Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2015-All 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE   SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 12, 2015 MEETING    COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:  Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe.    TOWN STAFF PRESENT:  Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.    OTHERS:  None    Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.    1.   Consider October and November meeting summaries:  Bill moved and Rod seconded the motion to approve both the October and November meeting  summaries as drafted; all in favor.    2. Comments/announcements/reports   Rich/Sue: Announced that the Committee’s agenda would include a report from the Planning  Department.  Sue had suggested including this as a regular agenda item to serve as a way of sharing  information/updates on planning matters with Town officials.  She thought the Planning Committee was  a logical place for this.   Sue’s report included:  ‐  Housing Needs Study: Tompkins County Planning Department will be revising the almost 10‐year old  County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (2006).  At a recent Housing Strategy Partners meeting,  County staff reported on plans to prepare an update and asked attendees for input and ideas on the  project.  County Staff indicated they have less funding for this update than they did for the original  project.  They are seeking consultants to work on the project and will be issuing a request for  qualifications very soon.       ‐ City‐Town form‐based code zoning project update: Sue reported on recent meetings concerning the  project, including the public meeting held in January, a joint City and Town staff meeting held in  December, and periodic staff meetings with David West. Emerging from the meetings is the idea of  holding a multi‐day design charrette for the East Hill plaza area in late spring/early summer. Sue has  communicated with several Cornell representatives about this and thus far they seem open to the idea.  The benefit to CU is that the process will lead to creation of a regulating plan for compact mixed use  development in this area of E. Hill.  This could then be formed into a planned development zone and  with new zoning in place, potentially allow CU to move forward with housing/retail plans for that area.             ‐ Amabel project update:  Susan Cosentini, with assistance from T.G. Miller, has prepared a revised plan  for the Amabel project. She abandoned the idea of using Inlet Road as the access drive into the  development and instead is proposing a new curb cut off of Five Mile Drive.  Utilization of Inlet Road  became a legal issue because of an easement that NYS obtained long ago for maintenance of the flood  control channel.  That easement appeared to provide NYS with road use rights that could potentially  conflict with its use for residential development.  The City of Ithaca has agreed to sell approximately 3  acre of the parcel contiguous to Amabel and that has been incorporated into the development plan.   The proposal includes 28 new single family residential units clustered on the two parcels.  She is still  requesting a rezoning from the Town (LDR to MDR).  Sue Ritter asked Planning Committee members if  they felt the changes to the plan warranted scheduling a detailed review by the Committee.  After  reviewing/discussing the revised drawings, members agreed that it would not require additional scrutiny  by the committee.        2   3. Discuss and consider rental property oversight  Rich: Stated that he was interested in bringing back the discussion of rental housing in the Town.  This  was precipitated in part because of the proposed Troy Road project. Residents of the neighborhood had  expressed concern that the rental project would become concentrated with students, given the  proximity to Ithaca College.  The recent project redesign was changed to offering only for‐sale units,  however, at a recent Planning Board meeting, the developer was reluctant to commit to deed  restrictions limiting students. Rich stated that the Town should be equipped with tools that spell out the  rules related to rentals.  And that if the Town does not want certain areas to have a concentration of  student rental housing, then there should be mechanisms in place to keep that from happening.  Rich  stated that students are not a protected class and that many municipalities have instituted zoning  mechanisms, particularly communities with colleges, and these regulations have been upheld in the  court to prevent single family residential areas from turning into predominantly student rentals.        Rich: Stated that progress on establishing regulations in the Town was not due to a lack of interest, but  more so stalled because of the complicated details involved, such as enforcement aspects, staffing  needs, and how bureaucratically complex the system can be.  Rich thought in balancing needs, it would  be important to codify certain restrictions that enable the Town to have the necessary  information/oversight for ascertaining whether occupancy requirements are being adhered to or not.        Rich:  Provided two documents to the Committee/staff that described regulations adopted by various  communities to address rental properties (attached as part of the minutes), this included “Regulatory  Actions to Preserve Campus Neighborhoods” (Colorado State University 2005).  Rich highlighted some of  the municipal programs outlined in the document, such as Newark, Delaware, that requires certain  information to be disclosed to the municipality upon request, including the lease and the names of  individuals occupying the dwelling.   Rich explained how this information would prove very useful to  code enforcement officials (COE).   Some of the listed municipalities require rental licenses that include  frequent to periodic inspections of the property. In the case of the Town, Rich thought it would be  better to create the authority restricting certain types of rentals only for particular areas of the Town.   