2

Reasons for the High Cost or 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?

FETT EEC RR IA che MRO EtAc Se. SUMED E ya +

663

EXHIBIT A

Has personal income not also grown to

maintain an equilibrium between the cost

offhousing and the ability to purchase

nee home?

TABLE 4

GROWTH OF BUILDING COSTS AND PER CAPITA

INCOME

Average Building Cost Per Capita

Index(United States) Income Index

(Monroe County)

1956 100.90 100.0

1957 103.6 102.5

1958 106.9 100.5

1959 111.6 104.8

1960 114.0 107.8

1961 115.8 108.0

1962 118.2 112.9

1963 121.0 116.7

1964 124.7 125.6

1965 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.

BRR.

Ristitek dy

AL ti Ooi LOGS

664

EXHIBIT A

Table 4 above reveals that per capita

personal income in Monroe County has

kept pace with the increases in average

building costs over thé past ten years.

Gniens 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

1y National Association of Home Builders'

Survey published in the January issue of

the Rochester Home Builders Monthly showed

a 1960-1964 price increase per lot of

31.3% in Rochester. However, the survey

neither defined"Rochester" nor the type

and location of lots surveyed:.

ROTOR ERY pee ELE Ca oS eee

665

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. .."

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 pe§eent

of the cost of the house. . .

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

linia.

NAGE POE A

667

EXHIBIT A

Pare nent sts

Laan tat Ne ok ese,

reduced by building at farther distances

from urban centers, but increased commuting

_ expenses and the scarcity or lack of

S aundetpal 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 Seen 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 cr town may adopt zoning

regulations. Under the law municipalities

are empowered to regulate and restrict

the size and use of buildings, structures,

and land.+ Within the context of this

Study we may ignore city and village

zoning since wery 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 vast areas of vacant land

Surrounding the urban cores and urbanized

rings. To provide a basis for evaluation

of zoning practices, the following

sections contain: (1) a review of

current expert opinion on optimum densities

for residential development in .suburban

lNew York State Department of Commerce:

Local Plarining and Zoning, 1966 Edition.

cts PELE LILES NY TES 5

669

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 Associationl 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 6,090 square

feet,the minimum Structural square

footage per family is 8704

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

P corresponds to four families per

acre.

4. The "bran 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 a eee

closer to the urban center.

ae ee Sane

il a tk he ald AM a

“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.

j Se tr eee ee

ins = ee fp ies |

671

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.

RGM St oe re gerne:

. OE ES PELE LOGIE LEE IEA SEA I BOA Tarren,

° al Oe ES LL OAL AR PR

GAP ASKER PRAY 8

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 5

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 2

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

Aer

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

q 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. The

acceptance of such uniformity in turn

has acted as a strong impediment to

zoning for smaller lots and homes because

BEESLEY OPIN EG DN Ra eR ete

674

EXHIBIT A

while uniformity, appears proper in the

case of middle and high income houses

it is not eeeactaiie for the usdevate

and,low income homes. In spite of

ample evidence to the eontrary, par-

ticularly in the towns of Brighton and

Irondequoit, small lots and homes are

popularly viewed as unsight ly and |

‘undesirable, and any action to relax

zoning bo perete such lots and homes

in large areas would be most likely

considered at attempt to create hates

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

bounty. with the exception of Irondequoit,

are far above the optimum standards

‘discussed in the preceding section.

Te a SO BIA hn OTE tne he 6 0 Mentone wiht the

;

6795

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.

OM A ell eI int te Bad > Jas

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 ficok 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 Saaes

higher than the minimum of 435 square feet

= ” . es =e ~ DE RA BS ne RIN Et

re a

;

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 planners. 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

BS .

Sa a

Wb AA WAL NAAN A NER EADS Sl At bale odes otitis

673

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

printout Supplied by the department

which listed all parcels of vacant land

zoned for residential use, a tabulation

was made of vacant parcels twenty acres!

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.

* 23

— - oneal

679

| 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:

i bevetopaent possibilities (in

these areasj)are extremely restricted.

Much of thesSe 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

I vacant land-in optimal density categories.

But even in these towns natural character-

lvonroe 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.

4 "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

3 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-

i tak Sag aOR LS AK ita ab ea tls

sidered in this context are: (1) the

available supply of vacant land of

optimum density zoning has most certainly

lipid., pp. 11,12.

waa LSS IE MORNE Cir Haines

621

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 tne nineteen towns have rzeised

their minimum requirements for apt and/or

dwelling sizes over the past three years!

Town zoning is running on a collision

course with the needs of the metropolitan

community.

dis aie esis ac

GE2

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

sore land to zoning categories fully

within the opt-:imum 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.

‘

i ian PRET EE SRLS SEPT Rs ST

<_— are die > a - - »

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 aPpmare 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 move 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

raul thate ony?

