HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2008-AllTOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JANUARY 31, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Will Burbank, Pat Leary, Peter Stein.
OTHERS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Bill Goodman, Town Board member; Jonathan
Kanter, Director of Planning; Krisy Gashler, Ithaca Journal; Stephen Wagner, guest.
Chair Will Burbank called the meeting to order at 4:50 p.m. Will suggested moving the South
Pointe Associates item to last on the agenda. The Committee agreed.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Approval of 2008 Meeting Schedule:
Will referred to the proposed 2008 meeting schedule that had been distributed to Committee
members. The schedule suggests regular meeting dates on the second Thursday of each month,
unless otherwise noted, beginning at 4:45 p.m. The Committee approved that proposed meeting
schedule by consensus.
Consideration of a Mission Statement for the Planning Committee:
Will distributed a suggested mission statement for the Planning Committee and asked for comments
or suggestions. Peter suggested adding the words “and character of neighborhoods” after
“consideration of the social, economic and environmental aspects of development projects”. The
Committee agreed and approved the modified mission statement by consensus.
Discussion Regarding Possible Work Plan Priorities for 2008:
The Committee reviewed the list of possible work plan priorities for 2008 (January 24, 2008) that
was prepared by the Planning Department. Jonathan indicated that the items are listed in no
particular priority order, and that items would likely be referred to the Committee by the Town
Board from time to time. The Committee approved the work plan list as a working list by
consensus.
Discussion Regarding Possible Extension of Moratorium on Development in Northeast Corner
of Town:
Will referred to the Conservation Board resolution that had been distributed to Committee
members, recommending that the Town Board extend the development moratorium in the Northeast
corner of the Town for an additional three or four months. Jonathan indicated that the Conservation
Board felt that it was appropriate to pass this resolution at this point after hearing the
recommendation from the Town’s consultant, LeCain Environmental Services, Inc. that a full
evaluation of the ecological qualities of the study area should span the summer growing season.
Peter indicated that he is in favor of extending the moratorium as recommended by the consultant,
and that the $6,000 to $8,000 additional needed for extending the study should be authorized. Herb
suggested putting the proposed extension of the moratorium on the February Town Board agenda.
2
Jonathan indicated that a local law to extend the moratorium would have to be drafted, just as was
done for the original moratorium. The Committee felt that it was not necessary to refer the
extension to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Will asked Committee members if they
supported recommending an extension of the moratorium and the consultant study to the Town
Board. The Committee unanimously agreed to recommend extensions of the moratorium and study
to the Town Board without referring the extensions to the Planning Board for a recommendation.
Consideration of Possible Rezoning to a Planned Development Zone for the Proposed South
Pointe Associates Assisted Living Community:
Will asked the Committee to begin this discussion by addressing his list of questions regarding the
Village at South Pointe proposal that he had sent in an email dated January 27, 2008. The questions
and discussions are summarized as follows:
1) Do we have reason to believe that this facility would provide needed housing, good quality
care and decent jobs? Will indicated that the Vitale’s currently operate two assisted living
facilities, one in Geneva, NY that is Medicaid eligible, and the other in Baldwinsville, NY.
Will stated that one of his concerns with a facility serving a defined income level is that it
does not have the flexibility to expand to serve other levels of care, and that the best
situation is to have a facility that includes a wide range of care services, such as Longview is
trying to do and Kendal does, but which is very expensive. Pat added that Longview is not
licensed to accept Medicaid reimbursements, but they do take Medicaid eligible residents,
and use payments from higher income residents to help subsidize the lower income
residents. Will mentioned that Lakeside Nursing Home is interested in adding Medicaid
funded assisted living beds in their Ithaca facility. Peter indicated that he spoke with
someone at the Office for the Aging who indicated that Lakeside is not competing for the
same type of beds that is being proposed at Village at South Pointe. Pat stated that she re-
read the letters of support for the South Pointe proposal provided by the Department of
Health and Office for the Aging, and that these showed that there is a need for this type of
facility in Tompkins County, and that South Pointe would fill a specific need that is not
being provided by any other facility in the County. Peter added that New York State made a
determination that the 80 beds proposed at the Village at South Pointe are needed in
Tompkins County. Herb mentioned that the State wants to save money by providing
assisted living facilities as an alternative to nursing home care, but that he is worried that the
level of care provided in an assisted living facility for only Medicaid eligible residents could
be a lower quality of care. Will stated that South Pointe Associates has the two other
facilities that include some Medicaid beds, but that the proposed facility in Ithaca would be
the only one that is entirely Medicaid beds, and that it would be a different level of service.
Pat felt that this shows that South Pointe Associates has experience with administering
Medicaid beds. Herb indicated that this discussion is important because the proposed
facility would be operated under a State program that includes rules and guidelines that
require the facility to be separate from other types of housing, and that he wants to make
sure that the facility is done in a way that produces the best result for the community. Pat
suggested that the facility could expand in the future to include other types of service. Will
indicated that a Planned Development Zone could be written to include other levels of
service so they could be added to the facility in the future. Will asked the Committee if they
are in agreement that the need for the proposed facility in this community has been
demonstrated. The Committee agreed.
3
2) The site: How would the proposed complex change the character of the existing
neighborhood, park entrance and surrounding natural areas? Will passed around some
photos of the site and surrounding area that he had taken. Jonathan handed out copies of an
aerial photo/map of the area of the currently proposed site of the Village at South Pointe.
Will indicated that the site is directly across from the main entrance to Robert Treman State
Park, and that the intersection of Enfield Falls Road with Route 13 is a very difficult one.
Peter reported that he and Jonathan drove down to look at the site, and that there appears to
be plenty of room on the site to accommodate the proposed facility without impacting the
Park entrance and that the Park entrance did not appear to be a pristine natural area. Peter
added that once you drive about 300 feet onto the entrance road, the site is not very visible.
Will stated that there is a residential neighborhood and natural area adjacent to the site.
Herb indicated that the zoning for the site and surrounding area is Low Density Residential
(LDR), and that the Town zones areas for a reason. Herb added that people who move to an
area have certain expectations based on the zoning, and that the Town Board should not take
rezoning an area like this lightly – there should be an overwhelming reason to rezone a
property. Herb stated that the South Pointe facility would have 30 to 40 employees,
deliveries for food, laundry and other services, and that it would change the character of the
existing neighborhood. Peter said that he is sympathetic to Herb’s comments, but that the
facility would be for elderly people who are not very mobile. Jonathan described some
calculations of development potential under existing zoning that he had prepared, and that
using two different calculations (one assuming a cluster development, the other a
conventional subdivision), there could be a theoretical maximum development potential of
between 18 and 21 dwelling units on the site under current LDR zoning. Herb stated that
the numbers to which Jonathan referred are maximums, not necessarily what could be built.
Will added that the proposed South Pointe facility would have a different character than
houses. Peter mentioned that the residents would not be travelling in and out of the site that
often, and that traffic would be mostly generated by employees and visitors. Pat suggested
that the proposed facility would be less impacting than 20 houses on the site, and that the
development could be concentrated with a smaller footprint on the site than numerous
houses. Will indicated that he is sure that neighbors would feel that their neighborhood
would be impacted by the proposed facility. Peter said that he lives near Kendal, which is a
much bigger operation than South Pointe would be, and that he finds Kendal to be very quiet
and not having much traffic. Herb felt that the proposed site is very isolated with no
services nearby and shopping at quite a distance away. Herb added that there is no regular
bus service near this site. Peter indicated that Jonathan had measured on the odometer the
distance from the proposed site to the City line, and asked Jonathan to report what that
distance is. Jonathan stated that it is 1.7 miles from the site to the Gateway Bridge (at the
southern City line) and about 3.5 miles from the site to the County Library in downtown
Ithaca. Pat mentioned that South Pointe Associates said that they would provide van service
to transport residents to wherever they need to go. Will suggested that the Committee seems
to be split on whether the proposed facility on the Enfield Falls Road site would create
significant impacts on the neighborhood and surrounding area, and suggested that the
Committee move on to discuss the other questions, and then discuss the potential for other
sites for the facility.
3) To what extent would allowing the facility to be built on the proposed site contribute to
“sprawl” and spur development along the Route 13 corridor? Will suggested that the Town
Board needs to look closely at development trends and potential in Inlet Valley in the
Comprehensive Plan update to see whether that area is developing the way the Town wants
4
to see it develop. Will suggested that allowing the South Pointe facility at the Enfield Falls
Road site would be moving development in the corridor in a bad direction. Peter said that
he does not see it the same way as Will, adding that allowing the facility would not create
pressure for additional development. Peter stated that he does not object to trying to find
another site for the facility, but that if another site does not work out, he would be in favor of
rezoning the Enfield Falls Road site. Pat agreed with Peter. Pat added that not all
development should be concentrated where existing development already exists because
some developed areas can reach a saturation point. Herb felt that facilities like the one
proposed are more appropriately located in hamlets or nodes with other housing, stores and
other services. Pat thought that this area could become a node. Herb stated that this area
has not been targeted by the Town as a node. Will asked the Committee to think about the
larger context of the facility and its impacts on the community.
4) Are there other viable sites where this project could be built that would likely have fewer
negative impacts? Herb mentioned that there is another site for sale on Seven Mile Drive
that might be appropriate for the proposed facility with good access. Will indicated that he
also would prefer the site on Seven Mile Drive for the assisted living facility. Jonathan said
that he had spoken with South Pointe Associates and suggested that they look into the Seven
Mile Drive site. Will suggested that the Committee go into executive session to discuss
possible negotiations for the Town to acquire a site that might be able to accommodate the
proposed assisted living facility.
Executive Session to Discuss Possible Negotiations for Acquisition of Real Property:
Will moved that the Committee go into executive session to discuss negotiations regarding the
proposed acquisition of real property. Peter seconded the motion. The Committee voted
unanimously to go into executive session.
The Committee moved out of executive session just before 6:30 p.m.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. The
agenda is to be determined.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Co mmittee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MARCH 13, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Will Burbank, Pat Leary, Peter Stein.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Town Board member; Rod Howe,
Planning Board Chair; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Fred Noteboom, Town Highway
Superintendent; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner.