He thought a Town‐wide program could get overly complex and the associated inspections and fees  could potentially impact housing costs.  There are two areas of town most impacted by student housing.  He stated that student housing itself is not the issue, it is the incursion of it into well‐established single  family residential neighborhoods that presents the problem    Rich: Said he felt the Town needed to do something, but he was unsure of how complicated to go with  it.  At minimum, the Town regulations should have authority to geographically restrict certain types of  rentals.      Bill:  Expressed concern with a Town‐wide registry given that around 50% of the Town’s housing is  rented and such a program could get very involved/complex.  He preferred focusing on areas where the  Town is having problems.  Bill took issue with landlords that are taking advantage of the second dwelling  unit provision in the Town Code.  Bill said he assumed the original intent was to allow an owner living in  the main dwelling to have a smaller accessory unit (“granny flat”) for income, family/friends/guests.  But  this provision is being taken advantage of by landlords interested only in income and renting both units.  One way to change this would be by modifying the zoning to require that the primary dwelling unit be  owner occupied in certain zones.     3 Bruce: Referred to a lawsuit that involved the Town and rental properties in the Planned Development  Zone off Sapsucker Woods Road.  He thought the court’s ruling was unfavorable to owner‐occupancy  requirements.  Rich said he would be surprised by this and would be interested in knowing more.  Based  on his research, other municipalities were requiring owner‐occupancy.  Bruce said he would forward the  information to Committee members.    Rich: Referred to a UNLV School of Law report that was referenced in the description of the Kasper vs  Brookhaven legal case which references owner‐occupancy requirements.  Rich said he would look at this  in more detail.    Bruce: Suggested removing the exemption provision in the Town’s zoning regulations for two‐family  dwellings in which the second dwelling can be the same size if it is constructed entirely within the  basement area.      Rich:  Asked about the Town’s definition of “family”.      Bruce: Responded that he thought the Town’s definition for “family” is sound and legally defensible.  But  the definition also includes a provision that the ZBA is granted authority to determine if a specific group  living together meets the criteria for family.  Bruce thought that as long as the ZBA is very careful in  applying the criteria that their determination is defensible.  A recent case came to the ZBA and it was  denied based on the temporary nature of the group’s living situation (criteria f. in the definition)      Rich: Supported creating the legal authority for the Town COE to see leases, so students know up front  what the requirements are.      Bruce: Responded that the enforcement leverage may still be lacking even if the information is provided  to the Town. The COE cannot fine someone directly for violations.  It must go to a judge for this decision,  through an appearance ticket.  The COE has to notify the property owner of the violation and they are  provided a certain number of days to correct it.  Some of the more savvy landlords use delay tactics, so  that by the time they appear before the judge it is the end of the semester and the violation is gone.  If  the violation is removed the case is dropped.       Rich: Asked if the Committee thought there would be a benefit in talking with COEs from municipalities  that have instituted a rental regulatory system, places like NYC or Binghamton.  The City of Ithaca rental  regulations are focused on safety and not on neighborhood preservation, so their program is unlikely to  help the Town.  After some discussion, the Committee thought a conference call (or Skype/Facetime)  with officials that have implemented rental programs with a similar purpose as what the Town is seeking  would be helpful.      Bill: Indicated that we would check out the Codes booth at the NYC Association of Towns conference to  see if they could provide any help.      Rich:  Responding to a discussion of Ithaca College student enrollment, and off‐campus housing needs,  said he would follow up with the IC Working Group to see what he could learn.     Bill: Stated that the Town could consider a moratorium on new construction in certain areas of the Town  while this is being figured out.  He report that seven new subdivisions were recently filed with County  Assessment for the Pennsylvania/Kendall Avenue area and assumed that they were intended for  4 buildings.  (Staff noted that these still require Town approval, but they were successfully filed with the  County because the parcels had previously been consolidated and were filed with the original pre‐ consolidation deeds.)    Bruce: Added that he was aware of seven houses (locations on Snyder Hill Road, Coddington Road, Troy  Road) that were usually rentals but currently vacant.  Bruce thought this may be due to the high rental  fee.               