Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/12/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I No. 10 Validity of onine. ulations-- ity Adopts = rdinance Imposing Different Parkin • ' equirements for esidences I wned by Absentee owners Property owners argue ordinance violates city law Citation: Tupper v. City of Syracuse, 93 A.D.3d 1277, 941 N.Y.S.2d 383 (4th Dep't 2012) NEW YORK (03/23/12) —This case addressed the issue of whether a city ordinance that imposed different parking requirements for residences owned by absentee owners violated city law, which required regulation of open spaces be "uniform for each class of buildings throughout any district." The Background/Facts: In 2010, the City of Syracuse, New York (the "City"), adopted ordinances related to parking spaces for one- and two-family residences. General Ordinance 21 imposed parking requirements for one- and two-family residences that were owned by absentee owners (i.e., nonowner occupied houses). Under General Ordinance 21, one- and two-family residences that were owned by absentee owners were required to have one off- street parking space for each potential bedroom. Although existing absentee - owner properties were exempt from the new requirements, the owners of those properties would be required to meet the new parking requirements if they made any "material changes" to the properties. Owners of nonowner occupied houses in the City, as well as an unincorpo- rated association of owners of those properties, and the president of that as- sociation (collectively, the "Owners"), challenged the validity of General Ordinance 21. Among other things, they argued that the City had violated City law because General Ordinance 21 treated absentee -owner properties differ- ently from owner -occupied properties. The Supreme Court dismissed the Owners' complaint. The Owners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed as modified. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York, agreed with the Owners that the City had violated city law (Second Class Cit- ies Law § 20(24) and Syracuse City Charter § 5-1302) because General Ordinance 21 was not uniform for each class of buildings within the district. The court found that the statute and charter provided in relevant part that the City had the power "[t]o . . . regulate and determine the area of yards, courts and other open spaces . . . " and that such regulations "shall be uniform for each class of buildings throughout any district . . .." The City had argued that the statute and charter did not apply to General Ordinance 21. The court, however, disagreed. It found that the creation of off- 2012 Thomson Reuters 9