GUESTS PRESENT: Krisy Gashler, Ithaca Journal; Stephen Wagner; Bill Gray, Commissioner of
Public Works, City of Ithaca; Trevor Pinch, President FHIA; Michael Bend, Vice President FHIA;
Jonathan Miller; Ruth Mahr; Bruce Brittain, Doug Brittain; Darcy Binns , Immediate Past President
FHIA; Michael Koplinka-Loehr; Jamie Loehr; Robert Aceto; Karen Westmont; Clayton Moore.
Chair Will Burbank called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Presentation and Discussion Regarding Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan:
Will asked those attending the meeting to introduce themselves, since there was such a large group.
Will then asked the Forest Home representatives to bring the Committee up to date on the Forest
Home Traffic Calming Plan (Plan). Trevor Pinch began the presentation by referring to the Final
Report of the Plan, dated June 29, 2007 that had been distributed to the Committee. Trevor
described the process of the Plan preparation and indicated that the Town was involved early in the
process. He asked Michael Bender to talk about the content of the Plan. Michael handed out an
outline of “key elements” of the report and a packet including a map of the Plan area, a memo and
letter regarding the completion of the Plan, and an outline of estimated costs of implementing Plan
improvements. Michael spoke further about the key elements of the Plan, including entrance
features, pavement narrowing, mid-block speed tables, walkways and pedestrian crossings,
intersection modifications, and street trees and vegetation planting.
Trevor outlined what has happened since the Town last saw the Plan in 2007. The points covered
by Trevor included: FHIA (Forest Home Improvement Association) received the letter from the
Town’s Transportation Committee signed by Jonathan Kanter with comments and observations on
the Plan; FHIA held a neighborhood meeting in October 2007 to discuss the Plan, which resulted in
enthusiastic support of the Plan, with some concerns about how bicyclists would be handled in the
Plan and some disagreement over Plan priorities; a petition was submitted to the Town by
approximately 39 residents with concerns about walkways, bicyclists and safety on McIntyre Place,
but indicating basic concurrence with the Plan; and the Upstream Bridge in Forest Home is
scheduled for rehabilitation in 2009, which could provide opportunities for some traffic calming
elements to be implemented. Trevor indicated that funding will be an important role in Plan
implementation.
Will asked about the process for obtaining consensus in Forest Home regarding the Plan. Trevor
responded that there were many opportunities for neighborhood input, ranging from neighborhood
2
meetings to commenting on documents placed on the FHIA website, and that a summary of
community input during the Plan process could be found on the website. Peter mentioned that he
understood that there was controversy regarding some elements of the Plan and that not all residents
agreed with the Plan. Trevor indicated that some residents favor some traffic calming features over
others but that there was overall support for the Plan. Darcy Binns added that there is a consensus
in Forest Home that residents want the Plan to move forward. Ruth Mahr asked whether the
Committee has seen the petition that was submitted by residents. Will said no. Ruth handed out
copies of the petition to the Committee. Ruth indicated that the petition deals with issues such as
bicycle and pedestrian safety, especially on Judd Falls Road and McIntyre Place, and added that the
residents signing the petition favor the immediate implementation of speed tables on Judd Falls
Road. Ruth added that the entrance features appear to be less of a priority and serve more of an
aesthetic purpose. Ruth said that walkways adjacent to the paved road would be dangerous and
should be moved away from the road. Ruth also said that the petition asked for McIntyre Place to
be added to the Plan to consider safety, especially for the children who live there. The issue was
raised about whether Forest Home residents endorse the Plan as a whole, or some elements of the
Plan. Ruth said that she believes that all residents endorse some elements of the Plan, but not
necessarily the whole Plan.
Will indicated that the Plan currently has no official status and that the Town would have to look at
the Plan further. Will added that the Town could possibly endorse parts of the Plan or all of the
Plan, and then come up with a program regarding how to implement the Plan. Will mentioned that
the Town may include some elements of the Plan for funding in its capital plan. Michael indicated
that mid-block speed tables could be implemented immediately.
Peter asked why the Plan does not include the petition recommendations – is it because of costs or
because there is disagreement on the ideas? Trevor responded that if the walkway could be moved
away from the road, that would be good. Ruth added that the petition followed the completion of
the Plan. Darcy added that the petition helped her with her transmittal letter to the Town, and
reiterated that immediate implementation of speed tables is important. Pat mentioned that buses
currently have trouble maneuvering through Forest Home and wondered why the Plan includes
recommendations for pavement narrowing. There was also discussion regarding the planting of
vegetation and how that has to be done carefully to avoid blocking of visibility.
Jonathan asked why the final Plan did not include the Town Transportation Committee’s comments
regarding the Plan that were outlined in his letter of August 2007. Michael responded that the
FHIA Traffic Calming Committee was already dissolved at that point, but that the Town’s
comments were made available to Forest Home residents.
Will concluded the discussion by saying that the Committee would discuss the Plan further and
make recommendations to the Town Board. Peter asked if the Town Board decided to implement
the speed tables and entrance features as an early phase of the implementation, would there be a
favorable consensus of Forest Home? Trevor said yes, and that the consultant recommended doing
the speed tables and entrance features together, and that one without the other would not be as
effective. Fred added that the Town’s capital plan includes a project to re-do Forest Home Drive
from Warren Road to Caldwell Road in conjunction with the County’s bridge rehab project, and
that some elements of the traffic calming Plan might be able to be included in the project.
Report Regarding Route 96 Corridor Management Study:
3
Jonathan reported that the Route 96 Corridor Management Study is well underway, and handed out
an outline summarizing the progress on the study. Jonathan gave the following overview: The
purpose of the study is to evaluate growth potential in the corridor and recommend strategies to
minimize transportation impacts. Participants in the study include Tompkins County (project
sponsor), City and Town of Ithaca, Town of Ulysses, Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation
Council (ITCTC), and Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT). Consultants hired to assist
with the study are Bergmann Associates and SRF Associates, both from the Rochester area. A
residents’ survey has been sent out to households located along the corridor, and there has been
good return so far. Focus group meetings with businesses and institutions in the corridor are also
being scheduled for late March or early April. Traffic counts at selected intersections are underway,
and trip runs to estimate vehicle travel time from one end of the corridor to the other will be done
soon. Transit ridership information is being provided by TCAT. A public information meeting is
tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. at the Museum of the Earth.
Update Regarding Proposed Carrowmoor Development:
Will asked Jonathan to give a brief update on the status of review of the Carrowmoor proposal.
Jonathan indicated that the Attorney for the Town has drafted a local law for a Planned
Development Zone for the proposed project, including permitted uses, maximum number of
dwelling units and commercial floor space, requirements for affordable housing, etc. Herb Engman,
Susan Brock and Jonathan met to review the draft local law, and came up with a revised draft,
which was shared with the Carrowmoor developer. A meeting was held with the developer to go
through the local law, and additional revisions will be discussed. Jonathan mentioned that the draft
law should be coming to the Planning Committee soon for review and discussion. Will indicated
that the new West Hill neighborhood group had a meeting to discuss the Carrowmoor proposal,
which included a presentation by the Carrowmoor developer. Will added that residents attending
the West Hill group meeting were fairly receptive to the concept of the Carrowmoor project, with
the concerns noted regarding traffic, drainage, etc. typically associated with a large project like
Carrowmoor. Pat said that many of the residents seemed to be pleased with the environmental
aspects of the project, such as green building techniques and rainwater harvesting, as well as the
clustering and open space aspects of the proposal. Pat added that there was some concern about the
possible marketing strategy discussed by the developer that might attract a number of seasonal
occupants.
Potential Grant Application for Agricultural Conservation Easement:
Mike started the discussion by explaining that agricultural conservation easements are agreements
between a landowner and another entity in which the landowner agrees to limit use of their land to
farming and related uses. In the Town’s voluntary purchase of development rights program, the
Town negotiates payment to the landowner based on an appraisal in exchange for the easement in
which the landowner agrees to limit the use of the land as described above. Mike reported that he
attended a workshop on agricultural conservation easements at Cooperative Extension and spoke
with two agricultural landowners who are interested in applying for the Town’s purchase of
development rights program. Mike also heard from a representative from Cooperative Extension
that a third landowner may be interested in participating in the program. Mike explained that these
three properties are contiguous and would make for a very attractive grant application under the
New York State agricultural easement grant program. Mike asked for the Committee’s guidance at
4
this point on pursuing these properties in a possible grant application for State funding, and that the
first step is to submit preliminary information on the properties to the County Agricultural and
Farmland Protection Board for possible support. The Committee agreed that the Planning
Department should move ahead with the preliminary work on pursuing agricultural conservation
easements for these properties, and that if it looks like a grant application for State funding is viable,
then the grant application should go to the Town Board for authorization.
Discussion Regarding Proposal by Town of Caroline for Extension of South Hill Trail:
Jonathan reported that the Town of Ithaca has received a request from the Town of Caroline to
support Caroline’s proposal to extend the South Hill Recreation Way from Burns Road in the Town
of Ithaca to Brooktondale. Jonathan distributed a map that shows the location of the trail extension
that would utilize the existing right-of-way of the abandoned Lackawanna Railroad currently owned
by NYSEG. The trail extension would go through the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, Danby and
Caroline and future phases could ultimately connect to Owego. Will read from a draft resolution
that had been provided, indicating that the Town of Ithaca Planning Committee endorses the Town
of Caroline’s leadership in this project to extend the South Hill Recreation Way to the hamlet of
Brooktondale and recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board support this project, and also
that the Planning Committee supports the Town of Caroline’s negotiations with NYSEG and
neighboring landowners and supports applications by the Town of Caroline for county, state or
federal funding for the project. The Committee unanimously approved the resolution of support for
the project by consensus.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. The agenda
may include discussion of the “future town park” parcel on E. King Road, the Forest Home Traffic
Calming Plan, and updates on the Carrowmoor and South Pointe Associates proposals.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
DRAFT – 5/1/08
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF APRIL 10, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Will Burbank, Pat Leary, Peter Stein.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town.
