Timeline of Submissions as of July 23, 2013
I. First Submission
On Feb. 29, 2012, the County submitted to the federal housing monitor overseeing the Aug. 10, 2009 Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal (“the Settlement”) a report titled, “Review and Analysis of Municipal Zoning Ordinances in Westchester County,” with an appendix titled, “Compendium Data Tables of 43 Municipal Zoning Ordinances.” This report was prepared in compliance with a request of the monitor in his letter dated Nov. 17, 2011.
This report indentified 853 unique zoning districts in the county and provided information on each district in 31 categories including types of uses permitted, minimum lot area dimensional requirements, maximum density, maximum lot, floor area ratio standards and restrictions on Section 8 housing vouchers. The report concluded:
"The compilation of data on each zoning district in Westchester County shows that the zoning regulations in place provide for essentially all types of development, both residential and non-residential. This is evident both on a county-wide basis and on a municipal level basis. The levels of density permitted cover a very wide range, providing opportunity for a variety of residential development types. The zoning districts and their standards reflect historic development patterns, the availability of supporting infrastructure and natural physical conditions. The types of detailed regulation identified in the table columns reflect typical zoning practice that can be found in most every zoning ordinance nationwide."
The report also presented an analysis of each of the 43 municipal zoning ordinances in Westchester County with respect to six “Restrictive Practices” that were identified by the Monitor. This analysis did not identify specific local zoning practices that have exclusionary impacts.
II. Second Submission
On July 6, 2012, the county submitted to the monitor a report prepared by Pace Land Use Law Center, dated June 29, 2012. The report, titled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair and Affordable Housing Under New York and Federal Law and Polices,” provided a legal analysis of exclusionary zoning law in New York State that provided a legal basis for the conclusions of the county’s Feb. 29 zoning analysis.
The cover letter to the monitor stated:
"…the county's zoning submission found that each municipality's zoning ordinance met the test of providing for a range of housing types and a range of density that is appropriate to the geographic area and supportable by existing or new infrastructure. Thus, each zoning ordinance met the test set forth in Professor Nolon's study as follows: "A local zoning ordinance provides for a well-ordered and balanced community if it contains a wide range of uses, including multifamily housing, accommodates development that would reasonably be expected to locate in the specific geographic area, and conforms to these (smart growth) state and federal policies.
The county finds that all these factors establish that its municipalities meet the standards set by Berenson and the line of cases that followed, and that their zoning is not exclusionary as determined by the Zoning Submission."
III. Third Submission
In July and August 2012, the county submitted several reports to the monitor in response to the monitor’s request for additional data as set forth in his letter dated May 14, 2012. This request was supported by an order of the court filed July 27, 2012.
In compliance with the court order, the county provided the additional data in accordance with an agreed-to timeline. This data consisted of:
- Table identifying to what degree each municipality has met its allocated number of affordable units under the Westchester County Housing Opportunity Commission Affordable Housing Allocation Plan 2000-2015. (July 31, 2012). Go to Letter and Table
- List of all personnel who participated in the preparation of the February 29 zoning review. (Aug. 7, 2102)
- Table indentifying the area and percentage of land zoned for building multi-family housing in each of the 31 eligible municipalities. (Aug. 8, 2012). Go to Table
- Tables identifying the racial and ethnic composition (black and Hispanic) of each zoning district in the each of the 31 eligible municipalities – 2000 Census and 2010 Census. (Aug. 15, 2012). Go to Tables
- Tables indicating the presence of the six questioned zoning practices (“Restrictive Practices”) in each zoning district in the each of the 31 eligible municipalities. (Aug. 27, 2012). Go to Tables
In addition, the monitor and the county met pursuant to the court order so as to agree to a methodology for considering the cost and geographic implications of the six questioned zoning practices and a timetable for delivery of additional data analyses.(Aug. 1 and Aug. 7, 2012)
IV. Fourth Submission
On Sept. 6, 2012, the county provided to the monitor the data required under the “methodology for considering the cost and geographic implications of the six questioned zoning practices.” This data consisted of:
- Map and table identifying acreage in each of the 31 eligible municipalities where multi-family housing is permitted excluding when subject to special use provisions. Go to Map II-A. Go to Table II-A.
- Map and table identifying developed and undeveloped acreage in each of the 31 eligible municipalities where multi-family housing is permitted excluding when subject to special use provisions. Go to Map II-B. Go to Table II-B.
- Maps and table identifying undeveloped acreage that is constrained and that is not constrained in zoning districts in each of the 31 eligible municipalities where multi-family housing is permitted excluding when subject to special use provisions. Go to Table II-C [Constrained land is defined as steep slopes, wetlands and 100 year flood plains.] Go to Maps II-C and II-D set.
- Table identifying undeveloped acreage that is not constrained reduced by 80% build-out factor in zoning districts in each of the 31 eligible municipalities where multi-family housing is permitted excluding when subject to special use provisions. Go to Table II-D(1)
- Maps and table identifying the theoretical number of multi-family units that can be developed in each zoning district in each of the 31 eligible municipalities where multi-family housing is permitted excluding when subject to special use provisions. Go to Maps II-C and II-D set. Go to Table II-D(2).