Next meeting and upcoming agenda items  Next meeting:  Wednesday, March 18th (regular scheduled date of March 19th does not work for  everyone)            Committee adjourned approximately 5:45pm     What Other College Communities Have Done Examples of Regulatoiy Actions to Preserve the Single-Family, Residential Character of a Campus Neighborhood West Urbana is not alone in trying to preserve its single-family residential neighborhood.The May 2002 issue of Zol?ing News,a publication of the American Planning Association,discusses “How Communities Address the Problems of Students Living Off-Campus.”It lists effective strategies to reverse the “encroachment of student rental housing into nearby single-family neighborhoods and the negative effects of this encroachment.”1 Research by members of the West Urbana Neighborhood Association details solutions other college communities have implemented to achieve these goals.2 What follows are examples from which we can extrapolate and learn. Restrict the Definition of Family “The most common method of attempting to deal with over-occupation of rental properties in a single-family district.” Example of a “functional family”from Ann Arbor,MI:“...functional family means a group of people plus their offspring,having a relationship which is functionally equivalent to a family. The relationship must be of a permanent and distinct character with a demonstrable and recognizable bond characteristic of a cohesive unit,functional family does not include any society,club,fraternity,sorority,association,lodge,organization or group of students or other individuals where the common living arrangement or basis for the establishment of the housekeeping unit is temporary.”3 The restrictive family definition needs to be non-discriminatory and broad enough to include two unrelated partners and same-sex partners.Specific exceptions can be included in such an ordinance:e.g.,in-home childcare;elderly care;sabbatical renters;exchange students,etc. Towns that have passed such an ordinance,and the year of passage include: •Macomb,IL,2001 •Ann Arbor,MI [Survived challenges at the State Supreme Court level,2001] •East Lansing,MI,1997 •Burlington,VT,2001 •Salisbury,MD,2003 •Binghamton,NY,[Survived challenges at the State Supreme Court level,2000] 1 Craig Raborn:Coping with Colleges:How Communities Address the Problems of Students Living Off- Campus.”Zoning News,May 2002,p1-6.[Quote,p.1]Other quotes from this article,unless otherwise indicated. 2 Research was conducted over the last several years and may not be 100%accurate. Chapter 55,Zoning Code.Also at:hffp://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/Planning/codes/ch55-all.html REGULATORY ACTIONS TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NEIGHBORHOODS-JANUARY 2005 PAGE 1 Reduce the Number of Unrelateds [currently 4 in Urbana].Provide a sunset provision which requires that any current rentals will have to conform to the new occupancy rate within a specified number of years.Examples of the number of permitted unrelateds in other communities and when current level enacted are: •Carbondale,IL,2,1974 •Normal,IL,2,long-standing •Macomb,IL,2,2001 •Columbus,OH,2,long-standing •Madison,WI,2,long-standing •East Lansing,MI,2,1997 •Salisbury,MD,2,2003.Included a sunset provision of 3 years for existing rentals. •Lawrence,KS,3,2003 •Provo,UT,2,2003 •Lincoln,NE,2 [Survived challenges at the State Supreme Court level,1997] •Bloomington,TN,3 [Survived challenges at the State Supreme Court level,2003] •Allentown,PA:Student overlay district,limiting the number of unrelateds permitted in this district compared to other parts of town.[Upheld in court challenges.] Enforce Codes and Standards Ordinances to encourage compliance with existing codes include: •Bethlehem,PA:Tenant &Landlord must sign supplementary agreement that stipulates an understanding of legal #of occupants;obligations of landlord for maintenance; obligations of decent conduct by tenants. •Gainesville,FL:Requires rental occupancy permit to be maintained on premises. •Iowa City,IA:Have info disclosure form on responsibilities and #occupants.Post legal # occupants for every rental property on the Web. •West Lafayette,IN:Nuisance inspector who inspects key neighborhoods 3-41x daily.Has resulted in a major change in appearance of area. Issue Residential Parking Permits •Manhattan,KS:issues two permits per property at nominal fee.Overnight parking in neighborhoods near campus prohibited without a permit. •Newark,DE:No more than 2 residential parking permits will be issued per address for any non-owner occupant single-family type dwelling requiring a rental permit. •Columbus,OH:Limits number of ‘stacked’cars in a driveway;also limits to area devoted to parking and maneuvering of vehicles in the University District Overlay to 35%of lot to prevent the “auto salvage yards”syndrome. •Eugene,OR:One permit per address,with a limited number of additional permits for a 2- hour parking limit only. REGULATORY ACTIONS TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NEIGHBORHOODS-JANUARY 2005 PAGE 2 •East Lansing,MI:24/7 program in select neighborhoods,which limits number of permits [up to 3 or 4,depending on area]per address.No on-street parking 2am-5am. Grandfathered businesses exempted. •Bloomington,IN:Limits number of permits issued to Greek houses in the neighborhood. Greek Houses do not receive visitor passes. Inspect Rentals and License Landlords “Safe rental housing and a record of responsible parties for each property are additional benefits of such a program.” •Columbia,MO:Requires certificate of compliance,HVAC inspection,and city inspection.Registration and inspection fees required. •Gainesville,FL:Yearly fee for rental properties.Website promotion of licensed properties.Landlord point system,in which revocation of license possible for non compliance [passed 2003]. •Iowa City,IA:requires rental permit [fee assessed every 3 years per structure and per number of bedrooms]and one-time Certificate for Structure Compliance [one-time fee]. •West Lafayette,IN:Requires certification of all rental housing.Annual fee of $300 per structure in 2002,and additional per-unit fee.Different fees depending on whether owner-occupied,#of relateds and/or unrelateds,and multi-housing/single-family unit, etc. •East Lansing,MI:Annual inspections. •Boulder,CO:Baseline and safety inspections required.Fines up to $2000 if unlicensed. Exempted properties include:owner-occupied or sabbatical rentals. Implement Rooming House Programs These programs may be permitted in certain zones or overlay districts and may be prohibited in single-family districts. •Adopt ordinance making a Student Rental Home a use by special exception •West Chester,PA •Merrion Township,PA •Limits on density of student houses: •West Chester,PA:bans new student housing within 400’of other such housing. •Newark,DE:student homes must be at least 10 lot-widths apart. Target Disorderly Houses Minimizing nuisance and over-occupancy violations.Drafting ordinances to preserve the spirit of single-family zoning. •East Lansing,MI:Landlord fined daily if over-occupied.Landlord must prove tried to evict.Can fine landlord or tenant.If there are too many noise violations,the landlord is notified and ultimately liable.