GUESTS PRESENT: Trevor Pinch, President FHIA; Bruce Brittain; Rabbi Meir Klein; Noam
Shapp, Cornell Student Eruv Committee.
Chair Will Burbank called the meeting to order at 4:50 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Discussion Regarding Proposed Eruv:
Will asked Rabbi Klein to present the proposal for the Eruv. Rabbi Klein described the materials
that had been provided to the Committee. The following is a description of the proposed Eruv and
the process as outlined by Rabbi Klein. On the Sabboth, Jewish law forbids the carrying of any
object from a private domain to a public domain. This prohibits the pushing of someone in a
wheelchair to the Synagogue on the Sabboth. It also does not allow a parent to carry a child on the
Sabboth. The solution is the establishment of an Eruv, which is a virtual fence around a defined
area within which people are allowed to carry things. The area is enclosed by symbolic doorframes
or walls, allowing the area to be considered as private domain. These doorframes can be made with
two poles with a wire hanging between them. These usually consist of utitlty poles and wires. The
location of the proposed Eruv is around the Cornell campus and surrounding areas as shown on the
map that was provided. The boundaries are marked with utility poles and are identified by plastic
moldings that are nailed to the poles at a height of about 5 feet. This requires the permission of the
utility companies, including NYSEG and Verizon. NYSEG has already given written permission to
the Cornell Student Eruv Committee, and they are awaiting permission from Verizon. The group is
requesting that the Town Board issue a proclamation to establish the Eruv. A sample proclamation
had been provided to the Committee. According to Jewish law, the government of the jurisdiction
involved has to issue a proclamation stating that the municipality is formally renting the public
domain within the Eruv as private domain.
Herb indicated that the Town does not own the area within the Eruv, so how does the Town have
the authority to rent it out? Will asked if Rabbi Klein has examples of what the plastic moldings
look like. Rabbi Klein said no, but he will send one to the Town after the contractor finishes
making them. The markers are not noticeable and look like the utility pole markers that are already
on the poles. The marker has to located directly under the utility wires, and laser device is used to
accurately locate the markers. In some cases, existing utility markers that are situated under the
wires can be used to mark the Eruv.
Peter indicated that the Town’s involvement in the establishment of the Eruv doesn’t feel right to
him. It should be up to the utility company to say if it is okay to place the markers on their poles,
DRAFT - 5/1/08
2
but Peter does not want the Town to have to decide on this, and asked whether the Town should be
in a position to allow or disallow a religious symbol to be put up. Peter has no objection to the
concept of the Eruv but he is not comfortable with the Town’s role in this. It could set a precedent
for other Town Board decisions. Rabbi Klein responded that it would not be a precedent and cited a
New Jersey court case which said that a town’s involvement in setting up an Eruv is allowable.
Rabbi Klein added that an Eruv is not a religious symbol – it is a virtual fence or boundary to enable
those that strictly observe the Jewish laws to move about more freely on the Sabboth, and the sole
purpose is to allow secular activities such as the carrying or pushing of objects.
Peter asked whether the Town Board could simply proclaim that they have no objection to the Eruv.
Pat suggested revising the sample proclamation to delete references to the Jewish religion and laws
and keep the resolution very simple. Rabbi Klein indicated that the sample proclamation had been
used in other areas, and that the rental of the public domain must be very specific. Will asked
whether there is a deadline within which the Eruv needs to be established. Rabbi Klein responded
that they would like it to be in place by the end of this academic year.
Herb mentioned that there is a question of whether the Eruv markers are “signs” under the Town’s
Sign Law – that signs are anything that conveys a message. Jonathan added that if they are signs,
the Sign Law prohibits signs on utility poles. Susan suggested that the question of whether an Eruv
or its markers are signs could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for either an interpretation
or sign variances, and that could request could be initiated soon. Jonathan added that such a request
would require the submission of an application to the ZBA.
Will summarized that it seems that the Committee has some uneasiness about the Town’s role in the
establishment of an Eruv and the religious aspects of it, but that there appears to be willingness to
revise the wording of a proclamation that would make the Town more comfortable. Rabbi Klein
reiterated that without the Town’s authorization, the Eruv is not valid. Will said that the Committee
cannot guarantee a timeframe. Pat asked whether the Town Board could issue a proclamation
contingent on a ZBA determination regarding the sign issue. Herb said that an application could be
submitted to the ZBA now, and Rabbi Klein should contact Jonathan to begin that process.
Report Regarding Cornell/Community Transportation Investment Initiative and Proposed
Inclusion of First Phase of Forest Home Traffic Calming:
Jonathan gave a brief update on the status of the Cornell/Community Transportation Initiative in
which Cornell has committed up to $10 million over the next ten years. Jonathan reported that he
has been participating in meetings of a sub-committee of the Ithaca-Tompkins County
Transportation Council (ITCTC) that is taking the lead in working with Cornell on drafting a list of
projects for which Cornell funding would be made available as a local share of the project costs.
Jonathan referred to the draft “Program of Projects (April 3, 2008) that had been distributed.
Jonathan noted that as a result of the Planning Committee discussion regarding the Forest Home
Traffic Calming Plan that had been presented at the March meeting, he had proposed that a Phase I
Forest Home Traffic Calming project be added to the Cornell funding program, including mid-block
speed tables and entrance features. These elements had been identified by the Planning Committee
as high priority elements that would be desirable to implement sooner rather than later. Cornell and
the ITCTC sub-committee were in agreement with that proposal, and included Project #10 Forest
Home Traffic Calming at a total cost for the Phase I elements of $180,000, based on the cost
estimates that had been provided by Forest Home at the March Planning Committee meeting.
DRAFT - 5/1/08
3
Cornell’s share of the project cost would be $90,000. Jonathan indicated that he subsequently
received an email message from Bruce Brittain (dated April 7, 2008) with revised cost estimates for
the mid-block speed tables and entrance features. The revised total cost of these elements would be
$236,000 (including four speed tables rather than the three indicated in the earlier estimate). This
would result in a revised Cornell share of $118,300 (instead of the $90,000 shown on the Program
of Projects. Jonathan indicated that he would have to notify Cornell and the ITCTC sub-committee
about the revised cost estimates.
Peter asked whether the Committee could be sure that Forest Home is in agreement with this project
proposal. Trevor Pinch, President FHIA, said that any disagreement among Forest Home residents is
with implementation priorities, but that there is general agreement that speed tables and entrance
features are high priorities, and that these features should be done as a combined project. Will
suggested that the Committee could invite residents in to speak about this. Jonathan referred to a
letter from Ruth Mahr and Abe Stroock (dated April 9, 2008) that he had just received, and
distributed copies of that letter. The letter supported the immediate addition of speed tables on Judd
Falls Road, and indicated some concern of the “perceived necessity of coupling speed tables with
entrance features”, further indicating that they would not want the implementation of the speed
tables to be delayed while Forest Home considers “the more elaborate and expensive entrance
gateways” proposed in the Plan.
Jonathan indicated that 50% of the project cost would have to come from sources other than
Cornell, such as the Town and Forest Home. Jonathan mentioned that the Town’s Budget &
Finance Committee would have to discuss funding for the proposal, and suggested that perhaps the
lighting elements of the entrance features might be funded through the lighting district. Will asked
if there was a sense of the Committee on inclusion of the Phase I Traffic Calming in the
Cornell/Community Transportation Initiative Program of Projects. The Committee supported its
inclusion.
Discussion Regarding “Future Park” Parcel Next to Montessori School on East King Road:
Jonathan gave a brief history on the status of the “future park” parcel on East King Road next to
Montessori School as follows. The Planning Board approved a subdivision by Evan Monkemeyer
in 1987 called Ithaca Estates – Phase II. The subdivision included six building lots, one lot for the
proposed Montessori School site, and one lot labeled as “Proposed Town Park” of approximately
1.8 acres. For various reasons, the “park parcel was never conveyed to the Town, and over the
years, the Town has been trying to work with Mr. Monkemeyer to come up with a proposal for a
larger community park that would benefit the whole Town. In working with Mr. Monkemeyer, the
Planning Board and Town Board came up with a larger community park that could include active
ball fields, parking areas, picnic facilities, trails, a comfort station and pavilion, etc., and in 1997
both the Planning Board and Town Board adopted resolutions accepting the concept of the larger
community park on Mr. Monkemeyer’s land and changing the location of the small park next to
Montessori School. This all happened during sketch plan discussions between Mr. Monkemeyer
and the Planning Board in connection with his Phase III subdivision request for eleven new lots.
At some point during those discussions, Mr. Monkemeyer decided not to pursue the larger
community park, and his attorney sent the deed for the small park parcel to the Town. The Attorney
for the Town (John Barney) returned the deed to Mr. Monkemeyer’s attorney with a letter
indicating that there was insufficient documentation provided with the deed and that the Town had
concluded that the small parcel next to the School was not a very good site for a park. Since then,
DRAFT - 5/1/08
4
the Town has tried working with Mr. Monkemeyer on a solution for the park issue, but nothing has
been resolved. There were several follow-up proposals and evaluations for a community park area,
but Mr. Monkemeyer kept changing his mind about the size and location of a park. At some point,
Mr. Monkemeyer proposed making a financial contribution in lieu of parkland, but the Town was
hesitant to pursue that option.
Will asked what does the Committee need to do at this point. Susan indicated that she and Jonathan
have some ideas on how to resolve this matter. Peter indicated that he needs to leave for another
appointment and feels that the Committee needs time to discuss this matter. The Committee agreed
to schedule a special meeting on Thursday, May 1st to continue discussion of the “park” parcel.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee scheduled a special meeting on Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. to continue
discussion regarding the “future park” parcel. The next regular Committee meeting is scheduled for
Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 4:45 p.m.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MAY 8, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Leary, Peter Stein.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town; Bill Goodman, Town Board.
GUESTS PRESENT: None.
