March 2, 2006, Public Hearing

The Clarion Borough Housing and Zoning Committee held a Public Hearing on March 2, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Clarion Free Library, the purpose of the hearing was to receive comments regarding proposed amendments to Ordinance #03-719, Zoning.

A list of those people in attendance is attached to the Official File Copy of these minutes.

Ms. Vavrek, Chairman of the Housing and Zoning Committee, called the hearing to order at 6:02 p.m. 

Ms. Vavrek:  As you know, this is a Public Hearing concerning several issues with our Housing and Zoning, which means we will receive any testimony that you want to give.  We ask that whoever wants to speak come up to the podium.  Linda will be taking minutes.  So, she wants to be able to know who is speaking.  So, you need to give your name and your address and simply state what your opinion is or what you think that you would like to say about whichever of these issues.  Because we have several zoning issues in one ordinance that will have to be or we’re asking be changed. 

Mr. Tom Leavy, 128 East Eighth Avenue: This in regarding to zoning, of course, and I have a brief statement here I’d like to make.  If we desire to preserve the integrity of neighborhoods in Clarion Borough, we must be more stringent in establishing rules and regulations governing residential land use.  You look at what happened to South Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues, there are virtually no backyards remaining.  Practically all have been converted to parking lots to meet the need of required parking spaces.  We need to remove Item 3D from the proposed zoning regulations.  This item states if a single family dwelling is owner-occupied the owner and two boarders, roomers, or lodgers, a total of three unrelated people, may reside there.  What if the owner decides to vacation in Florida from October to May, does ownership then have any significance?  Zoning should have nothing to do with ownership.  This is precisely what I was told when I contacted the Municipal Planning Office in Harrisburg.  (Unintelligible) prior zoning regulations.  And they said that zoning should deal specifically with numbers of people in a housing unit and not ownership.  It is Item 3D that created numerous problems that now exist within R-1 neighborhoods.  Some people discovered or were told that if they purchased a single-family dwelling in an R-1 neighborhood and included their child’s name, likely a college student, on the deed, they could then have their child and two more people, likely college students, reside there.  I don’t believe 3D was intended to be used for that purpose.  But since it has been, why do we not remove it?  Removal of that provision would prevent more of the problems than hardships it will create.  I’m sure that there are those that will argue that 3D is needed to provide widows and older residents with an opportunity to have two boarders, roomers, or lodgers to supplement their financial needs.  This may be true.  However, by maintaining this provision opens the door to the creation of the previously mentioned problem.  Moreover one could argue that there’s a need for two boarders, roomers, or lodgers why not three or four.  What’s magic about two?  As it now is they can have one under Item 1C.  Why do we not follow the democratic principal, the greatest good for the greatest number?  At a previous meeting, Attorney John Marshall was asked by Ralph Leary if it would be possible to have a “frat-type house” in an R-1 District.  And if five or six parents combined bought a house in an R-1 District and if each of the five or six included their child’s name on the deed could the five or six children then live there and could each of them two boarders, roomers, or lodgers reside there also.  John’s answer was yes if the residents met the other requirements, such as rooms, lots, parking, and so on.  I don’t think that was ever intended to be possible or desired in an R-1 neighborhood.  I know there is a proposal that would require the approval of Council for this to be permitted.  However, we cannot be certain how this or any future Council will respond to such request.  These situations and some other potential problems can easily be avoided by simply removing Item 3D and that’s (unintelligible) that no more than two unrelated occupants in an R-1 single-family dwelling unit.  Thank you.

Ms. Vavrek: I think Tom you were referring to 4D?

Mr. Ralph Leary: Yea, Tom you’re referring to 4D.

Mr. Leavy: 4D, okay, yes.

Mr. Ralph Leary, 129 South Eighth Avenue:  I had an opportunity to look at the proposed changes.  But I think I have to say on the outset, I’m kind of disappointed both at the changes and at the process to which these changes occurred.  We were told back in the fall, I was under the expectation that there would be a number of work sessions to try to get some information, to get input about what some of the Borough residents wanted.  And then when nothing happened, what we have in front of us is something that I know you’re thinking about but written here appears to be a little less than complete.  It’s a done deal.  So, I have to say I’m kind of disappointed in the process as well as the document.  I guess one of the things that still baffles me about the document is it appears the primary concern is with boarders.  I guess I don’t understand that.  One of the things that had we had hearings I would like to have found out and I would have asked is how many situations are there in this Borough where there are boarders?  Where there are people who need to have two boarders?  Are there 50, are there 100, are there 10?  Is it a significant problem that we need to hold onto boarders to make sure that we have two, do we have an exception (unintelligible) other places it was two unrelated; but, for some reason, we’re going to allow it with boarders.  Why?  Like I said I’m really baffled as to why we need to have that exception.  If there is such a need, then I’d like to hear it.  But I see no evidence.  I mean do we have any records?  Does the Borough Zoning Office, Borough Council have any records as to how many people in this Borough are under this?  Actually you probably ought to have records; because if there are any changes, it would be good to know how many are going to be grandfathered in.  And some of the other things that I would have brought up that aren’t dealing with this document at all is that one of the great concerns I had had to do with enforcement.  How are you going to enforce this?  Borough Council can create as many ordinances as they want.  Borough Council can decide that every bathroom in a house with boarders has to have purple shower curtains.  I don’t advise you to do that.  But if there’s no enforcement, then it’s a meaningless ordinance.  If there is no mechanism, no support for enforcement, it is meaningless.  Would it be possible?  I think I would have raised this had we had other meetings.  Can the Borough say that landlords not only must say how many people live in their apartments but also give the names of those people so that the enforcement officer can go to find out if those indeed are the people who are living there?  Who is going to be checking on housing to make sure that there is compliance and how?  Who is going to be enforcing the parking regulations and how?  And I think it’s interesting, because I walked home from work today.  And in my R-1 neighborhood there was a car parked across the sidewalk and another car parked on the street, both illegally.  Neither of them ticketed.  You don’t have enforcement, you don’t have any ordinances.  Along with that, I would have liked more information about the nature of sanctions.  That is to say what punishments, or put it another way, what incentives for compliance is the Borough going to use?  The process as defined in the codes strikes me as extraordinarily cumbersome.  I can’t imagine that the Borough Council or the Zoning Officer really wants to go through that rather cumbersome process.  It appears to me that none of those issues were addressed.  And I find that very disappointing that it appears as one small, tiny aspect of the problem is being addressed, one tiny small aspect is being examined while the rest of the problem continues.  If you got a severe laceration, you shouldn’t be putting a band aid on it.  Thank you.

