# Appendix — Warth v. Seldin > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0441%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 422 U.S. 490 ## 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 ei 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 = ce 0 > 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 |% ye 536 EXHIBIT A > am a0 > 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. 34 > qo oD > 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 Co b0 > = 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. 'v 540 EXHIBIT A > / r4 4) > Ss 00 ‘rH f te) © re 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 SS 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 i 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 f esi ot & aS 0d SED Osh) : B>DE0S (He) Army remy ste Berney go meprqugng d XTGNadddV u 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 = 7 a A a | | 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 oy Suywez pretsvea ne 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 5. 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 © Average density not te exceed b dvelling unites per acre. 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 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) a) b) c) a) e) 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 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- 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 3. 268 E 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 i. re 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 SY 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 1 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 1 80 7,290 7,695 8,100 8,505 8,910 9,315 9, 585 9,855 Seneca 6 7 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 46 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 2 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) N i -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; 3) 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 ia 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) Ty 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 q 4 4 : ] 587% Peni SAS OE ig ort hal RE ie Bo REE ee IBIT C we kaa ee Stee ate AH 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 oe APB Bie. Cm sgenn » eS SG met eae >E ae % se BRAUN: 1970 (cont'd.) Total Pop. White rz 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 Sa 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 © Churches 13 $ 1,141,600 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 9 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 so a eae PN ees ot csr PRA vey .' ny 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 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 i WHAVdXVI FAL ZLOL ‘9 aunf ‘duusag hepvany *4A°y ‘ssIsoqvoy qingqng NOIN)-SIWLL, FHL fl wi 2 Survey by the Housing itd fh 13 Ht uw} iff: ity ai. HI ih : Hs af] ; Hanne a Uh jaa bid -sg? 492236] ' Vs cine uh eg s ital! i Mi HEY fay 1334 * Hil uae z. ©) —_— } 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 ~e 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 3 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 a 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 r, 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 ‘ al 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 i 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. 0 641 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 in Printing 643 EXHIBIT A TOWN ZONING AND THE HOUSING SHORTAGE ROCHESTER BUREAU OF | MUNICIPAL RESEARCH, | INC. A CITIZEN AGENCY 644 EXHIBIT A TOWN ZONING AND THE SHORTAGE OF MODERATE AND LOW INCOME HOUSING _Monroe County, New York A Study Memorandum Prepared for the CIVIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce by Friedrich J. Grasberger, Principal Research Analyst ROCHESTER BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL RESEARCH, INC. 37 South Washington Street Rochester, New York 14608 April, 1967 . 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 E i ¢ % 2 3 : 4 ; 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 s 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 Pa 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. The Demand for Low and Moderate Income © 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 Fa 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 Am 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. ey oe he Pat ee a en ee eee a aahtinn ella LM ALLIED GARD ts 5 LB a GAA OR SE CR Share nea ey 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. Ss 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 s 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 i 4 ] # b ia 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 ; i 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 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 i 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 a 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 es 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 21 704 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 Ww 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. Dep [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0441%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.