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 the

tax base. |

To illustrate the severity of this

problem, the school district of West

Irondequoit would presently require an

addition of $32,464 in full value to its

EPP PRET TENTS tie ve oe eee i NN RE AAS API I Sah Ree Bam aa fF

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', , ,"1

The only way to Stop the fiscal zoning

Gane and thereby eliminate a primary motive

for low density, high value zoning is to

Jerome P.Pickard: Opportunities and

Problems, American Society of Planning

Officials, 1966.

68%

EXHIBIT A

solve 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 governmental 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

F from these gervices) would be more

equitable,"

Some degree of equalization of

4 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

T University of North Carolina, Institute of

Government, Greensboro Suburban Analysis,

SOMALI Pa OO ca ter seman Brag 6 SES.

—_-

) 687

F 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 thé Secubrence 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 ied, particularly 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 panetasalte 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-

jlies 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

fs,

ae TLRS SBNE DICE ME CE ae pap onan ay OOO A ALE GPS POE VOT Ma Ne Ser aN ringy

ee ee ae eS

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 impect 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.

wy rhe 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

RUS SRE seg aay 5 Ee

692

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 o

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

623

EXHIBIT A

provision of streets and utilities,

and to preserve the natural and

scenic qualities of open space .. ."1l

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 ofthis

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

1 Monroe County Planning Council: Proposed

Zoning Ordinance, Town of Pittsford, 1965.

apie PEAS EAU UE PENNE SS RT EES Shek er rey ear Esher egeee

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 citizenry,

this community is inviting either economic

Stagnation or possibly corrective action by

the federal government or the courts. This

x: we be ee ~ _

¢ FI OR OTE TN IN BO Se rasan ee ne tase

' Se : ess 3 DANY j r t

695

EXHIBIT A

latter possibility is not as remote as it

sounds as these concluding quotations from

a recent court decision show:

ra "Zoning is a means by which a govern-

mental body can plan for the future--

it may not be used as a means to deny

the future. . ,

eure

"It is clear ... that the general

welfare is not fostered or promoted

by a zoning ordinance designed to be

exclusive and exclusionary.

"A zoning ordinance whose primary pur-

pose is to prevent the entrance of

newcomers in order to avoid future

burdens, economic and otherwise, upon

the administration of public services

and facilities cannot be held valid

vee te ee ”

ee Set Se Tee Sa Tors

~ National Land and Investment Company and

Dorothy M.Ennis vs. Harold E.Kohn and

Edith Kohn, his wife, Intervenors,

Appellants. Appeal of BOARD OF ADJUST-

MENT OF EASTTOWN TOWNSHIP. Supreme Court

of Pennsylvania, November 9, 1965, Re-

hearings Denied January 17, 1966.

EL SS en PGS OT Tee Tea

$97

EXHIBIT B

A MODEL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE

FOR A TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE

MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL

ROCHESTER CENTER FOR GOVERNMENTAL

AND COMMUNITY RESEARCH, INC.

March, 1970

G23

EXHIBIT B

A MODEL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)

ARTICLE FOR A TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE

Prepared by the

MONROD COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL

and the

ROCHESTER CENTER FOR GOVERNMENTAL,

AND COMMUNITY RESEARCH, INC

March, 1970

(Third Draft)

693

EXHIBIT B

Table of Contents

Page

INTRODUCTION 4

A MODEL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

ARTICLE FOR A TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE 1

SECTION 00-1 - STATEMENT OF

INTENT AND OBJECT-

IVES 1

A. Intent 1

B. Objectives 2

SECTION 00-2 - GENERAL REQUERE-

MENTS FOR PLANNING

UNIT DEVELOPMENTS

A. Minimum Area

B. ‘Ownership

C. Location of PUD District

D. Permitted Uses

E. Intensity of Land Use

F, Common Property in the PUD

NNIEwWwwo ww

SECTION 00-3 - PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENT

APPLICATION PROCEDURE

AND ZONING APPROVAL

PROCESS 6

A. General 6

B. Application for Sketch Plan

Approval 6

C. Application for PUD

Districting 10

D. Zoning for Planned Unit

Developments 12

700

EXHIBIT B

Table of Contents (Cont 'd)

SECTION 00-4 ~ SITE PLAN APPROVAL

PROCESS

A. Application for Preliminary

Site Plan Approval

B. Factors for Consideration

C. Action on Preliminary Site

Plan Application

D. Request for Changes in Sketch

Plan

E. Application for Final Detailed

Site Plan Approval

F. Action on the Final Detailed

Site Plan Application

G. Staging

SECTION 00-5 - OTHER REGULATIONS

APPLICABLE TO

PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENTS

A. Regulation After Initial

Construction and Occupancy

B. Site Plan Review

SECTION 00-6 - FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

704

EXHIBIT B

INTRODUCTION

The Planned Unit Development (PUD)

concept involves: PILAR on the level of a

neighborhood community rather. than on the

level of an individual lot or single use.