Ms. Joan Leavy, 128 South Eighth Avenue:   I have a couple questions, one is probably for Bob.  When you talk about parking and you have, well there’s a house (unintelligible) next door, and they don’t park down at the end of the driveway, they pull up, as the one right now there, clear up to the back of the house, just use the whole lot, I don’t know why.  If they have to have, and I know they can’t do it in winter, but if they have to have concrete or macadam, crushed gravel or whatever it is.  Does that crushed gravel, macadam and so on have to be contiguous with the alley, or can they put that part clear up by the house and still drive through the yard?  That’s just a question and I couldn’t understand it.  My other question is if I’m reading the new Borough ordinance the way you have it correctly, is Council going to decide on every house that someone in an R-1 District, or I guess any single-family dwelling in an district, are you going to have to decide who has boarders or anything and who doesn’t?   Every house?

Ms. Vavrek: I don’t know how many every house is.

Ms. Leavy: No, but I mean every house that

Ms. Vavrek: It’s not a continuous day-to-day event.

Ms. Leavy: Right, but I mean every house has to come before the Zoning Board or before Council?

Ms. Vavrek: It’s Council.

Ms. Leavy: It’s Council, whole Council.  Okay, thank you.

Ms. Vavrek: Bob, did you want to comment on her

Mr. Ragon: That was a point brought up earlier and one would assume that they have a driveway there, they would travel it to get to their parking area.  But, as an oversight, we’ll deal with that in the ordinance.

Ms. Leavy: Oh, okay.  Thank you.

Mr. Brian Acey, 112 Oak Ridge Drive: I just have a couple general comments.  I commend your efforts to try to clean things up.  The R-1 zones, it does nothing but help decent landlords as far as getting students away or other (unintelligible) that want to be desirable in those neighborhoods.  I think that’s a good thing.  I’ve no complaints.  Keep up the good work on that.  That, I think, is the main issue why you guys are changing the ordinance now.  The second issue I have is there is a portion of South Street that is being rezoned from R-2 to an R-1.  And in the summer of ’03, we had discussion on this being changed from an R-3 to an R-1.  My question is; and if someone could explain to me, I could possibly be okay with it, however, my calculation is there’s 21 properties that are affected by this proposed change.  Of which, 14 of those are already duplex or multi-unit houses.  That leaves 7 left that are single-family houses.  I just don’t understand what the reason for the change is; and if someone could explain that to me that might go a long way in establishing why that is being changed for an area that’s already rental properties, predominantly rental properties, into a single-family area.  And, just for the record, I think you guys are all aware of this, but the uses that are already established as a tri-plex, there’s an eight-plex, several four-plexes there, those properties in question will always remain as a grandfathered use for as long as they’re in existence.  And also I think some intent needs to be defined as far as what the intent of the landlord is if the property does sit empty for 6 months.  Some of those things need clarified and it may make things a little more clearer with everyone involved with those properties.  What I’m asking by that is say for a market change or a reason or a fire that you don’t get your property rebuilt within 6 months, you still have that intent of doing so but you don’t get into it.  And then 6 months 1 day rolls by and you decide to go down for the building permit and the Zoning Officer or the Borough says we can’t do that at this point because it’s reverted back to an R-1 zone.  I think we need to maybe get some procedures established with that so we know what you are allowed to do.  And lastly the parking issues, I kind of feel like I might be the cause of that one as well.  I’m sure most of you are aware I had a request along Payne Street dealing with parking.  I never really did get a good response from the Hearing Board or anyone as far as that matter goes.  And now I see it’s being changed.  It’s being changed completely from a gray area in the Zoning Ordinance to something completely different.  And I’m just wondering why and is that going to be a blanketed thing the whole way across the Borough or is it just in certain zones?  I can definitely see an R-1 zone not allowing people to put parking in their front yards.  In an R-2 zones, where you have some more density, I think there should be some exceptions there.  And also in an R-3 zone, where mainly the students are now, I would think that there should be a lot of exceptions there.  They don’t affect the predominant areas, the residential areas or anything, that would be established now is going to remain that way.  I would think that the required parking for students is higher than any other category in the Zoning Ordinance.  I would hope that there would be some exceptions with that the requirements coincide with the ordinance.  And one last thing, and I’m not sure if someone can explain to me as well, the changes in the parking in right-of-way.  I’m not sure exactly what is going on with that.  I would like some more information on that.  I understand that you’re trying to limit parking in rights-of-way, which is also a good thing, but to what extent.  I would like to understand what or how that’s going to affect me.  Thanks.

Ms. Vavrek: Bob, I didn’t know if you wanted to address these questions now or wait?