$1,000 fines and possible incarceration for serious repeat noise violations.Enforced twice and never needed subsequently,as of 2004. •Columbus,OH:Owner liable for over-occupancy. •West Lafayette,IN:Requires Occupancy Affidavit,which must be displayed on premises.Fines of $1 000-$2 500 imposed on landlord for over-occupancy.Owner and tenants must sign occupancy affidavit. REGULATORY ACTIONS TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NEIGHBORHOODS-JANUARY 2005 PAGE 3 •Springfield,IL:Website of landlords with excessive violations. http ://www.springfield.il.us/CITYGOV/ComServ/TopTen.htm •Ames,IA:Aggressive enforcement of over-occupancy.Landlords and tenants found in violation of the occupancy limit for their area will be fined $500 for the first violation and $750 for additional violations. •Carbondale,IL:Second offense for over-occupancy:fine owner and tenants.Burden is on the owner to inform tenants of legal occupancy rate.Burden of proof on residency is on the tenant. •Bloomington,IN:Everyone on lease gets a ticket if there is a noise complaint,whether present or not at party. •Boulder,CO:violation for over-occupancy and nuisance violations can be up to $2,000 and 90 days in jail. •Manhattan,KS:If tenants get more than 2 serious violations within a year,the city can shut down the rental house. •Normal,IL;Boulder,CO;Ft.Collins,CO;Ames,IA;Tuscaloosa,AL;and Blacksburg, VA:ban of indoor [upholstered]furniture outside,“based on national fire safety standards and tragedies that have occurred with fires on porches or with waterlogged furniture causing collapse of the structure.Couches outdoors also attract vagrants who may find them a nice place to sleep and smoke.” •Eugene,OR:Requires bike storage —number depending on type of building and number of units. •West Chester,PA:For drinking offenses,can impose the maximum state penalty —loss of driver’s license. Other Solutions Encourage Owner-Occupancy and Responsible Management •East Lansing,MI:Occupancy limits based on dwelling size and whether owner-occupied. •West Lafayette,IN:rental registration program assigns different category of fees and fines for rental properties,depending on whether or not it is owner occupied.Properties with out-of-town owners must have a local manager if property owner lives outside of designated area [e.g.,city or county limits]. •Carbondale,IL,Ann Arbor,MI,and Boulder,CO:Must have a local agent to manage property,even if owned by out-of-town parent. •Ann Arbor,MI:UMich has Website listing of approved landlords. •East Lansing,MI:Considering buying back rental licenses and converting rentals back to single-family,owner-occupied properties [as of 2004]. Limit Occupancy Based On Parking Availability •East Lansing,MI.Under consideration. REGULATORY ACTIONS TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NEIGHBORHOODS-JANUARY 2005 PAGE 4 Reverse Grandfathered Non-Conforming Uses •Tallahassee,FL:Elimination of non-conforming status for properties that have had three or more violations of a rental housing ordinance during a six-month period. •Bloomington,IN:Require all owners to register,and rescind non-conforming status if they do not register. •Utah:Abandonment and Amortization of Nonconforming Uses:“The right to continue a nonconforming use may be lost if the use is abandoned for a period of time.State law does not define the period of time so it must be done by municipal ordinance.Most municipal zoning ordinances allow six months to one year of non-use,after which the property cannot be used except in conformity with the current zoning ordinance.” Elsewhere,applies towards abatement of nuisances. •Mason County,IL:“Whenever a nonconforming use has been discontinued for a period of 12 months,such use shall not thereafter be reestablished,and use thereafter shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance.” •Elgin,IL:“Multi-Family Conversion Program”with funding to encourage conversion of grandfathered properties back to single-family. Establish A Conservation District Or Overlay Zones to Discourage Demolition Of Historic Properties and insure new development is architecturally compatible with existing fabric of the neighborhood. •Portland,OR,1977 •Cambridge,MA,1983 •Raleigh,NC,198$ •Lake Forest,IL,1990 •Arlington,VA,1998 •Palos Verdes,CA,1998 •Austin,TX,1999 •Arlington,VA,1999 •Boulder,CO,2002 •Chapel Hill,NC Develop Deed Restrictions and Covenants for specified neighborhoods •Newark,DE:Limits on number of student homes permitted:“A student home is permitted on a lot only if any portion of the lot is no closer to any portion of another student home,than a distance determined by multiplying times 10 the required lot width for a single-family detached dwelling in the zoning district in which the proposed student home is located.”4 ‘I hffp://www.udeI.edu/towngown/HousingRentalGuide.html REGULATORY ACTIONS TO PRESERVE CAMPUS NEIGHBORHOODS-JANUARY 2005 PAGE 5 Philadelphia,PA: Via zoning (Philadelphia Code §14-1629),certain districts prohibit: (a)Multiple-family dwellings; (b)Apartment Houses; (c]Tenement houses; (d)Student housing not owner-occupied; (e)Fraternity!Sorority houses. Upheld by Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate),2012 SFH Properties,LLC and SF Master Properties,LLC,Appe1Iants,v.Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia and the City of Philadelphia East Lansing,MI: Via overlay zoning (Chapter 10 Sec.50-772): District R-O-1:prohibits issuance of any new rental licenses,including Class I rental licenses (licenses for owner-occupied properties where the owner wants to have a roomer reside with the owner and owne?s family). District R-O-2:allows the current property owner to apply for a Class I rental license if they owned the property at the time the overlay is approved.When properties are sold after the time in which the overlay was approved the property is no longer eligible to apply for a Class I rental license. District R-O-3:allows owners to apply for a Class I rental license.However,the property owner does not need to have owned the property prior to the approval of the overlay district. Upheld by Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate),2007 PAVLOVSKIS v.City of East Lansing and East Lansing City Clerk Newark,DE: A “student home”is defined as a single-family detached dwelling,occupied by more than one (but no more than three)post-secondary student attending or about to attend a college or university. Rental permits required. Owners or owner’s agents responsible for adherence to occupancy limits. Permitted on a lot only if any portion of the lot is no closer to any portion of another student home,than a distance determined by multiplying times 10 the required lot width for a single-family detached dwelling in the zoning district in which the proposed student home is located. Leases and posting notifications required for tenants and to be furnished to building department upon request,containing the following information: 1.Address of rental property 2.Maximum number of unrelated persons who may lawfully inhabit the dwelling 3.Number and location of on-site,off-street parking spaces available for the rental dwelling 4.Statement of penalties for failure to comply 5.Name and telephone number of the property owner or owner’s agent. 6.Telephone number of the City Building Department 7.The number and names of unrelated persons who may occupy the premises Violation of the allowable number of occupants shall result in termination of the rental lease as it applies to ALL renters of the premises,and ALL renters have no more than 7 days to vacate the dwelling. Conviction of any renter who violates Alcoholic Beverage,Noise,or Disorderly Premises Regulations more than one time within a one-year period shall result in termination of the lease as it applies to ALL renters,and ALL renters have no more than 7 days to vacate the dwelling from the date of the second conviction. http ://www.udel.edu/towngown/HousingRentalGuide.html#Anchor-ZONING 47857 Binghamton,NY: Adopted Rental Registry legislation in 2013 Any dwelling unit located in a residential zoning district may be occupied only by a family or the equivalent of a family (Code of City of Binghamton §410-26 [D]] A functional and factual family equivalent is defined as:“A group of unrelated individuals living together and functioning together as a traditional family. The owners of all rental properties must register,with the following exceptions: •Two-family homes where one unit is owner-occupied; •When the owner is the federal government,New York State,Broome County,or the City of Binghamton; •Any mortgagee in a foreclosure proceeding pending sale,unless the mortgagee is collecting rent for the rental unit(s);and Vacant properties registered with the Office of Building Construction,Zoning & Code Enforcement. http://www.binghamton-nv.gov/rental-registration http://www.binghamton-nv.gov/ordinance/zoning 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF APRIL 15, 2015 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Codes. OTHERS: None Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Committee announcements and concerns: None reported. 2. Staff updates and reports: Sue provided updates on the following: 1) Cayuga Meadows Senior Apartments (Conifer development/Trumansburg Road) – the consultant engineer for the project contacted staff to get guidance on finalizing the few remaining conditions of approval. They hope to begin construction in the very near future. 2) Route 96B Pedestrian Study Project – the steering committee met this week with the project consultants (CHA) to discuss the project aspects and finalize plans for public outreach activities (stakeholder meetings, survey questionnaire, Ithaca College targeted activities, Town website, postcard mailings). 3) Troy Road – staff has not heard back from Bob Bates (RHPA) on the proposed Troy Road housing development. It is assumed that they are no longer interested in pursuing the development. Staff will be meeting with the property owner’s (Paul Rubin) realtor to discuss a proposed small subdivision on the southern portion of the property. We will know more after that meeting. 4) Zoning amendments for solar installations – Ithaca and Ulysses planning staff met with Melissa Kemp of Solar Tompkins. In the next 1-2 years, due to upcoming changes with incentives, remote net metering, etc. it is anticipated that there will be a push for larger solar projects and neither municipality’s zoning addresses solar farms. Melissa provided a lot of great information, including a model zoning regulations document from Massachusetts. 3. Consider February meeting summary: Rich moved as amended; Bill seconded; all in favor. Rich: Per the February meeting summary, he reminded Bruce that he [Bruce] was going to research a lawsuit, from years past, pertaining to the apartments on Sapsucker Woods Road. Bruce: Indicated that he had spoken to Susan Brock, but the case she had found did not address the matter Bruce was seeking information on, specifically the owner occupancy issue. Bruce wasn’t sure if this was still needed by the Committee since Susan’s recent memo discusses the topic in depth. Rich: Noted that the February summary also indicated that Rich would be contacting code officials and legislators from other communities in order to set up some conference calls pertaining to their experience with rental management. He indicated that he would get to this. In addition, he noted Herb’s report at the Study Session concerning a conversation with Tom Rochon (IC President) and college’s potential plans for developing additional student housing on campus. 