Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Roomers Boarders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and housing advocates urge Mount Pleasant to reconsider proposed ban on roomers and boarders; board tables law
Summary
At a public hearing Oct. 28, residents and former officials warned that a proposed local law to prohibit roomers and boarders is vague, risks discrimination and could reduce housing affordability; the Town Board voted to table the measure for further review.
The Mount Pleasant Town Board on Oct. 28 heard sustained public opposition to a proposed local law that would amend zoning definitions to prohibit roomers and boarders, then voted to table the proposal for further discussion.
Residents and housing advocates told the board the draft law is vague and could unintentionally exclude caregivers, traveling health workers and non‑traditional households. "The term rumors or borders, that could include traveling nurses," said Russell Jonas of Valhalla, during public comment. Jonas also warned the measure "could exclude low‑income renters, non‑traditional families, people with disabilities" and cited a Westchester County Planning Board letter expressing concerns.
Tom Abananti, who identified himself as a former town board member, assembly member and county legislator, urged the board to consider practical consequences for affordability and daily life. "This legislation intrudes on the lives of people in our community and hinders rather than fosters affordability," he said, offering several household scenarios — seniors sharing housing, returning young workers, roommates — that he said the draft would bar.
Joanne Sold told the board she was "gravely concerned" about unclear definitions and the potential for discrimination and litigation, and urged regulators to pursue targeted rules such as registration, occupancy limits and nuisance enforcement before moving to a prohibition.
The local law language presented to the board would add a new section to town code (transcript reference reads §218‑20.7) that the town described as prohibiting "roomers and boarders" (the transcript rendered the phrase as "rumors and borders"). Several speakers and the planning‑board review noted the draft lacks grandfathering or a compliance pathway for existing households.
After public comment, Councilmember Danielle moved to table resolution 397‑25 for additional board consideration; Councilmember Lori seconded and the motion carried on a voice vote. The board did not adopt the local law at the meeting and left the matter for further drafting and legal review.
What happens next: the board will revisit the proposal in a future meeting; no timetable or redraft was announced at the Oct. 28 session.