Pat Leary called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
2. Continuation of Discussion Regarding “Future Town Park” Parcel Next to Montessori
School, East King Road:
Susan: Regarding Kerrigan letter: Evan Monkemeyer wants to convey parcel to Town. Montessori
School is building a field on parcel. Evan Monkemeyer would convey parcel to Town with no
restrictions on parkland. Town would possibly sell to Montessori School, based on appraisal. Use
money for parkland elsewhere in Town. John Kerrigan said would be acceptable, but they might
want some restrictions on parcel. Susan B. spoke with Evan Monkemeyer today and his concern is
if Montessori School no longer exist, that use be compatible with future uses on his parcel. Would
like that Town has first right of refusal to buy parcel back, so there can be control over future use.
Restrictions also not to use as outdoor storage of materials (e.g. Hallberg Park where Town is
storing stuff).
Pat: Asked about deed restriction for commercial use.
Susan: No.
Peter: Don’t want reduced value.
Susan: Evan has no problem with school use.
Pat: Evan will still need to work out a park set aside as part of future development of his remaining
property.
Susan: Send to Town Board for Executive Session. If okay, needs to go to Planning Board to
revise subdivision resolution from 1980’s. Could be June 3, 2008 Planning Board meeting, back to
Town Board, June 9, 2008 (or July). Town Board could find that conveyance as general purpose
land okay with intent to sell to Montessori School.
Jon: Discussed appraisal process for fair market value. Suggested making money from sale
available for acquisition of parkland or construction of park facilities.
Susan: Susan will check out how money is to be set aside.
Committee agreed to send to Town Board with recommendation to pursue conveyance and sale to
Montessori School.
3. Consideration of Revised Draft Proclamation Regarding Proposed Eruv:
Pat: Susan Brock’s memo: Reviewed court cases that found in favor of Eruv (Tenafly case).
Susan: As long as Town Board treats everyone equally, can’t be accused of treating unfairly.
Pat: Has several draft versions of draft resolution for establishing Eruv. Herb Engman didn’t like
99 years ‘rent’. Add paragraph saying not granting any rights or privilege not possessed by all
2
citizens. Not endorsing any religious tenets. Also concerned regarding people walking on streets
(don’t have right to tell someone they can’t use street – public right of way).
Peter: Doesn’t like second paragraph reference to Jewish Orthodox Law.
Pat: Second resolution makes clear that they would have no more rights than other people.
Peter: We aren’t conveying them any rights that they don’t already have.
Susan B: Does last paragraph in third draft do that?
Peter: Yes, “not possessed by themselves or all citizens”?
Pat: Rabbi has not responded yet to Pat’s questions. We’ll see if we can delete reference to fee of
ONE DOLLAR ($1.00). Can go back to Rabbi to tell him what we can live with.
Peter: Has niece who is a Rabbi. “DOLLAR” is significant to them.
Passover – have to throw out all baked goods. Clean house, sell gentile all baked goods for one
dollar; than buy back baked goods after Passover.
Peter: Whereas #2: doesn’t like reference to “of the Jewish faith”.
Pat: Prefer not to include fee of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) for renting.
Susan: If have to say rent, then say rent public “domain”, not public right of way. But best choice
would be not reference to rent (as in Ventnor City).
Pat: Will send Rabbi email saying what Committee discussed.
Pat: Heard about Kristie Rice’s letter of determination that Eruv’s are signs.
Jon: Explained to Committee.
Susan: Can give Rabbi Kristi’s memo with case law summaries, so he has some background to
bring to ZBA.
Pat: Feels Eruv not sign, question noted from Susan Brock’s memo. Feels sign law if applied this
way would be infringing on religious freedom.
Susan: Talked with City attorney. Not taking to Common Council. Mayor will issue proclamation,
using Ventnor City Proclamation.
4. Other Business:
Bill Goodman considering joining Planning Committee.
The Committee agreed to change the Planning Committee meeting times to 4:30 p.m.
5. Next Regular Meeting Date and Agenda:
The next regular Committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.
Agenda items: Scenic Resources Report
Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan
Carrowmoor
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
DRAFT – 7/31/08
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JULY 10, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Peter Stein, Rich DePaolo.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Town Board; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: Stephen Wagner.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements:
Peter asked if any regular means of communication between the Planning Board and Town Board
had been set up. Jonathan mentioned that Herb, Rod Howe, and he have met several times over the
last few months to discuss planning issues of common concern to the Planning Board and Town
Board. Herb suggested continuing those meetings and perhaps inviting other Planning Committee
members to attend. Pat added that Committee members should attend Planning Board meetings
when they can. Rich asked about the possibility of Committee members attending Planning Board
meetings on a rotating basis. The Committee liked that idea and asked Jonathan to email the 2008
Planning Board meeting schedule to Committee members, who would then coordinate a schedule
amongst themselves for attending Planning Board meetings.
Discussion Regarding 2008 Work Program:
Herb referred to the list of work plan priorities for 2008 that had been distributed, and suggested
going through the list. Discussion on items followed as summarized below:
Proposed South Pointe Assisted Living Facility: The developers are looking at a site near the
Medical Center on West Hill. Nothing is currently before the Town at this point.
Carrowmoor: (See agenda item below). This will be discussed further at the next Committee
meeting.
Conservation Board’s Scenic Resources Report: The Committee agreed that this report should be
reviewed and discussed soon, since it has been a few months since the report was provided to the
Town Board.
Northeast Consultant Study: The consultant’s report should be ready in September, and the
Committee should review it then.
Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan: This was discussed at a previous Committee meeting. There
will be follow-up review of the Plan and further discussion with Forest Home on the details.
DRAFT - 7/31/08
2
Route 96 Corridor Study: There have been on -going reports to the Committee about this study.
Technical Report #1 is on the Tompkins County website.
Pennsylvania Avenue/Kendall Avenue Occupancy Issues: Peter indicated that the main issue in the
neighborhood is student housing and over-occupancy of houses. Committee members had met with
several neighborhood representatives and asked them to do a survey of issues in the neighborhood.
The Committee never heard back from the neighborhood reps. Pat indicated that Committee
members had previously discussed some possible zoning changes to address some of the occupancy
problems. Jonathan said that he would try contacting the neighborhood reps one more time. Herb
and Pat thought that this item should stay on the priority list for the Committee to revisit at some
point.
Future Town Park next to Montessori School: The Committee discussed this at a recent meeting,
and sent its recommendation to the Town Board. The attorneys are working on this. This can be
taken off of the Committee’s list unless something else comes up.
Cornell t-GEIS: Jonathan reported that the Planning Board will be considering accepting the t-GEIS
as complete at its July 15th meeting. Committee members can access copies of the t-GEIS in Town
Hall, and it will soon be available on Cornell’s website. Committee members asked if they could
receive copies of an Executive Summary of the t-GEIS. Jonathan said that he would follow up on
that, and suggested that Committee members review the sections in the full t-GEIS on
Neighborhoods and Mitigation Measures. The Committee decided to put a discussion of the t-GEIS
on the next meeting agenda.
Affordable Housing Strategies: Herb mentioned that he and Jonathan have been attending meetings
with housing experts regarding strategies to encourage affordable housing. The Comprehensive
Plan Committee will also be discussing affordable housing as an important element of updating the
Plan. This item can be kept on the priority list for updates and discussions.
Agricultural Land Preservation Program: Staff is currently working on a grant application to NYS
Agriculture and Markets, as a follow up to a discussion at a previous Committee meeting.
Other Grant Applications: The Town has applied for an agricultural planning grant and should hear
something before the end of this year.
Discussion Regarding Proposed Carrowmoor Development and Local Law:
Jonathan handed out a draft Local Law regarding the proposed Carrowmoor development. Herb
reported that he, Jonathan and Susan Brock have been meeting with the Carrowmoor developers
many times over the past months to come up with this draft law that all involved are comfortable
with. The Carrowmoor proposal is for 400 dwelling units off of Route 79 with a small
neighborhood commercial center. The Local Law includes provisions for 10 percent of the
dwelling units to be affordable to median income families (based on the Tompkins County median
income). This would not involve any public money – it will involve a housing fund provided by the
Carrowmoor developer and guaranteed by the Carrowmoor Condominium Association. The
developer will also provide $60,000 worth of materials or cash to be used for development of
pedestrian/bicycle trails to connect into the City. Carrowmoor would enter into an agreement with a
local, not-for-profit housing group to administer and oversee the affordable housing program. An
DRAFT - 7/31/08
3
annual report would be provided to the Town Board to monitor how the affordable housing program
is working. The Committee agreed to put this on the next meeting agenda for discussion of the draft
Local law. Jonathan agreed to send an electronic version of the Local Law to the Committee via
email.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee decided to cancel the regularly scheduled meeting on August 14, 2008 and set the
next meeting for Monday, August 18, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. Agenda items will include review and
discussion of the draft Carrowmoor Local Law and discussion regarding the Cornell t-GEIS
(Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement).
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
DRAFT – 9/5/08
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF AUGUST 18, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Peter Stein, Rich DePaolo.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: John Rancich and Steve Bauman representing Carrowmoor Development;
Stephen Wagner; Krisy Gashler, Ithaca Journal.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements:
Jonathan announced that the Town has received notification from the New York State Department
of Agriculture and Markets that the Town will receive a $25,000 grant award to develop a local
agricultural and farmland protection plan. Mike Smith, Environmental Planner, was responsible for
preparing the grant application. Jonathan distributed a press release from the Commissioner of
Agriculture indicating that the Town of Ithaca is one of 14 towns in New York that will receive a
total of $313,750 local farmland protection plans in this round of funding. This brings the total
amount funded by the State this year to $1,176,195 for 52 towns. Jonathan indicated that this will
help the Town to update its agricultural planning component in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
help the Town qualify for future State grants for the purchase of development rights program.
Discussion Regarding Draft Carrowmoor Local Law for a Planned Development Zone:
Herb indicated that the draft local law for the proposed Carrowmoor development creating a
Planned Development Zone (PDZ) was prepared at the request of the Town Board by a committee
consisting of Herb, Susan Brock, and Jonathan, which met many times over the past year and a half
with the Carrowmoor developers (John Rancich and Steve Bauman). Pat Leary and Will Burbank
were formerly on an earlier Carrowmoor review committee. Herb added that the draft local law is
before the Planning Committee to consider conceptual support of the PDZ as outlined in the draft
local law and to consider sending the draft law to the Town Board to begin the more formal review
process. Herb summarized some of the elements of the proposal, which would include 400 +/-
residential condominium units, up to 36,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, a community
center complex, a child care center, up to 32 units in a residential building for the elderly, and other
mixed-use development.