2 Rich also reminded the committee of the idea brought up at the last meeting for a Town moratorium on new construction in certain areas of Town. We are not at that point yet, but it is good to have the option available. 4. Consider development review exemptions for Town water and sewer projects: Bill: Explained that this issue came up following complications arising from the Sapsucker Woods Road water tank project and its need for a variance for exceeding height requirements. Complications arose because of the timing for obtaining the variance and application deadlines to the NYS Comptrollers office for getting permission for the utility project—potentially delaying the project. At the SAC meeting, Susan Brock described information she obtained at the recent NYS Association of Town’s meeting indicating that local governments can exempt certain municipal projects, such as water/sewer utilities, from review. Rich: Suggested that it may be better to set thresholds, instead of exempting overall project categories. He does not want to foreclose on the public process which gives residents an opportunity to express their concerns about a project. Sue: Said it was her understanding that they wanted to consider exempting projects from both Planning Board (site plan) and Zoning Board of Appeals (variances) reviews. Bill: Responded that the Planning Board currently does the SEQR determination, so if projects are exempted from this review, it would be the Town Board that needs to take over that responsibility. Rod: Asked for clarification on the duplication of effort, and wondered what the current problem was with the process? Bruce: Explained that these projects tend not to be controversial. Neither Boards have denied or modified a Town project, that he is aware of, and it may be viewed as just a process for the sake of process. Rich: Pointed out that the process still requires advertising/public noticing. He asked if there is a plethora of upcoming projects that precipitated this discussion. Staff: The water tanks are the main projects requiring review. Although the Public Works Department facility has had occasional projects requiring site plan/variances, such as the new salt barn, etc., but current discussion is only for utility projects. Bill: Pointed out that sewer projects rarely warrant site plan review; it is mostly on the water side and the tanks that trigger the development review process. Rich: Stated that it doesn’t seem like there is a back log of projects warranting exempting site plan/variances from these projects. Committee: Discussed upcoming projects that would require site plan/variances. Rod: Read from capital improvement project list that he happened to have, and noted that over the next few years project included: replacing the Pine Tree Road tank (2016 ), Trumansburg water tank (2017), and E. King Road PRV (2019). Bill: Recommended asking the Public Works Department if these projects are the extent of the approvals coming up. Rich: Asked whether the process required to make the legislative change is worth the time and complexity. Committee: Decided to talk with Jim Weber to see what projects are coming up and determine whether the number of projects coming up warrant pursuing the legislative change. 3 5. Discuss proposed PDZ modifications for expansion of Sterling House & Clare Bridge of Ithaca facility and consider recommendation to Town Board: Sue gave a brief overview of the project and explained that the current PDZ language limits development to what currently exists on the site (two multi-unit buildings). To allow the expansion project requires legislative modification. Committee: Discussed the proposal and members expressed general support. The building is tucked into the existing development footprint. Parking needs and other general aspects of the project were discussed. No concerns were raised. Sue: Expressed some issues with the PDZ language that had been written in 1998. She suggested modifications, such as creating consistency with the language of other newer PDZs. As currently written, the facility would require Planning Board approval for even modest modifications, such as addition of a shed, gazebo, or community garden. The language includes duplication with zoning provisions elsewhere in the Code, and uses outdated zoning terms. Rich: Moved to recommend modification of the PDZ language to allow for the facility addition and to amend any outstanding discrepancy in the language, and recommend that the Town Board refer the PDZ amendments and project to the Planning Board for consideration; Bill seconded the move; all approved. 6. Continue discussion of rental property oversight: Bruce: Reported on a meeting that occurred the day earlier with state representatives from Airbnb. The idea of the meeting was to put the issues with Airbnb on the table for discussion, with the understanding, going into the meeting, that this use violates State and Town Law. Attendees at the meeting included Tompkins County Health Department, Tompkins County Assessment, Town of Ithaca (both Bruce and Rich attended), Village of Cayuga Heights, and Jane Marie Law who represents a group of local Airbnb hosts (a group looking to legitimize the business). Due to the fire at the Chapter House there was no City representation. Bruce: Stated that Airbnb reported 300 hosts in the “area”. He said the State looks at Airbnb as similar to a bed & breakfast establishment, though no breakfast is provided. Rich: Added that the State has an interest in this use coming out of the shadows so that they can collect taxes. Bruce/Rich: Reported further on the meeting discussion. No decisions or definitive actions came out of the meeting, but it provided an opportunity for interested parties to begin the discussion. The Airbnb representatives indicated they would provide additional information