Mr. Ragon: Well one that I can address is the 6-month period for grandfathering.  The ordinance and the MPC do not allow the Zoning Officer the latitude to determine intent as to what the landlord or person who owns the property intends to do is specific as to what should happen.  That’s the job of the Zoning Hearing Board to determine what the intent or the actual intent was or abandonment or; all the Ordinance says is once the use is discontinued for a period of 6 months, for whatever reason, then it has to become a conforming use.  And the MPC does not allow the Zoning Officer the latitude to sit down and say ‘well did he intend to use it or didn’t he intend it’.  It gives the Zoning Officer too much latitude in deciding issues.  That’s why there’s the appeal process to the Zoning Hearing Board.  As for the parking in the rights-of-way, the rights-of-way weren’t designed for parking.  They are actually designed for a green area, which most rights-of-way had, and the only reason they don’t have it is because it’s been lax.  People have been parking in there, especially, I hate to single out students; but in student areas, that’s what happens.  They pull off the road and figure they’re off the road and I’m not on the paved portion of the highway so I’m in a parking space.  Well that is not a parking space.  That’s a right-of-way area that wasn’t designed or intended to be a parking space.  The other issue is people who (unintelligible) ‘well I’m paving this area to make my own parking place along the road’.  That’s not a right.

Ms. Vavrek: (Unintelligible) front yard parking, he was discussing it should be changed, should be different in R-3.

Mr. Ragon: We could look at that.  But I don’t think it may be an issue of a how that is handled.  R-3 areas may need more parking.  I think the intent of the Parking Ordinance is that the landlord should be able to supply all the parking on the lot without having to utilize the front yard parking area.  And it was originally intended that 25% of that be allowed for parking.  Brian and I had a disagreement over that.  And I thought that requiring the parking to be in the rear or side yards not only cleaned up the frontage of the places, especially down in student areas, it required the landlord to be a little bit more creative with his designs on the residential use of the property itself.

Ms. Vavrek: Well I would think, too, that in an R-3 where you would have so many tenants that if you park everyone’s front yard up, then it looks like no longer housing units but it looks like cars with houses interspersed.  I mean I don’t understand why it couldn’t be accommodated at the back of the lot or side of the lot.  I mean I would have to agree with Bob on that.  I mean you’re piling more cars in the front of each house, each unit, or you want to do that?

Mr. Acey: Well I guess maybe how I should have phrased the question is the current Zoning Ordinance, to clarify what Bob is saying, it says that the front yard areas are allowed to be used for required parking.  However, the gray area is that the use of time, percentage of time, it says 25% of the time.  The way Mr. Ragon is interpreting it

Ms. Vavrek: No, it’s 25% of the frontage.

Ms. Leonard: Of the space not the frontage.

Mr. Acey: Read it carefully, read it very carefully, I understand what you’re all saying

Ms. Vavrek: That’s why we tried to clarify it in the new one that was written.

Mr. Acey: I’ve had two attorneys tell me that the way that I am reading this is very, very redundant and unenforceable.  That’s why I asked for clarification.  If you read it, I think you’d see what I’m trying to say there.  But over and above that, you are taking it out 100%, completely 100%.  The only way you’re going to be able allowed to park in an R-3 zone or in any front yard is if you have a garage or a driveway, correct?  How many rental properties do you see with a garage?  You don’t see them.  So, virtually you’re eliminating all the parking of the front yard within every zoning district; commercial included, the stuff on Main Street.  I just don’t see, I think there needs to be some areas redefined.  And understanding that the R-3 area in particular that’s what I’m concerned about mainly.  You have the highest parking requirements in an R-3 area.  However, we’re getting even farther restrictions on there.  And, in a Borough, where the majority of lots are 50 x 150, you just don’t have a lot of room; you need to utilize that space.  And, not in all instances.  In an R-1 zone, again let me repeat, I think it would be very prudent not to have a ton of cars in the front yard.  However, when you drive around through Clarion, you can see the past practices.  There are already a lot of parking right in front of yards that you’re never going to change this anyway.  And, again like I said I applaud the Borough’s effort in keeping everyone in the R-3 zones, you know, getting things cleaned up by district.  That’s what I’m saying, just try to get the zoning by district so it’s specific to those individual properties.

Ms. Martha Campbell, 58 East Eighth Avenue: Isn’t there a (unintelligible) supposed to be allotted, when you have a rental

Ms. Vavrek: (Unintelligible) your front

Ms. Campbell: Well, just total.  If you have a rental, don’t you have to have an x-by-x amount of land for a car to park?

Ms. Vavrek: Well most of those rental units have been given conditional use of some kind so that they don’t already have

Ms. Campbell: All rental units?

Ms. Vavrek: No, well not all of them.  But some of them have been given changes or allowed to change, because of the fact that they do not have very much of a side yard or a front yard or a back yard or whatever.  But (unintelligible) total percentage on the lot.

Mr. Ragon: No, the parking space has to be 9 x 18.  And there is a requirement for a number of parking spaces depending on whether it’s a single-family residential.  There is a requirement as Brian said that if it’s specifically dedicated to student housing, there’s a requirement that you have one space per occupant.  Single-family residential property is only required to have two spaces; two-family dwellings is two spaces per dwelling.  Specific sizes are required, yes.  Is that what you wanted to know, Martha?

Ms. Campbell: Yes.  Well I live close to student housing.  Okay, there’s nothing more appealing than driving to your house through a couple blocks there.  Kids park all over the lot, you know.  Not well taken care of.

Ms. Vavrek: I agree.

Ms. Campbell: You know.  And it’s like you buy a home and you try to be proud of it and keep it up and then we’ve got that mess. 

Mr. Leavy:  I just had one comment and I’m not sure that the Council’s aware of this, but maybe the Solicitor should be made aware of it at some point, that there is a court case; this is according to the people in Harrisburg, that at Planning thing, and it’s Bel Air or Bel, it’s Ohio.  And it went to the Supreme Court in which case they were permitted to zone against student property.  And it passed or upheld in the Supreme Court.  It’s Bel Air, Bel something in Ohio.  So, the idea that you discriminate against students is possible, if you want to do it, student housing.