Rich mentioned that he had heard about the idea that buyers of units in Carrowmoor would be
offered the purchase of an electric car with their unit, and wondered how much of the Carrowmoor
plan is a wish list, and how much is an actual commitment? John Rancich responded that electric
cars valued at about $14,000 to $15,000 would be offered for sale to buyers of units – if the unit
owner chose not to purchase the vehicle, their unit price would be reduced, but not at the full value
of the vehicle. So there would be a financial incentive for home buyers to also purchase the electric
car. John added that this is their plan, but it is not a legal commitment. Steve Bauman mentioned
that the overall goal of Carrowmoor is to reduce the carbon footprint of the development, and he
DRAFT - 9/5/08
2
gave other examples in the development, such as using energy generated from the wind farm that
John is proposing in Enfield. Peter said that many developers say that they will do things, but then
do not do what they say. Will the important things be in the local law? Herb responded that the
local law does include the things that the committee felt were the important elements of the
proposal, and pointed to page 1, Section 2.A(4) in particular that includes an outline of things that
the project will include. Several Committee members suggested that the beginning wording of that
section might be better if it said something like “The intent of the proposed project is to: …”. The
Committee agreed on this revision, subject to checking with Susan Brock to make sure she was
okay with this change. John and Steve also thought that the revision sounded better.
Pat indicated that sections starting on page 3 of the draft law indicate uses that are permitted, but
this does not necessarily mean they will happen. Pat then referred to the median income housing
provisions starting on page 10, and said that these provisions are very well crafted. Pat raised a
question of why the escape clauses on pages 13 and 14 are included, in which the Carrowmoor
Association can get out of the median income housing program by paying $50,000 to the Town for
every 10 units sold. Steve indicated that Carrowmoor did not propose this, that the Town
committee wanted this as a back up in case the program did not work because of housing market
conditions or other reasons. Steve added that it is the intent of the developers to make the median
income housing program work. Steve indicated that the developers have already gotten preliminary
commitments from the Learning Web program to sponsor a program for some rental units in
Carrowmoor that would be available for lower income workers. Also, some people working at
Carrowmoor will probably live at the adjacent Linderman Creek Apartments. John added that there
would be no public funds involved in subsidizing the median income units. Because the housing
fund and program is a new idea in this area, both the Town and developers agreed that the “buy -
out” provisions would be a good back-up. Herb mentioned that both the Town and the developer
would have to agree on the buy-out option before it could go into effect.
Rich asked about height limits on page 8. Why is 40 feet allowed for one and two-family
dwellings? Steve indicated that this is due to slopes of the land on the site and the desire to have
pitched roofs and to allow flexibility in roof designs. Rich asked about the 60 foot height allowance
for the Great Hall. Steve indicated that this is planned to be a larger building, and may also have
towers and variable roof elements.
Herb asked whether the Committee is comfortable with the draft law for the PDZ, subject to the one
change suggested on page 1 (see above) and checking with Susan Brock on that change. The
Committee agreed that it supports sending the law to the Town Board for further consideration to
begin the formal review process.
Discussion Regarding Draft Cornell t-GEIS:
Herb reported that the draft Cornell transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (t-GEIS) has been completed, and the Planning Board has scheduled a public hearing for
September 16th to receive comments from the public on the t-GEIS. Herb added that Jonathan and
Susan Brock were involved throughout the entire t-GEIS process. Herb said that he was impressed
with how the t-GEIS approach changed dramatically over time from an initial focus on getting
people faster to the Cornell campus to the current approach in the t-GEIS of getting people out of
cars and protecting neighborhoods from the impacts of increased traffic. Jonathan referred to the
Executive Summary of the t-GEIS that had been distributed to the Committee, and that copies of the
DRAFT - 9/5/08
3
t-GEIS are available in Town Hall, other locations, and on Cornell’s t-GEIS website. Herb added
that he was concerned initially that once completed, the t-GEIS might in some way commit the
Town to a certain course of actions. But Herb is now comfortable that this is not the case. Peter
asked what the purpose of the t-GEIS is then if it does not pre-approve Cornell projects. Herb
indicated that the t-GEIS has evolved into a useful source of information that can be used by the
Planning Board, Town Board, and other agencies to help make future decisions regarding the
transportation system, and that Cornell has done a good job of putting this useful document
together. Herb mentioned that the t-GEIS includes a focus on alternative transportation approaches,
such as pedestrian and bicycle use and facilities, and that Cornell has already started some new
programs to address transportation issues that came out of the draft t-GEIS. Jonathan mentioned
that Cornell has prepared a draft report on Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) that
is also available for review. TIMS includes specific recommended transportation strategies and
indicates agencies responsible for implementation, timeframes and process for addressing future
transportation needs. Jonathan mentioned that in addition to the September 16th public hearing
scheduled by the Planning Board (7:15 p.m.), Cornell has scheduled a public information meeting
for involved and interested agencies on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. in the Town Hall
Board Room, and suggested that Committee and Town Board members attend that meeting. Rich
asked about funding responsibilities for things like intersection improvements that may be required.
Jonathan indicated that the t-GEIS includes analysis of corridors and selected intersections to see
how they would be affected by the different Cornell growth scenarios described, and includes
specific recommendations for affected intersections. The t-GEIS can then be used to provide
documentation to obtain funding for some intersection improvements through the TIP
(Transportation Improvement Program) as an example.
Other Business:
Herb asked the Committee about attendance at Planning Board meetings, which are held the first
and third Tuesday of each month. Pat said that she could not attend on her own because of her
transportation situation. Rich and Peter said that they would be available to attend. Herb indicated
that he would be available for some meetings. Herb said that he could ask other Town Board
members if they are also willing and available to attend some Planning Board meetings. Herb
agreed to coordinate scheduling of attendance at Planning Board meetings with Town Board and
Planning Committee members, and that he would then prepare a schedule of attendance.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.
Agenda items will include review and discussion of the Conservation Board Scenic Resources
Committee report, entitled “Saving Ithaca’s Views” and possible follow-up discussion regarding the
Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Peter Stein, Rich DePaolo.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Diane Conneman, Chair, Conservation Board; James
Hamilton, Conservation Board Member; Eva Hoffmann, Conservation Board Member; Jonathan
Kanter, Director of Planning; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: Trevor Pinch, President, Forest Home Improvement Association; Bruce
Brittain; Doug Brittain; Stephen Wagner; Syl Kacapyr, WHCU Radio.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Discussion Regarding Conservation Board – Scenic Resources Committee Report, Entitled
“Saving Ithaca’s Views:
Sue discussed the background of the Scenic Resources Committee report, “Saving Ithaca’s Views”.
The report includes criteria that were used to determine important views and describes the “top ten”
views that were identified in the Town of Ithaca. Herb indicated that the Town Board referred the
report to the Planning Committee to follow up on implementation of the report’s recommendations.
Diane referred to the cover memo that had been provided to the Committee that summarizes the list
of recommendations in the report. Herb added that the Comprehensive Plan update can incorporate
some of the recommendations regarding the protection of scenic views, but completion of the Plan
update is probably two years away.
Rich asked what a view easement is. Jonathan responded that scenic easements are like any other
conservation easement – they place permanent legal restrictions on property, in this case to protect
views. The Town could negotiate with landowners to preserve certain views through scenic
easements either through donations or acquisition. Peter asked whether zoning might be a
legitimate way to preserve views. Jonathan responded that zoning could be a means of preserving
some views – some communities have adopted scenic overlay zones to protect views. Herb
suggested that a first step might be to look at ownership of parcels in view areas. Sue mentioned
that the Town’s “Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan” recommends the protection of a scenic view
on Route 96B adjacent to Longview possibly with a scenic easement. Peter thought that it would be
helpful to analyze all of the views identified in the report to see what kinds of protective measures
might be appropriate. Jonathan agreed, indicating that GIS mapping would be useful in such an
analysis.
Rich indicated that views are subjective, and the Town needs to be careful about preventing sensible
growth because of the presence of views. Pat agreed that the more land that we take away from
development, the harder it is to provide affordable housing opportunities. Diane suggested that it is
not necessarily a matter of taking away development rights, but promoting wise development.
2
The Committee discussed how trees can block views and that working with adjacent landowners in
proper management of vegetation can help to open up important views. Also, limiting heights or
locations of buildings within viewing areas can help to protect views.
James indicated that the ten views were ranked according to criteria in the report. Public access to a
view was one criteria. James added that one way of enhancing views, such as the one off of Pine
Tree Road on Cornell land, would be to provide a scenic pull-off where the public could enjoy the
view. James added that pull-offs could include appropriate interpretive signs. James distributed a
sample of what such a sign might look like.
Herb indicated that most access points for views are small, such as at East Shore Park, and that
those might be easier to protect than more expansive view areas. Herb suggested that it might be
helpful to talk to the Finger Lakes Land Trust to see if there are any potential funding sources for
scenic view preservation. Doug added that if a scenic easement is donated to the Town, then the
owner could receive a tax write-off. Jonathan agreed – there are federal and state income tax
benefits for such donations. It would also be a good idea to talk with County Assessment to see
how such an easement might affect the assessed value of the property in an easement.
James went back to the idea of developing a scenic pull-off and sign, and that it might be good to
start with East Shore Park – this could add to public awareness of the importance of scenic views.