on what other states/communities are doing to address the use. It will be a question for the Town Board to determine how far they want to deal with this issue, whether they want to legitimize it in some way and create some standards, which is why the Planning Committee is discussing it. Rich: Suggested bringing it to the Town Board for consideration to gage whether the Planning Committee should pursue the matter any further. Rich: Reported on a couple of take away points from the meeting. Approximately 80-90% who host through Airbnb live in their house, they create space for the use and then maintain it to a certain standard. Then there is the remaining 10-20% whose business model involves buying up property for short term rentals. These are not owner-occupied, and according to Airbnb reps, the housing is generally not held up to as high a standard. The locally organized Airbnb host group wants certain standards in place and to ensure that it is allowed only as owner-occupied. Bruce: Stated that the Attorney General has declared it as an illegal use. There is no precedent for how communities should deal with this. Bruce recommends that the Town handle this for the time being by 4 only investigating complaints. If the property is otherwise well maintained and there are no complaints associated with the Airbnb, there will be no investigations. Committee/staff: Discussed additional issues with Airbnb related to competition with legal B&B’s and hotels, the unfair advantage with taxes and fees, and comparisons with lake house rentals. Rich: Segued into the discussion of rental management issues in the Town. He referred to Susan Brock’s memo outlining court cases and her legal opinion on owner-occupancy requirements. Her memo does not deter the contemplation of restrictions on rentals in the Town. The question is how much work does the committee/town want to put in to this effort. He suggested having further discussion with the Board when Susan Brock is present. Bill: Suggested, given Susan’s memo, visiting the owner-occupancy issue associated with accessory apartments. The original idea of having an accessory apartment was to create granny flats or to give some economic benefit to the owner for a small rental. This was not envisioned as a way for developers to create two rental units in one building. Rich: Noted that it may be easier to enforce a blanket prohibition like owner-occupancy for accessory unit rentals, than a more robust program that requires a great deal of record keeping and enforcement oversight for rentals in the Town. Rod: Asked whether this would be applied to targeted areas. Bill: Suggested that the owner-occupy for accessory structures be town-wide; but if controlling rentals generally, such as the East Lansing, Michigan law, to apply that geographically. It would be helpful to know how this would work practically; how big a geographical area would you need for the program to function. Rich: Stated that per Susan Brock’s memo, the Town has the legal authority to restrict rentals. Before drafting something, the Committee should find out if the Board is interested in pursuing this. Bill: Questioned whether the owner occupied w/ accessory rental could apply to just certain zones, for instance, the high density residential zones of the Pennsylvania/Kendall area. He also raised the issue of grandfathering. Rich: Suggested that the Committee report to the Board at the upcoming Study Session and that they be provided with Susan Brock’s memo. Bill: Asked if staff can determine the number of rentals on South Hill, particularly the number with two- unit dwellings. Rich: Asked to have the following included as discussion items at the next Study Session meeting: • Airbnb – short-term rental • Rental Property Oversight and Susan Brock’s findings 7. Discuss future topics and priorities: No discussion. 8. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting: Thursday, May 21st . Committee adjourned approximately 6:00pm 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF MAY 21, 2015 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Codes. OTHERS: None Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:36 p.m. 1. Committee announcements and concerns: Committee decided to discuss two additional items under New Business. 2. Staff updates and reports: Project review exemptions for Town utilities – This was a follow up from the April Planning Committee meeting. Sue reported that the committee’s question of whether legislative modifications were worth the effort was referred to Susan Brock for a determination on how exactly it would be handled. According to Susan, incorporating language into the Code to eliminate water tanks from site plan review would be a straightforward and relatively minor language change. To address water tanks exceeding the Town’s height limits, and eliminate need for a ZBA variance, would require either: 1) add language to each zoning district to exempt water tanks from height requirements, or 2) add a new sub-section in the General Provisions section of the Zoning chapter to exempt water tanks from height requirements. After some discussion, the committee suggested changing the height requirements for water tanks to eliminate need for a variance, but to continue to require site plan approval in order to maintain the public participation process. Form Ithaca – Sue reminded members of the upcoming event and briefly discussed the agenda. Zoning revision efforts – Planning staff is currently preparing a document that describes the various shortcomings of the Town’s land use regulations and provides proposals for modifying/updating/improving the regulations to move towards the vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. This work, along with the Form Ithaca effort, will help move us along in updating the regulations. 3. Consider April meeting summary: Rich moved as amended; Rod seconded; all in favor. Bruce added that the Airbnb group will be meeting again in July. Rich said he would like to be included in any future meeting. 