Mr. Zerfoss: I want to question, back to the family dwellings where you can have roomers.  I think this part could be amended or added to is very wrong.  That was good back in the 60’s and 70’s when I came to Clarion.  There were a lot of homes that had where the dear old grandmother or grandfather had a boarder to help supplement the house.  That no longer exists no more.  I think it’s very few of them.  Most of the houses at that time are now torn down and something else built, or they became part of a two or three block area, which is now controlled by student housing and landlords.  This is something we don’t need.  If we put this in, this is putting, allowing more students, allowing more housing through the backdoor approach instead of out front.  I remember when we met here with Tom and Ralph and them and we talked about, the main thing there was the definition of a family, an R-1.  And I think Marshall’s definition was different than mine and yours and Ralph and Tom.  And it involved a house down in that particular area that a family and a student and how many could he rent to?  The definition to me at that time was in an R-1, two unrelated.  So, if I own a home, I could have someone else, one more renter not that and two.  If you look at this, if I read it right, now instead of two in that home down your way, now you can have three.  If I’m the owner, now I’m allowed two boarders.  So, I went from two to three in that particular area down (unintelligible).  We went through this and so that’s what it is now.  So, next year, if it’s one or two, these same people come and say ‘my taxes went up, our utilities went, now instead of two we want three’.  And then the next year is four, and where does it end.  And Council has done this; on Wood Street where we changed a couple months ago or so, allowing someone to, ‘well we have four or I had three and now I want four and then five’.  And the man had said he would never put more or want more than five or six.  I mean they do this.  And what’s going to prevent this from going up.  And like I said it already affects where they live, those people live in an R-1.  I don’t think we need the roomer, the boarder thing.  I think this is 2006.  From 1963-64, the town has changed, the University has changed.  We got Reinhard Villages.  I’m just saying the grandmother and the grandfather; and I’m a grandfather and I would have no intention of renting to two students.

Ms. Moore: Joanne, did your Committee take any of the things out of 4?

Ms. Vavrek: Well that was all rewritten.

Ms. Moore: But 4D is still allowing what happened out in Eighth Avenue to happen again.

Ms. Vavrek: Well because we could probably consider going to one.   This is still going to be a problem.

Ms. Moore: Why not just take it out?

Ms. Vavrek: Well we had arguments by some people on Council that there were situations where someone elderly might take in a roomer or a boarder for financial reasons.  I mean that was one of the issues that has come up a number of times.  That there might be a grandmother or aunt or somebody that just needed extra income and they would simply take in someone to rent a room.

Mr. Zerfoss: Do we actually have that going on right now in the Borough of Clarion?

Mr. Ragon: Yes.

Ms. Vavrek: Can you comment Bob on how many you think there are?  I knew we talked about this, but I don’t know

Mr. Ragon: I can just comment on the ones that actually have rental licenses, and I would say there are probably 20.

Ms. Vavrek: That exist

Mr. Ragon: That exist right now.  There may be some I don’t know about that haven’t gotten licenses, because for one reason or the other they don’t think they need one or whatever.  And that’s why we made it a conditional use, so that that can be decided by Council what the circumstances should be as to whether they can have roomers or boarders.

Ms. Moore: What do you do when a caregiver has to move into the house to take care of a person?

Mr. Ragon: If the caregiver had to be there 24 hours a day, it would be considered another person occupying the dwelling.

Ms. Vavrek: Have we had situations where it’s happened.

Mr. Ragon: Not that I’m aware of, no.

President Wilshire: I don’t know, I think that could be questioned Bob.

Mr. Ragon: I do have some situations where it’s not the same caregiver that’s there 24 hours a day. 

President Wilshire: On this 4 here, it says it has to be owner occupied, but isn’t that the same situation as on Eighth Avenue where

Ms. Moore: Right.

President Wilshire: many people could be the owner of it.

Mr. Ragon: Yes, we changed it to a conditional use.  It’s whatever the wish of Council.

President Wilshire: Even if it’s a conditional use, (unintelligible).

Mr. Ragon: Well they also have to meet that last item, where it states any other conditions that Council may deem necessary.

Mr. Leary: I was just going to say I was going to ask about conditional use.  I mean I guess I have a problem with that whole concept.  If Borough Council wants to define what the conditions are, that’s fine.  But it seems to me once you say yes how are you ever going to be able to say no?  That is to say if at one point you allow somebody to take in two boarders, how will you ever be able to say no to anyone else?  I mean anything else you do after that point will be apparently discriminatory.  Now if you want to nail down the condition, if you want to say we will allow one boarder, or if it’s necessary to have a professional caregiver there, if you want to lay those conditions so it’s really hard and fast that’s one thing.  But you just sort of have this vague notion of conditional use.  My feeling is that once you say yes you will never be able to say no again.

Ms. Campbell: Compared to a caregiver, wouldn’t they be a little bit different because the person in the home, owning the home is paying them.  They would be paying, it would be like having a housekeeper and that’s not (unintelligible).

Ms. Vavrek: Well if they were to stay.

Ms. Moore: Well what about a live in housekeeper?  Good point.

Ms. Campbell: I would think that would be very different than whether you’re, you’re not making the money.  You, the homeowner, are not making money off of the rental fee.

Ms. Vavrek: Anyone else’s comments on that?  Anyone here with comments on change to R-1 on Seventh and Marronee and does anyone want to speak to that?

Ms. Rose Logue, 86 South Seventh Avenue:  On our third floor, we have an apartment that’s been there for over 50 years.  And we currently aren’t using it.  Because we don’t need to use it now.  And (unintelligible) we purchased this property a little over 2 years ago, we paid appraised which included knowing that there was room for an apartment.  It would be income at some point down the road.  And we’re faced on our left, we have Pope rentals; across the road we have the Bed and Breakfast; and then we also have the apartment building, Lor’ Art Apartments.  So, if it were changed to R-1, basically in our little corner, we’d be the only people that would be a one-family residence.  I mean if we have to, I guess, we would go ahead and rent out the apartment now.  Get the permit so it could be grandfathered is what we’ll have to do if it’s changed to R-1.  But we object the change to R-1.