Rich said he likes the idea of public awareness of views, but is not sure he likes the idea of a sign
telling you that you are looking at a good view. Herb thought that a well -designed sign could
promote an overall system of scenic views in the Town. Jonathan pointed to the State’s Scenic
Byways Program, which uses pull-offs and signs to promote the program. Pat cautioned that we
have to be careful because pull-offs can result in littering and other unintended nuisances. Pat
added that if we do install signs at viewing areas, they should be small and modest. James
suggested that we could start with four or five viewing points. Eva added that the signs we are
talking about would be small, low and there could be a bench to sit on to enjoy the view. Eva
mentioned that most viewing points for important views are located along roads. Eva then referred
to the Longview development on Danby Road where some of the important view from the road was
blocked. Eva added that the Planning Board uses environmental review to protect important views,
and goals in the Comprehensive Plan have been referenced to help protect views during site plan
reviews. Peter summed up – signs should be unobtrusive and have useful information, tying into
the geology and history of the area.
Herb asked if we could have the following for the next meeting: identification of ownership around
the top ten views, identification of potential funding sources, and a prototype of a sign that could be
used at a scenic pull-off. Sue mentioned that some views would not be easy to analyze in terms of
ownership or other characteristics because of their large extent. Herb suggested starting with the
more easily identified views. Jonathan agreed – staff could look at ownership patterns around the
smaller, more distinct views, look at a scope of study to analyze all of the views, and Sue would talk
to the Land Trust to see about funding sources.
Update on Proposed Carrowmoor Development:
Herb reported that the Town Board has reviewed a draft local law for a Planned Development Zone
(PDZ) for the proposed Carrowmoor development, and decided to refer the proposal to the Planning
Board for a recommendation. Jonathan indicated that coordination between the Planning Board and
3
Town Board will be important and that the Planning Committee could play a role in this. In
addition it would help to have Town Board/Planning Committee members attend Planning Board
meetings, especially those involving Carrowmoor, to keep the Town Board well informed regarding
the review of Carrowmoor.
Discussion Regarding Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan:
Jonathan reported that the Cornell Community Investment Initiative Program includes the first
phase of Forest Home Traffic Calming, including entrance features and speed tables, and that the
Town’s proposed Capital Budget also includes the Phase I traffic calming elements. Jonathan
added that the capital project description indicates that some of the funding for entrance features
might come from the Lighting District assessment. Peter asked where we are with some of the
specific traffic calming elements, such as curbing and shoulder treatment. Herb added that the
Forest Home Upstream Bridge project is funded by the County and the Town’s Capital Budget
includes funds for the Town’s share of this project, as well as reconstruction of a portion of Forest
Home Drive. Herb asked the Forest Home representatives whether Forest Home would consider
funding some of the entrance features through the Lighting District and whether the entire Forest
Home area is covered by the District. Bruce indicated that all of Forest Home is in the Lighting
District. Peter asked whether residents in the Lighting District would have to vote on including
funding for the lights in the entrance features through the District assessment. Bruce thought that
the Traffic Calming Plan may have discussed the question of partial funding through the Lighting
District, and that way, it would be spread out over 100 households. Pat asked whether a referendum
would be needed to fund entrance features in this way, and Herb said that we would need to check
on this. Doug suggested that Fred Noteboom could look at the specific costs of the entrance
features.
Jonathan asked the Forest Home representatives how they would like to discuss other longer term
traffic calming elements. Trevor responded that intersection modifications are probably the next
priority to look at. Bruce mentioned that the Town has done well with the zebra-crossing pedestrian
crosswalks – they have improved safety for pedestrians. Herb suggested that some of the
intersections could be evaluated for possible modifications when other repaving or roadway is
planned. Doug indicated that some intersections are under both Town and County jurisdiction, and
that the County bridge project might be able to include improvements to adjacent intersections, such
as Warren Road. Herb mentioned that the Town is currently working out legal issues relating to
ownership of Judd Falls Road off of Route 366 with the State. Rich asked how many roads in
Forest Home are planned for repaving vs. reconstruction. Herb indicated that Forest Home Drive is
scheduled for repaving and that it has held up well and has not been redone yet. Rich asked what
happens to a speed table installed on an existing road when the road is reconstructed. Doug
suggested that the road work could be done around the speed table without having to remove it.
There was further discussion on how speed tables work. Herb indicated that we need to start
planning for the entrance features, and that the Public Works Committee should probably start
looking at this and working on design and construction details. Herb added that the currently
planned Forest Home Drive project might be modified to include some of the traffic calming
elements.
Other Business:
4
Herb reported that he had not had a chance to work on scheduling of Town Board members to
attend Planning Board meetings. Peter suggested that it should be Planning Committee members
attending Planning Board meetings. Herb said that the Committee could try that and see how it
works, and that he would work out a schedule as soon as he could.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. Tentative
agenda items will include follow-up discussion of the Conservation Board Scenic Resources
Committee report, entitled “Saving Ithaca’s Views”, possibly discussion regarding the Northeast
environmental assessment of lands adjacent to Sapsucker Woods (if ready), and confirmation of
schedule for Planning Committee/Town Board members to attend Planning Board meetings on
rotating basis.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
DRAFT – 11/7/08
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 9, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Peter Stein, Rich DePaolo.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board Member; Jonathan
Kanter, Director of Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: Larry Fabbroni; Stephen Wagner; Adrian Williams; Syl Kacapyr, WHCU
Radio.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Review and Discussion Regarding LeCain Environmental Services, Inc. Reports Relating to
the Environmental Assessment of Lands Adjacent to Sapsucker Woods:
Herb reported that LeCain Environmental Services, Inc., the consultants hired by the Town, had
completed the study of the lands in the Northeast part of the Town adjacent to Sapsucker Woods
Road, and three reports were submitted amd distributed to Committee members (Executive
Summary, Final Report of an Ecological Communities Survey & Assessment of Lands Adjacent to
Sapsucker Woods, and Report of a Spring Survey of Birds and Other Faunal Resources on Lands
Adjacent to Sapsucker Woods). Herb mentioned that some typos were found in the reports, but that
they would be corrected and the reports would be placed on the Town website if that was okay with
the Committee.
Rich asked whether the stations recording the presence of birds were manned. Jonathan said that he
did not know, but that the consultants would be attending the October 20th Town Board meeting to
give a report on the study, and that would be an appropriate time to get answers to technical
questions like that. Peter mentioned that a working committee had prepared an extensive scope of
work for the consultant study, and that three consulting firms were interviewed as part of the
selection process, resulting in the hiring of LeCain to do the study.
Herb indicated that the reports include recommendations presented as options, and that the highest
priority option recommended is to preserve all of the lands in the entire study area. The reports
present alternative options, which include preserving portions of the lands in the study area with no
development, and providing strong buffers on lands adjacent to Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary. Herb
added that the reports do not specify what protective measures should be used by the Town.
Peter said that he was very impressed with the detail and amount of work that went into the
consultant’s study, and that he considered it to be a model for a good process. Pat said her overall
reaction from the study reports was that if the lands were not adjacent to Sapsucker Woods
Sanctuary, the ecological values of lands in the study area might not have been considered as
significant. Pat added that the consultants made a convincing argument that a buffer adjacent to
Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary should be established. Pat referred to the recommendations in the
DRAFT - 11/7/08
2
reports regarding drainage issues, and indicated that the consultants recommend keeping retention
basins away from wetland areas and high quality habitats. Pat felt that the consultant’s Option 2,
preserving some of the lands in the study area, and establishing buffers adjacent to Sapsucker
Woods Sanctuary, might be a good approach. Herb suggested that the Town should combine the
findings of the previous hydrological study done by the Town with the recommendations of the
LeCain environmental study to provide the whole picture.
Herb mentioned that the consultants concluded that the nearby Monkey Run Unique Natural Area
(UNA) forms an important biological corridor with the study area. Jonathan referred to Table 1
(Ecological Communities) and Map 2 (Overview of Sections) in the Ecological Communities
Survey report, which together summarize the consultant’s findings regarding ecological values of
the different sections in the study area. Rich added that the consultants were careful to say that the
study area has to be looked at as a whole, not just by individual sections.
Rich asked whether there are any current development proposals on the Cornell parcel within the
study area. Herb responded that his understanding is that Cornell has long-term conceptual ideas
for how it would like to develop the property, but that it has no plans to do anything in the near
future.
Herb asked the Committee whether it is okay to post the reports on the Town website and forward
the consultant’s recommendations on to the Town Board for consideration. The Committee was in
unanimous agreement that the study should be placed on the website as soon as possible, and that
the Town Board should consider the LeCain reports at the October 20, 2008 meeting. Jonathan
mentioned the website address where the reports will be able to be accessed
(www.town.ithaca.ny.us/nestudy.htm).
Herb reported that he and staff had met with representatives of the landowners within the study area
(Mr. Lucente and Cornell University) to go over the results of the study, and had indicated to the
owners that it was likely that the Town Board will want to pursue some kind of protection for the
study area. Peter added that the Board will want to hear comments from the public before deciding
what course of action to take on this matter. Larry Fabbroni stated that he has a preliminary
response to the study for the Committee to consider. Larry added that he and Mr. Lucente would
like to work with the Town to achieve a positive outcome for this area. Larry mentioned that he
does not dispute the inventory or data in the LeCain study, but that he disagrees with some of the
LeCain study conclusions, and that Mr. Lucente’s environmental consultants would be reviewing
the LeCain reports and providing their own observations on those reports.
Peter indicated that there is a specific timeframe left in the current moratorium on development in
the Northeast area, and wondered if perhaps an extension of the moratorium would be appropriate
in order to provide adequate time for the both the Town and Mr. Lucente’s consultants to review the
LeCain study. Rich indicated that he would want to hear directly from the owners of the land in the
study area. Larry gave a packet of his comments and materials to Herb, and indicated that Mr.
Lucente’s consultants would possibly have some additional comments and observations at the
October 20th Board meeting. Herb said that he would distribute Larry’s materials to Committee
members and the Town Board. Herb added that he thought that the preliminary discussions with
Mr. Lucente and Cornell University went well and he was optimistic about coming up with
solutions that would work well for all concerned.