Generally, the PUD concept applies most

effectively to project areas exceeding 100

acres in size. PUD objectives are compre-

hensive and involve viewing the components

of a development as they relate to sis needs

of an entire town and, even, to a metro-

politan area. A PUD achieves flexibility

and efficiency in land use. A PUD conserves

our limited land resources by stopping

‘current inbiemne 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 rieighborhood levels. A

PUD includes a variety of residential types

pals A ESET nt ate i RR 4g PSNR PONDS LEE oS ORR ab oH mn iy og Per apt

702

_ EXHIBIT B

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 sub-

division regulations.

The PUD article presented here is

intended to provide adequate protection

for a responsible community and to channel

and encourage the developer in the

application of good design and planning.

The article falls into two major parts:

(1) a statement of intent, objectives and

general requirements, and (2) an application

procedure and approval process. The intent

states that the PUD ordinance is meant to

replace the usual approval process involving

rigid use and bulk specifications with the

-. : —

actual PUD plan submitted by the developer.

The objectives and erin provide a

déveloper with a ready itinias eet ‘guide showing

the minimum expectations of a town in

—— -

7023

_ EXHIBIT B

respect to a PUD.

The General Requirements permit a PUD

to be located in any part of the town where

an applicant can demonstrate that his hold-

ings meet PUD objectives. The use of a

variety of housing types is encouraged.

Depending on size and needs, accessory

commercial, service and other non-residential.

uses are allowed and encouraged. Intensity

of land use ("density") is determined by the

characteristics of a particular proposal.

. -The Application Procedure and Approval

Process (flow charted on the following page

by functional role) are designed to safe-

guard public interests while allowing

developers great flexibility and freedom.

The article provides standards and proced -

~ures by which the Planning Board and Town

Board may evaluate a PUD proposal. The

Sketch Plan review is thorough and permits

the Town Board-- on the basis of Planning

Eee ONO e ee OID CLEA IE ILE UGE Petia 2 ee ae Od Te

70d

EXHIBIT B

Board, public,+ and professional advice--

to give early approval to a project. The

key here is commitment at an early time in

project development through a clear spell-

ing out of administrative roles and res-

ponsibilities. By this, it is hoped that -

both developers' money and administrative

time will be saved ‘through quick elimina-

tion or modification of inadequate PUD

proposals. Once PUD zoning is granted by

; the Town Board (step 7 on the flow chart),

the approval of preliminary and final

plans is deemed to be the technical func-

tion of the Planning Board-- with only a

nominal role being played by the Town

Board unless the sketch plan is substant-

1 Prior to zoning a PUD district, the Town

Board holds a public hearing on the PUD

proposal (step 5a on flow chart). Note

that there is normally only this one

public hearing per project and that it is

held at the sketch plan stage.

;

709

EXHIBIT B

jally altered in its preliminary or final

form.

PROCEDURAL FLOW OF THE

——

PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR TOWNS

Role of Town Role of County

Role of Planning Role of Planning Counc}

Developer Board Town Board end Others

ae 4 4 bd

, DEVELOPER'S

' | Project Idea

Max. i 3

60 . JEVELOPER'S

mawoae *

days 2 | Sketch Plan - rar +

& Documents p- -7e--- PLANNING BD. (referrale) 5b

Study Review & TOWN BOARD =

Report 4 Refers and Re

Sets Hearing

i PLANNING |

Public eenees

5 om

” Hearing Ne PSE:

Report and

: TOWN BOARD Recommendations |

y 6 Approval* .

(w/conditions 4 Town Engineer

days if any) J

PUD District

; 4

‘| DEVELOPER'S ’

8 Preliminary 2

Site Plan -Re- --4 PLANNING BD.

Max Stuck Determination | (plan changed**) j

90. se & Approval® rs

= TOWN BOARD

days Zs A 1*

38 pprova

a él.

—+— — <— +

lo | Final Site oma

Nisin Plan PLANNING BD.

Max. fos

60 Se:

days “Gy | (w/conditions

if any)

ci VELCPER'S:

Compliance

Max. With any 12

Time Conditions

for ri

entire Pertormance

l3a

approval Bond

process 2 e

Installation of '

13d

Improvements

* Unfavorable reports or disapprovals by the Planning Board are

before Town Board upon initiative

final.

OR chores pian

Town Bldg.

Permit Issued

subject to hearing

of the developer. Town Board disapprovals are

———< | EXHIBIT B

The approval process could take a max-

imum of 300 days from first submission to

issuing of building permit. This 300 day

period is maximum provided an applicant

acts at his earliest opportunity after

each town decision. While a large PUD

will probably require at least 300 days,

smaller PUD's should be processed far

more quickly. Although 300 days, almost

an entire year, seems a long time for an

application to be approved, it should be

noted that commitment occurs at step 7,

within 5 months time. The remaining steps

involve detailed design development which

take this length of time as a matter of

course and considering the investment invol-

ved, actually demand review periods of this

nature. A good architect designing a

Single $50,000 home would take at least two

or three months to develop his plans. How

much more important, then, is a $50,000,000

TAR

EXHIBIT B

deveinnenne...

A PUD may be staged. However, if any

plan requires more than 24 months to be

completed, a PUD must be staged and a

Staging plan must be developed.

After i

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.