Ms. Vavrek: Well we tried to do it so there would not be any kind of spot zoning.  Then we’d be criticized for that.  We can’t just go in and out of little houses and say ‘okay this would be R-1 to that point and then the next one won’t be’.  But we were counting on South Street, so we can’t configure it to each individual house.

Ms. Logue: Is it going to be all of Seventh Avenue?

Ms. Vavrek:  It would be all of Seventh Avenue, right, and down South Street.

Ms. Logue: The places that are currently houses were

Ms. Vavrek:  Rentals would be grandfathered in.  Well no one has come to say they are not in favor of it.  At least not yet.

Ms. Logue: I guess what it would do to us would, I mean we could figure out a way to work around it for us.  But it puts us in a position where we purchased the house knowing we had the rental property and then down the road, because right now we have a family big enough to absorb the whole house, but later on we will be able to use it.  It’s been an apartment up there for 50 years, 60 years.  I mean who needs a house that has a kitchen and a bathroom and two bedrooms on the third floor if they are not at some point going to use it as a rental.  But basically that would, if we would go to resell the house, it will drop down to an R-1 and then our property value would definitely decrease (unintelligible) rental property.  So, it’s going to have a very negative impact on us.

Ms. Vavrek: A couple of years ago when we tried to rezone there, there were a lot of houses that were vacant and in poor condition.  But since that time, even though some people said it would never happen, quite a few, and yourself included

Ms. Logue: Well see that’s almost my point.  If we’re there, we’re trying to bring a house back and trying to do things nice and do that to it.  And then the house next door is another example of that.

Ms. Vavrek: Exactly.

Ms. Logue: That house was in poor condition and they tried to put it back for single-family, which is what we’re doing as well.  But then in a way because the neighborhood is coming back and turning into an R-1 neighborhood, which is great, then also it kind of negatively impacting us because now we lost our rental income on the third floor at some point down the road.  Unless we jump on it now and put people up there, which we don’t want to do at this time, but we’ll have to do it.  And all around us, I don’t ever foresee, the bed, of course, the bed and breakfast might but basically it’s probably going to be a bed and breakfast.  That Pope house is probably always going to be a rental property.  The people next door to us already have somebody living above an apartment.  So all around us, I know you’re talking about the zones, not just trying to target us.  I mean we could be a single-family home and you can say you can’t rent out your third floor apartment, but then all around us is rentals.

Ms. Jody Scott, 526 South Street: We own a duplex on South Seventh Avenue.  I guess Brian had asked for an explanation with the amount of rental properties versus single-family dwellings, is there an explanation or what’s the reason for Council now wanting to rezone whenever (unintelligible) through this from R-3 to R-2 and now we’re going from R-2 to R-1, when you’re looking at the predominant amount of homes in that neighborhood being

Ms. Logue: And I want to jump on that, too, to say that another reason we paid, we paid quite a big price for our house that was in poor condition and we had to do a lot of work to it knowing that you just rezoned it.  So, probably the chance to go to R-1 was slim to none.

Ms. Scott: Asking for an explanation as to why

Ms. Vavrek: Well the explanation that I started to say was the fact that there were so many single-family dwellings that had been renovated or people have spent a lot of money.   Rose was one of those people.  And we thought this was a way to protect the R-1 neighborhood.  Because even though there are some rentals there, we felt that we needed to try to restore some of the R-1 areas that used to be that way and had not been changed.

Ms. Logue: I’m trying to understand it.  Because we’re R-2 now, right?

Ms. Vavrek: Right.

Ms. Logue: So, if Bob and I were to sell our house tomorrow, it would still be R-2 to this point?

Ms. Vavrek: Right.

Ms. Logue:  What could somebody put into our house then?  Would it just be a single-family and then as a

Ms. Vavrek: You mean as an R-1?

Ms. Logue: As an R-2, what’s permitted as R-2?

Ms. Vavrek: It would depend on if a single-family owner would come in there and it would be someone taking over just as you’re doing now.  And I keep hearing from one end of the town saying ‘well the reason we came to this neighborhood, the reason we bought it here is because it’s R-1’.  And I guess in my mind, I’m thinking about the expenses that you had, and I know some other people in the audience here who did that, and I guess I thought maybe you’d want to protect what you had done by not allowing it to become taken over by perhaps someone buying it and renting it.

Ms. Logue: But, in our case, we lose a whole third floor then.  The whole third floor is basically just up there for the kids to have a slumber party.

Ms. Vavrek: That’s why this is a Public Hearing so we can listen to everyone.

Mr. Tim Scott, 526 South Street: We have a house down there on Seventh somewhere down from her.  And we bought that as an income property.  It was R-3 when we bought it.  Then immediately, within 2 months, it changed to an R-2 limiting the amount of income we could make from it.  It’s a duplex.  If you change that to an R-1, it’s worthless.  What are we going to do with it?  Who’s going to buy a duplex, if it’s an R-1?

Mr. Ragon: Your status doesn’t change.  You’re grandfathered.

Mr. Scott: But I’m limited.

Ms. Logue: What happens if it sits vacant for awhile?

Ms. Scott: It goes to R-1, is that correct?  If for some reason in time

Ms. Logue: What happens if you sell it, what happens to it?

Mr. Ragon: It stays the same.  It goes with the property.  It doesn’t go with the owner.

Ms. Logue: (Unintelligible).

Ms. Scott: That’s just it.  I mean, if for some reason we would want to make some major renovations or do anything that we weren’t able to rent it out for a period of time and we’ve been talking about making improvements, if we needed to do that for a period of time, I mean you’re even reprimanding us for trying to do anything as far as improvements; because if it does sit vacant for any period of time to allow us to do that, we’re going to lose that R-2 zoning.

Ms. Logue: Which property are you worried about?  Basically the change that you’re basically hoping that if somebody resells it or it sits empty and it reverts to an R-1 then would be the whole purpose of this.  I’m not really sure what the purpose for doing this.