DRAFT - 11/7/08
3
Report Regarding October 7th Planning Board Sketch Plan Review and Discussion of
Proposed Carrowmoor Development:
Jonathan reported that the Carrowmoor development proposal was discussed at the Planning
Board’s October 7th meeting for sketch plan review. The Planning Board indicated during the
sketch plan discussion that it is interested in seeing a market/feasibility study for the Carrowmoor
development. Traffic issues were also of primary concern. Jonathan indicated that the developers
had agreed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate potential environmental
impacts. The Committee had a short discussion about the current financial crisis and how new
housing proposals may be affected. Tee-Ann said that she thought that the Carrowmoor units
would be very expensive. Pat felt that one of the values of the Carrowmoor proposal is its diversity
and mix of housing types and price ranges.
Other Business:
Herb reported that he had sent a schedule around to Committee members with assignments for
attendance at Planning Board meetings. Pat said she would try to attend as many Planning Board
meetings as possible if she is able to get rides to and from the meetings. Jonathan indicated that the
Planning Board may cancel its meeting of October 21st, and will let Committee members know if
that happens.
Jonathan distributed a letter from Salvatore and Rosalind Grippi requesting that the Town Board
consider rezoning their property on Trumansburg Road from residential to commercial, and asked
the Committee if they would like to schedule this for discussion at the November meeting.
Pat noted a correction that should be made on page 2 in the draft Summary of the September 11,
2008 meeting (“sign” was spelled “sig”). Jonathan said that will be corrected.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.
Tentative agenda items will include follow-up discussion of the Conservation Board Scenic
Resources Committee report, entitled “Saving Ithaca’s Views”, and discussion regarding the request
by Salvatore and Rosalind Grippi to rezone their property on Trumansburg Road.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
DRAFT – 12/5/08
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 13, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Peter Stein, Rich DePaolo.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Diane Conneman, Conservation Board Chair;
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Bruce Bates,
Director of Code Enforcement.
GUESTS PRESENT: Stephen Wagner.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements:
Jonathan indicated that the Grippi’s sent a letter saying that they would like to postpone discussion
of their proposal to rezone their property on Trumansburg Road indefinitely.
Herb reported that he had a meeting with Cornell officials regarding Cornell’s funding
commitments to the transportation and housing initiatives. Herb said that none of the Town of
Ithaca projects will be adversely affected by Cornell’s announcement to delay some capital projects
for several months due to the economic conditions, although there could be a delay in the start -up of
the Forest Home Traffic Calming project.
Review and Discussion Regrding Scenic Resources Committee Report, Saving Ithaca’s Views:
Sue referred to the memo and materials in the packets regarding scenic resource protection. Staff
had selected several views from the “Saving Ithaca’s Views” report, including Views 7, 8 and 9,
and did some further evaluation, which is described in the handouts. Sue mentioned that each view
has different characteristics, and might require different approaches for protection. Sue also
referred to the map in the packets showing the areas visible in the three views. Staff believes that
more work needs to be done to come up with strategies to protect views that have been identified.
Sue also indicated that the Committee might want to review how the Conservation Board’s Scenic
Resources Committee (SRC) picked the “top ten” views, and whether there are other significant
views in the Town that might warrant protection. Jonathan added that the further study of views
should be done in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update.
Pat indicated that she had a concern that some views contain large areas that are visible from the
main viewing points and that not all areas within a view can be protected. Also, in reference to the
Longview/Ithaca College site, it might be desirable to limit building heights within that view.
Jonathan reiterated that it would be beneficial to do a complete inventory and analysis of the
significant views in the Town to help identify measures that could be implemented to protect each
view. Herb asked whether there are any views in the Town where there might be an immediate
threat. Sue responded that she felt that the Sandbank Road views are especially sensitive, and could
be negatively impacted if even individual lots were developed along that road. Sue added that the
Finger Lakes Land Trust is also concerned with the Sandbank Road parcels, and has been trying to
DRAFT - 12/5/08
2
talk with the owner about protecting those lands. Herb agreed that the Sandbank Road area is
especially sensitive and is important to preserve. Sue mentioned that State Parks might be
interested in assisting with easements or other preservation measures because of the State Park
lands in this area. Sue suggested that the Sandbank Road view area could be the first to be further
studied and could be used as a model for evaluating the other views.
Sue indicated that the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process includes addressing
aesthetic and visual impacts, and agencies must consider whether an action may cause impairment
of the character or quality of significant aesthetic resources or community character. The Planning
Board would consider whether a proposal affects a site that has views known to be important to the
community. Sue posed the question to the Committee of whether the top ten views identified in
“Saving Ithaca’s Views” are significant to the public. Herb suggested that the Committee could
recommend that the Town Board adopt a resolution acknowledging that the top ten views in that
report are considered significant, as well as indicating that further study of those views would be a
good idea and something the Board would support. Herb added that this would be the same kind of
recognition that the County has given to UNA’s. Diane mentioned that the top ten views were
identified through a long public participation process, which included an insert in the Town
Newsletter, an open house at Town Hall, and information on the Town’s website. Herb suggested
that a Town Board resolution could give immediate official recognition to the top ten views as
significant public views. The Planning Board could refer to this in its SEQR reviews. Jonathan
suggested that a Town Board resolution could also support the preparation of a scenic view study,
which could include recommendations and implementation strategies that could be incorporated
into the Comprehensive Plan update. The Committee agreed.
Herb asked Diane whether she thought the Committee was going in the right direction regarding
scenic view follow-up. Diane said yes, and that in addition to what the Committee is working on,
some of the Conservation Board members are interested in working on some specific education
aspects of views. Diane mentioned that Tony Ingraham has just joined the Conservation Board and
has a lot of experience with environmental education, having worked for State Parks for a number
of years. The Conservation Board is interested in getting signs placed at some of the viewing
points. Herb asked who will decide where signs will be placed and what they will say and look like.
Sue suggested that we could start with East Shore Park and perhaps the Cornell fields on Pine Tree
Road. Diane added that a sign could also easily be placed at the pull -off on Route 96B near
Longview. Pat asked whether there would be signs at all viewing locations and how large they
would be.
Diane also mentioned that the Conservation Board is interested in promoting a tour map of scenic
views in the Town. Sue mentioned that staff was concerned with the draft map which includes the
intersection at Route 13 and Brown Road, which has been identified by the County Planning and
Public Works Departments as having potential safety issues. The County and State have been
meeting about this intersection and possible safety improvements. Sue indicated that the
Conservation Board was all set to print a tour map and bring it to the Chamber of Commerce for
distribution and use without checking this with the Town Board. Peter likes the idea of a map
showing where the important views in the Town are and modest signs to identify some of the views.
Pat does not like the idea of signs being placed at all views, but indicated that a map showing
locations of views sounds okay. Herb suggested starting with a few good signs to see how they
work. Peter referred to the sign at Triphammer Bridge as a good example of a sign.
DRAFT - 12/5/08
3
Rich had some questions on the Planning Tools handout. Rich asked whether the publicizing of
views might increase the asking price for an easement if the Town decided to pursue a scenic view
easement. Rich added that realtors see views as increasing the value of property. Jonathan
responded that it is hard to say, but that any easement acquisition by the Town would have to be
done through an appraisal of the land and easement value. Herb suggested that the Town could
begin by working with land owners to see if any are interested in donating an easement to the Town.
Pat suggested that developing scenic pull-offs might contribute to littering and other undesirable
activities and could negatively affect neighboring land owners. Rich suggested another way to
publicize views is to take some panoramic photos and place them on the website.
Diane agreed that the tour map of scenic views is premature to distribute publically until the Town
does further study of the views. Herb agreed. Rich asked whether the Town intends to attract
tourists to the views, or is the Town mainly interested in protecting the significant views for future
residents. Peter thought that probably both are relevant. Herb liked the idea of the Town taking a
leadership role in scenic view protection, and that it is likely that other municipalities in the County
will follow our lead. Rich emphasized that his priority is to protect the significant views and to
provide the Town with mechanisms to achieve this. Jonathan referred to a map of Cornell’s
Precinct 7/Orchards Special Land Use District (SLUD), which includes the designation of a scenic
view at the corner of Route 366 and Game Farm Road. Jonathan added that the SLUD includes
provisions to protect this view which was identified as significant, and suggested that this could be
added to the Town’s list of significant views, and that further study may identify others. Peter said
that he does not particularly like the term “top ten views” – it sounds hokey, and that perhaps they
should be referred to as “important scenic views”.
Other Business:
Herb reported that the response to the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) grant
program for housing rehabilitation has been huge. Herb added that the program could use
additional money already. INHS has another program for insulation and weatherization.
Herb reported that he spoke with Tim Joseph about the effect of State cutbacks on the Black
Diamond Trail project. Tim had indicated that the State cutbacks will stop progress on the trail for
now. Money for bridges is being withheld. Herb was hopeful, however, that efforts of the Town of
Ithaca Public Works Department might be able to keep some aspects of trail development moving
ahead, including clearing of some areas where engineers need to get in and see what additional
work needs to be done. Herb added that the Town crews might be able to replace some culverts
along the trail. It is possible that the State might be able to pay for some materials, and the Town
crew could do some of the work. This could result in a useable trail from Cass Park past the
Cayuga Medical Center in the near future.
Herb mentioned that there is a disagreement between the Town and City regarding the ownership of
the land on which the Farmers’ Market is located. Herb added that he had received a letter from
Mayor Peterson regarding land ownership around the Joint Sewage Treatment Plant. Herb
indicated that the Town’s attorney has looked at this and will be advising the Town on what may
need to be done to resolve this issue.
DRAFT - 12/5/08
4
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, December 11, 2008 at 4:30
p.m. Tentative agenda items will include a report and discussion regarding the Route 96 Corridor
Study and a discussion regarding nodal development, if we can get a representative of the County
Planning Department to attend. Jonathan will check on this, and if a County planner cannot attend,
the December meeting could be cancelled.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
DRAFT – 2/6/09
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 11, 2008 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Pat Leary, Peter Stein, Rich DePaolo.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker,
Director of Engineering; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUESTS PRESENT: Ed Marx, Commissioner, Tompkins County Planning Department; Stephen
Wagner.