- Table identifying the prevailing market rate for multi-family units in each of the 31 eligible municipalities. Go to Table III-A-2
- Table identifying the multi-family unit value and land value per unit by quartile in each eligible municipality. Go to Table III-A-3
- Table indentifying the cost of construction of Westchester County-funded multi-family units. Go to Table III-B-1
- Table identifying density incentives within zoning ordinances in each of the 31 eligible municipalities for multi-family development for affordable housing. Go to Table III-C-1
- Table indentifying the area and percentage of land zoned for building multi-family housing in each of the 31 eligible municipalities. Go to Table III-C-2
- Table identifying streamline approval process for approving housing that includes affordable housing within zoning ordinances in each of the 31 eligible municipalities. Go to Table III-C-3
V. Fifth Submission
In October and November 2012, the county submitted additional reports to the monitor in response to the monitor’s request for additional data as set forth in his letter dated October 1, 2012. The county provided the additional data in accordance with the monitor’s timeline. This data included:
- Excel files of all previously submitted data and tables. (view Oct. 5, 2012 response).
- Table revising the Aug. 16, 2012 table identifying the racial and ethnic composition of each zoning district so as to add data for single-race white. (view Oct. 5, 2012 response)
- Table providing an update of the Aug. 1, 2012 table showing to what degree each municipality has met its allocated number of affordable units under the Westchester County HOC Affordable Housing Allocation Plan so as to add the results of a new survey of the municipalities conducted by the county on Oct. 11, 2012. (Go to Nov. 20, 2012 Submission).
- Tables showing the percentage of single-race white, single-race black and Hispanic populations in each zoning district with the same minimum lot area requirement in all forty-three municipalities. The tables show the calculated the average for each of these categories for districts in eligible and in non-eligible municipalities. (Nov. 21, 2012)
The cover letter to the monitor stated:
"A review of the above supplemental zoning analysis found that even where the minimum lot zoning requirement is identical, there is still a wide variety of race and ethnicity characteristics…As such, because of the wide-ranging results across multiple municipalities with the same zoning requirements, the minimum lot area requirement does not appear to be either a predictor or cause of race and ethnicity characteristics of zoning district population. Therefore, there should be no expectation that a revision of minimum lot area requirement would result in a change in the race and ethnicity characteristics of the population in a zoning district."
This analysis, utilizing data previously submitted to HUD and the Monitor, examines whether the zoning ordinance in each of the 31 eligible municipalities demonstrates a disparate impact on minorities. In examining disparate impact, the focus was on determining if a local zoning ordinance had a significantly greater impact on minorities than on the single-race white population of the community.
In conducting this analysis, the County reviewed the population data for each municipality, splitting the population into two main categories: the population inside zoning districts where multi-family housing is permitted as-of-right and the population in all other zoning districts in the municipality. These populations were then analyzed based on race (single-race black and Hispanic residents individually, and combined) in comparison to the total population of the municipality. The analysis further considered whether any of the six restrictive practices were present in the municipality and, if so, whether the practice had a disparate impact on minorities.
For each municipality, a multi-page narrative was prepared, synthesizing the data previously provided. Each narrative is accompanied by a map of the municipality showing the locations of zoning districts that: (1) permit multi-family housing as-of-right; (2) do not permit multi-family housing as-of-right; and (3) do not permit residential uses. Also included are two data tables for each municipality - one showing the population figures for both the 2000 and 2010 Censuses and one showing the racial composition of zoning districts sorted by minimum lot size requirements.
The analysis of the zoning ordinances of the 31 eligible municipalities shows that none of the zoning ordinances has a disparate impact on minorities. Any restrictive impacts from zoning did not disproportionately affect anyone based on race. Further, the analysis clearly shows that, in every single eligible community, the minority population has increased and that each and every one of the 31 eligible municipalities has grown more racially diverse since 2000. Based on the 217 page analysis, the County has concluded that no local zoning ordinance in the 31 eligible communities is an impediment to AFFH based on race.
VII. Seventh Submission
On June 13, 2013, the County submitted a seventh zoning analysis to HUD and the monitor. This zoning analysis builds on the County's Sixth Zoning Analysis, which is contained at Appendix 51 of the AI, and attempts to address concerns raised by HUD in its May 10, 2013 letter, which provided the reasons for the disapproval of the County's FY 2012 and FY 2013 Annual Action Plans. If this revised analysis was found acceptable to HUD, the County stated it would conduct such an analysis with respect to the remaining 26 eligible municipalities.
VIII. Eighth Submission
On July 23, 2013, the County submitted an eighth zoning analysis to HUD and the monitor. This zoning analysis builds on the County's Sixth and Seventh Zoning Analyses and attempts to address concerns raised by HUD at the technical assistance conference held with members of HUD on July 2, 2013. If this revised analysis was found acceptable to HUD, the County stated it would conduct such an analysis with respect to the remaining 21 eligible municipalities.