Mr. Scott: Is there any economic benefit to this town if you change those?  I mean you’re taking the college students and you’re putting them over in Reinhard Village, where they can’t come into town and do anything unless they have a car and then they (unintelligible) park.  I mean if they live here in town, they go and do things here in town.

Ms. Vavrek: We didn’t put the students in Reinhard Village.

Mr. Scott: Then where else are they going to go?

(Everyone talking at one time.)

Ms. Campbell: Another impact of that is that because of my connection with the schools, people want to be here and go to Clarion Area.  They can’t find affordable family home.  And so they have to move, go outside the district, when they want to be in town so that their kids can walk and so forth.

Mr. Scott: Our house was a college rental for 50 years. 

(Unidentified Lady): What is it now?

Mr. Scott: In an R-3.  It’s a college rental.

Ms. Campbell: Which house are you talking about?

Mr. Scott: We have that down on Seventh Avenue, it’s 116 South Seventh.  The Amato’s old house. 

Ms. Logue: Like Martha’s point, Bob and I looked for a house in town.  And we finally found the Vento house was the only house and we had to approach him to buy it.  We had to pay a lot and buy a whole extra third floor to just try to get a house in town.  But basically we have a third of a house that we don’t even need to have.  And the only reason we purchased it and paid the exorbitant price was to be in town, and because there was a rental on the third floor.  That’s what we had to settle for.

Mr. Acey: I’m glad someone else brought this up, and I just want to ask the question again.  Why?  Like I said, out of 21 affected property owners; 14 are already existing, income-producing properties, 7 are single-family.  And I went around and counted.  And I could even be wrong, there may be more that are used as rentals; I just didn’t know.  I just don’t understand why you say about spot zoning; that really is spot zoning.  That’s just one little particular spot that’s already rentals, but we’re changing it from rentals to an R-1 area.  And I just don’t understand.

Ms. Leavy: Yes, I have a question, with Logue’s house and Balough house, if this (unintelligible) permission supposing this scenario you’re getting (unintelligible) permission, is that one that could go to Council that you could make a decision on?  I mean, you know what I’m saying down the road? 

Ms. Logue: All we would do is basically we already, we’ve talked to Bob and he’s come to inspect our apartment.  So, basically what we’ll have to do is

Ms. Leavy: Rent it.

Ms. Logue: pushing us before our time line.

Ms. Leavy: (Unintelligible) 6 months and later, would it be a conditional use that you could address later on or not?

Ms. Vavrek: Well it would have to go to the Borough Housing and Zoning Board.

Mr. Ragon: That would be an option for them, yes.

Ms. Logue: But I don’t really want to have an exception.  I mean if it is R-1, we’ll just do what we have to do.

Ms. Moore: How many people here are from that particular area that is being rezoned?  (Approximately 8 raised hands).

Ms. Logue: But see you have a rental on your second floor, third floor now (referring to Ms. Barb McCombie)?

Ms. Barb McCombie, 121 South Seventh Avenue:  Right.

Ms. Logue: So, basically nothing would change for you (unintelligible) except the neighborhood, you think, would be nicer.

Mr. Jeff McCombie, 121 South Seventh Avenue:  I believe she asked me what is the affect to us.  And I said the affect to us of it going to R-1 would be that there would not be additional rentals created on that street at this time.  It’s not that we’re opposed to the ones that are there, we have one there.  But it would help, there are many homes that are single dwellings, maybe not in ratio to those that are apartments, but there are people that bought their homes and have lived there as single homes with these other homes that have turned into apartments.  And our position is, an R-1 would allow it to continue with the mixture that it has and not to be increased.  That’s all.  And anyone that has it is going to be grandfathered.  So, it’s not like anyone would lose anything except for this situation.

Ms. Logue:  I don’t know if you remodeled your house or anything,

Mr. McCombie: Well we sure did.

Ms. Logue: but you can understand our position of whenever you’re trying to renovate your house and it’s not ‘okay, now we’re going to move into the third floor and we’re going to do all these other things’.  So, basically that would be our problem with that.

Ms. McCombie: And we have lived through a couple of apartments that have had college people in and it has been a very difficult time.  And we would choose to not have to experience that again.

Ms. Katie Brooks, 30 Marronee Street: I have a single home.  But the people like you worried about wanting to renovate and losing the status, I mean couldn’t there be that situation where you go and say we’re going to be remodeling for the next 9 months.  Why is that such a big deal, it’s not going to happen that often, might only happen one time.

Ms. Scott: Well I don’t know.  Is it 6 months and that’s it?  Or what type of a leeway is there in that type of situation?

Mr. Ragon: We would have to address that.  As the ordinance is written right now, you’re right.  After 6 months, and I have knowledge of that, then yes, it would be discontinued and it would have to become a conforming use.

Mr. Scott: Can I ask, what do you do with a duplex when it’s zoned R-1?

Unidentified Lady: You’re grandfathered in.

Unidentified Man: They’re separate units, you’re okay.

President Wilshire: If someone pays their rental fee, couldn’t you almost construe that as the use continuing?  I mean if they’re in an approved area and they buy the rental fee; and if that’s continuing, wouldn’t that mean the use is continuing?  Because it doesn’t matter how much they charge for their unit or when people are there.

Mr. Ragon: No, used as is what the ordinance says.  So, if it’s not occupied, then it’s not being used as.

Ms. Freenock: What if someone were to not rent an apartment, come and get a building permit, and that the building permit is in fact to renovate the property, (unintelligible) property to include that.  Wouldn’t you use that as a sign of intent?  They are intending to

Mr. Ragon: That would be a sign of intent, yes.  I would have to address a solicitor’s opinion on that, because the ordinance itself and the MPC does not allow me to discern intent.

Ms. Freenock: Right, I understand that.  But I mean that’s one scenario that I believe could be happening so perhaps

Mr. Ragon: Yes, yes.

Ms. Freenock: some exceptions could be written into the ordinance.

Mr. Ragon: Possible.

President Wilshire: But again if you have the rental fee, you’re paying a rental fee, then (unintelligible).

Mr. Ragon: Well that’s intent, and I’m not allowed to

Ms. Vavrek: Could be doing that and never rent it.

Ms. Freenock: Yea.

President Wilshire: That’s fine, but it defeats.

Ms. Freenock: But isn’t that the purpose of the ordinance to eventually weed out the uses that are non-conforming

Mr. Ragon: Yes.

Ms. Freenock: and not make, that would negate that.

Ms. Scott: (Unintelligible) what if we listed our house for sale tomorrow and it sat vacant while it’s being listed?  You’re selling it as a duplex, say you don’t sell it for a year.  We’re not going to get the price out of it that we paid for it because now it’s an R-1.  It’s got two kitchens, six bedrooms, two baths, I mean it just seems it would be impossible for us to even sell it if we ever decided to sell the property.

Mr. Ragon: I doubt that that would happen.  But you’re right presently as it exists right now.  But that would be a decision for the Zoning Hearing Board as to intent.  What the ordinance says and what the MPC says about the ordinance is if it’s unoccupied and not used for a period of 6 months, then the unit has to become a conforming use.

Ms. Scott: So, there’s no guarantee that if we sell it that we could sell it as an R-2 as a grandfathered status (unintelligible) 6 months?

Ms. Freenock: But Jody if it was rented at the time it was sold,

Mr. Ragon: Right.

Ms. Freenock: then it could.

Ms. Scott: Right.

Ms. Freenock: And you wouldn’t keep it vacant and on the market.  That takes away your income for that period of time.  And any perspective buyer is going to want to see this rented and they’ll buy it subject to the existing leases.

Mr. Scott: But they might buy it and want to live there, too.

Ms. Freenock: Well and they could depending on the terms of the lease.  (Unintelligible) purchase or the end of the lease; or if there’s no written lease and it’s month-to-month, give them a notice.

Mr. Scott: I’d just like to say we’re adamantly opposed to the zoning change.

Ms. Vavrek: I saw that.

Mr. Scott: It’s going to be very difficult.

Ms. Vavrek: Anyone else that wants to comment positively or negatively?  We have two sides here, people opposing.

Ms. Nancy DiStefano, 196 South Seventh Avenue: The other end of South Seventh Avenue, and all the conversation about the parking and that, would that give us any relief from the present parking conditions at the old hospital?

Ms. Vavrek: Probably not.

Mr. Ragon: No.

Ms. Vavrek: But again when people are parking where they’re not supposed to down there, you’re supposed to be able to call the police and they’re supposed to come, and give them a ticket.  I don’t know whether they do that all the time, I don’t know, but I think its an issue.  I know it’s caused problems before, too, but unfortunately we do not regulate parking.

Mr. Ragon: Yea, the fact that somebody is parked across the sidewalk and somebody is illegally parked on the street is not a zoning issue.  That’s a police issue.  And if the police aren’t there to see that that is happening, and you want to call the police and let them know about it, they’ll have somebody come around.

Mr. Tom DiStefano: I live with Nancy down there.  I think the problem with some of these issues involving conditional uses, I think what we’ve got is some properties that are granted conditional uses but never meet the conditions.  Is there a way to have these conditions enforced?

Ms. Vavrek: Well each time we do this we say that we try to do that.  And unfortunately there are many times when Bob is not aware of some of the things that have been there.  Whether these conditional uses are being followed or how many students are in an apartment.  I mean we just went through this not too long ago where, he goes into apartments, and I’ve said this before,

Mr. DiStefano: Well actually I’m talking about a property that is not apartments.  It’s owned by the County.

Ms. Vavrek: Yea, I know where you’re talking about.

Mr. DiStefano: There are conditional uses, requirements on that property that they have never met.  The previous owners never met them, they’re still not being met.  And I think that creates a lot of suspicion as far as these kinds of rules and regulations go being (unintelligible).

Ms. Vavrek: We can try to meet with the County to see whether, I mean I know it’s been done before.

Mr. DiStefano: This issue was raised before and nothing happened.

Ms. Vavrek: We could try that.  And in terms of parking, I realize you’re not just questioning that.  But you’d have to call the police for that.  But the other conditional use, we could talk about that after that meeting.  I’m not quite sure what all you’re

Mr. DiStefano: Well go look in the file, like I did.  You’ll see and then walk down there, and you’ll see they’re not doing what they were supposed to do.

Ms. Vavrek: I know there are issues about parking along

Mr. DiStefano: It’s not all about parking either.  There were things they were supposed to do and they never did.  Never, yet.  Also, I had a question about someone mentioned that it’s illegal to park on the Borough right-of-way.

Ms. Vavrek: Yes.  Bob was talking about that.

Mr. DiStefano: Apparently that’s not part of this issue.

Ms. Vavrek: Well it wasn’t included in this, no.

Mr. DiStefano: Has this been a rule for a long time now?

Ms. Moore: Um hum.  You can’t park in the right-of-way.

Mr. DiStefano: Because my neighbor has paved the Borough right-of-way and he parks there.

Mr. Ragon: That’s part of the reason I’ve introduced it.

Mr. DiStefano: Not only that.  Because he paved it and the way he paved it, the water from the street runs down across the corner of his property onto my property.  And I don’t know, I complained but nothing happened.   What can I say.

Mr. Acey: Well that’s what I wanted to ask.  I mean the parking in the right-of-way area is that not part of this zoning change?  There’s nothing in the ordinance, that was one of my questions.  I was curious as to why it was even brought up.

Ms. Vavrek: No, it was, well didn’t you bring it up about the right-of-way?

Mr. Acey: I did.  But I was told that was a front yard parking requirement (unintelligible) rights-of-way.  That’s what I was told.

Mr. Ragon: No, no that wasn’t.  That wasn’t included in the front yard parking area.  It was something I introduced into the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate that type of parking in the front, in the right-of-way area.  It’s not included in the front yard parking area.  That right-of-way area is public property.  It doesn’t belong to the individual property owner except to maintain.

Mr. Acey: Right.

Mr. Ragon: (Unintelligible) parking area and creating your own personal parking space is not maintaining an area.

Mr. Acey: So, regardless of any zoning change, you could still force no parking in the public right-of-way.   

Ms. Vavrek: Um hum.

Mr. Ragon: Yes.

Mr. Acey: Understood.  That’s a good thing. 

Mr. Ragon: Yes.

Mr. Leavy: Do the police understand the zoning regulations; and, if so, can they enforce this or does Bob have to do it all?  In other words, if somebody’s illegally parked in a lawn somewhere, can a police just stop and give a ticket?

Ms. Vavrek: Yes.

Ms. Campbell: One more question, and I’m confused about this, the single-family residence, like if the house next door to me was sold to a mother and daughter with the pure intent of putting students in there.  Okay?  Because the house is in the daughter’s name so that she could have at least two other students living with her.  Now the way this is written that I just got from him that same thing could continue.

Ms. Moore: Um hum.

Ms. Vavrek: It could, but this is why we’re having a discussion.

Ms. Leavy: This is what we wanted removed.

Ms. Campbell: They have to get permission, if they wanted to

Ms. Vavrek: Right now they don’t have to do that.  They would not have to do that now because it’s

Ms. Campbell: Right.  But the house on the (unintelligible) be sold there could only be the owner plus one, according to this?

Ms. Vavrek: No, I think this is what Tom was complaining about.

Mr. Ragon: If this ordinance were passed ‘as is’,

Ms. Campbell: It would be one,

Mr. Ragon: and they don’t apply for a conditional use; yes, it would be the owner plus one other resident.

Ms. Campbell: owner plus one.

Mr. Ragon: Yes.

Ms. Brooks: (Unintelligible) apply for a conditional use?

Mr. Ragon:  Yes.

Ms. Brooks: And it has to come to Council?

Mr. Ragon: Yes.

Ms. Campbell: And the way it is now, when the young lady and her mother intend to sell, it will still be a student rental with the possibility of three?

Ms. Vavrek: Right.

Ms. Moore: That’s why they’re suggesting perhaps to remove 4D or change it some way to prevent that. 

Ms. Campbell: (unintelligible) one owner, which you really couldn’t afford to do it this way.  You know?

Mr. Acey: Out of simplicity on it, the whole gist of all this with the R-1 zone, why can’t you just put in there no students.  Just plain English, no students.

Ms. Vavrek: Because I didn’t think, and Nancy is an attorney maybe she can comment on this, I didn’t think we could discriminate against students, to say students can’t live there.

Mr. Acey: They’re not a protected class; they’re just a group of people.

Ms. Vavrek: I realize that.

Mr. Leavy: Check the case I mentioned in Ohio.

Ms. Vavrek: Okay.

Ms. Freenock:  Why students?  Why don’t you just say you can’t have three unmarried men under the age of 25?  Is that what you’re trying to get?  Or unmarried women, or people that you would assume have no responsibilities and therefore would mistreat the property, isn’t that what are you getting at?  You’re getting at more of the use as opposed to who’s using it.

Mr. Ragon: Scenario, Rose decides to go to school, she becomes a student.  Would I have to go down there and make her move out of her house?

Mr. DiStefano: That’s not a joke.  There’s plenty of adult students here in Clarion.

President Wilshire: Well it could be elementary students.  A student is a student.

Mr. Ragon: That’s right.

Mr. DiStefano: The 25 age limit would be unconstitutional.  You can’t say age.  That’s age discrimination.

Mr. Acey: But I think what the real issue is these people, and I don’t blame that they don’t want students living next to them that they bought.  That’s what it is.  It’s a college student, it’s a traditional college student.  And the pure definition that we’ll have the keg parties, the loud music until midnight, 2 o’clock, whatever the case will be.  Just stop it.  Just say you don’t want this in your neighborhood and that’s fine.  No one’s going to object, I wouldn’t think.  That’s what everyone’s here for.

Ms. Vavrek:  That’s what I would think.

President Wilshire: I think quite a few people around town might ask for the same clause; and, obviously you can’t do that.

Mr. Acey: But in an R-1 zone though if that’s what the people want, that’s what they should get.

Ms. Vavrek: That’s what it’s supposed to be.

Ms. Leavy: That’s what I used to think it was.

Ms. Campbell: The part of Eighth Avenue I live on; about 1980, it was an R-2.  And the house across the street sold.  And they were all retired people on that side of the street at that point and we had it rezoned to R-1.  Now do you want to know how many houses are now owned by college related, whether they bought it and put college students in it, one, two, three, four, five, that I can think of in a 2 block area.  And we bought it, and we rezoned it because we were young people, we had families, we wanted

Ms. Logue: But why did it change?

Ms. Campbell: Well we just kind of happened.  (Unintelligible) we had a change, we got a lawyer and had it changed.  Because we had one episode two doors down where college kids, but we had it all changed and now guess what.

Mr. Leavy: This idea with two unrelated people could live in a dwelling was not a problem until the third one became possible.  It’s always been the two.  It’s not possible to buy a house today and just put one and your son or daughter.  The problem is when thy interpreted that to meaning the owner, which John Marshall (unintelligible) can’t even determine who ownership is.  If you simply remove that clause that you can have two plus the one that’s there, if that’s removed, the problem will probably solve itself with time.  That’s the problem, being able to get around that.  And when that was found out, that’s when it all started; what Martha’s talking about.

Ms. Diane Fagley, East Eighth Avenue: I’m just asking for some clarification, current property owners, they’ll be grandfathered in.  So these changes will not affect that.  When they resell the property, it still is grandfathered in.

Ms. Vavrek: Right.

Mr. Ragon: Right.