Chair Herb Engman called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Discussion and Presentation Regrding Nodal Development – Ed Marx:
Ed Marx gave a presentation regarding the concept of nodal development based on a recent similar
presentation he gave at a workshop. Ed indicated that the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan
featured the idea of nodal development as an alternative to sprawl. The County Planning
Department has recently coordinated two corridor studies, including Route 13 in Dryden and Route
96 in the Towns of Ulysses and Ithaca and City of Ithaca, which also have stressed the positive
aspects of nodal development. Ed then went though some of the elements of a node as follows:
What is a node: A node is similar to the concept of a traditional village. It is compact and walkable,
relatively dense, there are a mix of land uses and housing types, and it is transit-friendly.
Nodes are compact and walkable: A node usually has neighborhood commercial and service uses
within a half mile walk of most residents in the node. There are attractive pedestrian facilities, and
a node typically should include 500 to 600 acres. Ed noted that most villages were built within an
area of about one square mile. Peter said that he first became aware of nodal development in Milan,
Italy, where villages were built before there were cars. Ed agreed and said that nodal development
is trying to get away from relying on cars.
Density: A node should have a minimum density of 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre for an area like
Ithaca. For one-family residential, that range could be 4 to 5 units per acre, and for multi -family
residential, the range could be between 10 and 15 units per acre. There should be a compact
commercial center, and a node usually needs adequate public sewer and water to allow the
necessary density and mix of uses.
Mix of Uses: There should be a mix of residential units in relation to cost and types available.
There should be a mix of neighborhood commercial services, including retail and personal and
financial services. Neighborhood retail and services can include things like drug store, bank,
restaurant, and groceries. There should also be other community services, such as library,
museums, schools, or churches. There should also be employment opportunities in or near a node.
DRAFT - 2/6/09
2
Transit-friendly: There should be a transit stop within one-quarter mile walking distance of
residents or businesses in the node, and there should be adequate transit service for commuters to
get to major employment centers.
Characteristics for success: A node should have a combined resident and employment population of
at least 2,000 people to be successful. The node should maintain the character of the urban/rural
edge. It should have pedestrian scale development and amenities, and there should be adequate
commuter transit service.
Advantages of nodal development: Nodal development offers housing options for a changing
demographic population, it can preserve rural land, it can reduce the need for automobile trips,
reduce greenhouse emissions, improve highway function and safety, and enhance the quality of life
for residents through social interaction and health benefits.
Challenges: To make a node successful, the right mix of services must be attracted. There has to be
a range of transportation options available. There should be a balance of housing and employment
opportunities in the node. There should be attractive housing options available. There should be a
high level of design and amenities to attract residents and businesses to the node.
Peter mentioned that there seems to be a difference between what American families and European
families want for a lifestyle. Americans seem to want a large yard for the kids to play in, and they
want to get around in cars. European families do not find these things as important. This difference
in attitude makes it more difficult for nodal development to work well in the U.S. Ed responded
that there is truth in Peter’s observation, but that people’s needs in the U.S. are changing.
Demographics are changing, lifestyle preferences are changing. Gas prices are changing, and the
costs of maintaining a large house are increasing. These changes make the concept of living in a
node more attractive for some people. Pat mentioned a book, titled “The Not So Big House”,
written by a designer about the change in people’s lifestyles. Ed added that the affordability of
housing is another issue that is becoming more important in people’s decisions about where to live.
How do we get nodal development to happen: We need to build on existing community and
employment centers and utilize existing infrastructure. Municipalities have to encourage density
and a mix of uses in designated nodes through zoning and other regulatory measures. Rural land
uses outside of the node have to be protected, including farmland, important natural areas, and
forests and other open space. The adoption and enforcement of design standards for nodal
development is also important. [This ended Ed’s presentation on nodal development.]
Rich asked whether there is enough market demand to attract businesses and services into a node.
Ed responded that many nodes develop around existing communities that already form a base of
development. A community has to look at its zoning and land use regulations to see whether they
need to be updated. Many zoning ordinances prepared in the 1970’s do not encourage or even
allow nodal development to occur and may even encourage sprawl. Ed added that the Route 96
Corridor presents an opportunity to encourage nodal development in a way that has not happened in
this area recently. Rich said that the media also promotes the idea of suburban sprawl, so that
makes it harder for people to think about living in a node with more compact development.
Peter indicated that he attended a meeting regarding the Route 96 Corridor Study, and he was
dubious about the idea of Jacksonville becoming a node as has been proposed at that meeting. Peter
DRAFT - 2/6/09
3
added that when he first moved to the Ithaca area, he lived near Jacksonville. At that time there
were several stores, a library and school. Now there are no stores there. What would make
Jacksonville be able to become a node again? Ed said that his thinking has evolved on this
question, and that there should be a distinction between a node and a rural hamlet. Ed agreed that
Jacksonville probably will not be able to re-develop into a node as described in his presentation, but
that it could develop with additional housing and perhaps some expanded transit service. Ed added
that the node around the Cayuga Medical Center has features different from Jacksonville, such as a
large existing employment base, existing sewer and water, and fairly regular transit service, that
would allow a node to develop around the hospital area in a way that Jacksonville could not.
Jonathan mentioned that the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan update will be looking at three
possible nodes in which growth could be focused, including the hospital node on West Hill, the East
Ithaca node around East Hill Plaza, where Cornell is proposing the development of East Ithaca
Village in its Campus Master Plan, and a third node on South Hill around the Danby/King Road
intersection. All three potential nodes have common elements, including a base of existing
development, public sewer and water facilities, fairly level topography, and proximity to the City.
Discussion and Presentation Regarding Route 96 Corridor Study – Ed Marx:
Ed reported on the Route 96 Corridor Study, which is a cooperative study including Tompkins
County, the Towns of Ulysses and Ithaca and City of Ithaca, TCAT and the Ithaca-Tompkins
County Transportation Council (ITCTC). The study has focused on the opportunity and benefits of
developing a node around the hospital. The study comes at an opportune time with all three
municipalities working on comprehensive plan updates. Three technical reports for the Route 96
Study have been completed, and the Technical Review Committee is working on a fourth report that
will tie together the consultant’s recommendations and include strategies for implementing study
recommendations.
Peter indicated that the hospital node makes a lot of sense. What about Trumansburg? Ed
responded that Trumansburg is considered a node, and will provide additional housing opportunities
in the future. The Village has annexed some land, and the Village is interested in new housing to
strengthen the community. Downtown businesses are struggling, and new housing would help to
strengthen the downtown area. There are also limited housing opportunities in Jacksonville.
Rich added that the hospital has an existing employment base. What employment bases do other
nodes have? Ed indicated that Dryden has the Community College, schools and some commercial
development. Groton has some industry and commercial employment. The Village of Lansing is
interested in looking at affordable housing. Herb added that the Town of Ithaca has Cornell on East
Hill and Ithaca College on South Hill as large centers of employment.
Jonathan mentioned that Report # 4 will emphasize an inter-municipal approach to the development
of the Route 96 Corridor. There has been some opposition from the City regarding future growth in
the Town on West Hill. We are hoping to get buy-in from the City that development can happen in
a way that will minimize impacts on existing neighborhoods. Ed added that not all future housing
can be built in the City and that we need to look at how the overall area develops, not just an
individual municipality. Peter asked what the City’s concerns are. Ed responded that some in the
City feel that any development outside of the City means more traffic coming into the City.
DRAFT - 2/6/09
4
Rich asked how bicycle/pedestrian facilities would work in a node with a busy state highway? Ed
said that New York State supports the concept of nodal development and has been working with
municipalities on providing safe bicycle and pedestrian routes in conjunction with state highways.
Bicycle lanes can be added on the road, safe pedestrian crosswalks and sidewalks can be added, and
internal paths provide safe connections. Jonathan added that the Town has plans for an off-road
bicycle/pedestrian path on West Hill that would serve the West Hill node. Herb added that a
sidewalk could be added on Route 96, some of which could be paid for by developers when they
proposed development in the area. Peter said that he is dubious about such a sidewalk because of
the steepness of parts of Route 96. Ed responded that connectivity within the node would be
important, and that some people might want to walk down the hill and then take the bus back up.
Ed indicated that the proposed Black Diamond Trail will also provide an important link into the
City. Enhanced transit also can play an important role in the Corridor. Rich indicated that he saw a
reference to a possible roundabout on Route 96 and wondered whether that could work on a state
highway like Route 96. Ed said that this is something the consultants recommended be
investigated, and that roundabouts have worked on other similar state highways.
Rich asked if the hospital node is seen as a magnet to attract senior citizens? Ed responded that it
depends on what developers decide to develop. Herb added that there has been interest expressed in
this area for an assisted living facility.
There was some discussion about the economic downturn and how that would affect development
in the area.
Approval of 2009 Meeting Schedule:
Herb referred to the Proposed 2009 Meeting Schedule that had been distributed with meetings
continuing on the second Thursday of each month at 4:30 p.m., and asked the Committee if the
schedule looked okay recognizing that the Committee membership could change based on
appointments at the Town Board organizational meeting in January. Herb asked in particular if the
January 8th meeting date was okay. The Committee agreed with the January 8th date and indicated
that the overall schedule looked okay, but could be re-visited if any new members had any difficulty
with the scheduled.
Other Business:
Herb reported that he and Bruce Bates participated in a tour of Lakeside Nursing Home and learned
about a Plan by lakeside to renovate portions of the building and change its uses to a smaller
nursing home, an assisted living facility and an adult day care facility. Jonathan suggested that
there could be some zoning issues with the proposed changes, and that he would consult with Bruce
if plans for the renovations come in for review.
Herb also mentioned a complaint that he had received regarding the number of police visits to the
Overlook at West Hill Apartments. Herb met with the owner of the Overlook Apartments and
Ithaca Neighborhood Services, which provides administrative assistance for the complex and
learned that the manager of the complex has been replaced recently and the process for vetting
potential residents has been improved, and that Sheriff Meskill seems to be less concerned with
these changes. Several specific residents have been identified as the focus of many of the police
DRAFT - 2/6/09
5
visits, and they seem to be mainly related to domestic problems. Some residents also outsiders to
live in their apartment without the manager knowing about it, and this has caused some problems.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, January 8, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
[This meeting was subsequently cancelled.]
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning