Planning commission backs text amendment to clarify RS‑1 single‑family definition

The New York City Planning Commission voted to recommend a text amendment that clarifies what counts as a "single family detached dwelling" in RS‑1 zoning, including a new definition of "single housekeeping unit" and a list of prima facie indicators that a property is not being used as a single household.

Erica Townes, representing the Springdale Neighborhood Association, told the commission the amendment "is a dwelling that's designed for and occupied exclusively by a single housekeeping unit," and that the change places Supreme Court factors directly into the ordinance so "there's no room for doubt as to what it is." The change was described as a text amendment not tied to a specific property; staff corrected an ordinance citation during the hearing (13.03.09 rather than the older 13.03.07).

Neighbors who spoke during the public comment period urged preserving the RS‑1 character. Heather Leindecker said she and her husband moved to Springdale for family‑oriented neighborhoods and warned, "This is our final resting place." Jean Buckingham, who lives across from the property discussed, argued exceptions can create a "slippery slope" that transforms single‑family blocks into college housing and reduces the tax base.

Representatives of the affected property and others urged caution about unintended consequences. Dave Jones, who said he represents the property owner, warned that changes in zoning practice can have broader implications and asked the commission to "take these under consideration very carefully" because of potential legal and housing‑access impacts. Former city zoning officer Craig Zumbren cautioned the commission about misreading federal statutes and said RS‑1 historically has been "simply and clearly defined as single family detached." In contrast, a speaker associated with the owner said building inspections had been completed and that required kitchenettes were removed, describing the unit as compliant with an ordinary single‑family configuration.

After discussion — including questions about whether two unrelated people living together could qualify as a housekeeping unit (Townes said two unrelated occupants may qualify if they are "not for profit" and share household responsibilities and lack separate locks or segregated utilities) — Commissioner (Speaker 6) moved to recommend approval of the amendment to Article 13.03.09 (RS‑1), 13.04.02 and Section 7.17 (rooming house definition). The motion was seconded by Commissioner (Speaker 8) and adopted by roll call. Commissioners present (listed on the roll call) answered "Aye," and the chair declared the motion adopted.

The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for the next hearings and required public notice; staff noted that the planning commission's recommendation is advisory and that council will schedule the ordinance for public hearing in accordance with notice requirements.