4. Consider zoning modification for proposed miniature golf development (Elmira Road/Seven Mile Drive area): - Rich: Shared his observations about the mini golf proposal, stating it’s potential as a tourist draw, the low impact aspect, the at-grade construction, and that if the business did not work out, the land could 2 be fairly easily restored and used for other things. Rich expressed doubt on the ability to obtain NYSDOT approval for a new curb cut on Elmira Road. - Sue: Distributed a drawing indicating how the applicants intended to subdivide the property. They intended to keep the subdivided portion that had visibility and access only from Elmira Road. In her discussion with the applicants, Sue stated she had advised them to keep their options open, so that if a new curb cut on Elmira Road is not possible, they could instead use Seven Mile Drive. The applicants have applied for a curb cut permit from NYS DOT. - Rod: Asked about the large pond on the site. - Bruce: Said he had been asked about the possibility of filling in the pond. He referred their question to NYS DEC and NYS DOT. He believed the pond was created as a result of work on Elmira Road, although questions remain as to who has responsibility for it. There are no apparent outlets or inlets to the pond and it is in poor condition. - Rich: Suggested that if the pond were improved it could become an enhancement feature for the business. In terms of site issues, Rich wondered whether fencing would be required around the facility, he also speculated on whether a market study had been conducted. - Committee: Concluded that the mini golf operation was well situated between Buttermilk Falls and Treman State Parks; undoubtedly providing a draw for tourist and park visitors. - Bill: Mentioned the idea of trail connections between the nearby Town parks and Ithaca Beer and how this business could benefit from being on a trail system. - Rich: Referred to a discussion with Fred Bonn where he expressed some flexibility in the location of the Black Diamond Trail on either the east or west side of Elmira Road. - Committee: Discussed lighting and hours of operations. The Town’s Outdoor Lighting Law would control and help minimize impacts. - Sue: Stated that the property is zoned Light Industrial which does not allow a mini golf course. The applicants could pursue a use variance, but given that they would be required by the ZBA to demonstrate unnecessary hardship, this could be difficult to obtain. The purpose of presenting this proposal to the Planning Committee is to consider a zoning amendment. The mini golf course use, having a light imprint and being a tourist draw, would fit the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for this area. To allow the use, the options include rezoning the property to Low Density Residential which allows “golf course, driving range or miniature golf course” with special permit, and is the zoning on the immediately adjacent parcel. Or optionally, the Board could amend the Light Industrial zone to add mini golf as a permitted use. While this does not necessarily fit the intended purpose of the LI zone, the Town is in an in-between period, between adoption of the Comp Plan and implementing new zoning. - Committee: There are only a few Light Industrial zoned areas of the Town and it is not likely that the other sites would want to use space for mini golf. Amending the LI zone to permit the use would provide a temporary solution while the Town works on new zoning. In the future, this portion of the Inlet Valley would no longer be zoned LI, and any new zoning could allow mini golf, which fits the Comprehensive Plan. - Rich: Questioned the appropriateness of the proposed nautical theme for the Ithaca area. He requested that we ask the applicants to consider other theme options. - Committee: Agreed to recommend modifying the Light Industrial zone to allow mini golf as a permitted use and forward this recommendation to the Town Board. Include to the Town Board the project information, since this is the impetus for the LI zoning use change. 3 5. Continue discussion of rental property oversight: -Rich: Suggested approaching rental property oversight by the Town incrementally and to begin by eliminating exemptions for secondary basement dwelling units (exempt from having to be 50% of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit), except in the case where one of the dwelling units is owner- occupied. This would be applied town-wide and its implementation could serve as a potential means of testing out owner-occupancy residency requirements. This would serve the original purpose of having the secondary unit/granny flat, which was to provide housing for a family member or similar, or to provide an economic benefit to help defray the owner’s housing costs. - Bruce: Thought that more problems arise from the basement apartments, rather than side by side units that are 50% of the size of the primary unit. Bruce mentioned a recent case with seven students in one unit, three in the other. - Bill: Stated we should also consider applying owner occupancy requirements on the side by side units too since these posed a problem with excessive student occupancy as well. This would insure that the investor of the property was controlling the activities, something that is currently missing. He then went on to ask the question of whether and how grandfathering might apply. - Rich: Responded that the Town could provide for grandfathering, but to sunset the provision after a period of time to allow for transitioning. - Bill: Stated that grandfathering of the existing rentals would stop the construction of new rentals, but it does not address issues with the existing rentals. One potential loophole would be the case where parents buy property and put their children’s name on the deed. This would apply to a small percentage of the student housing. The main problems stem from the handful of developers/landlords that own large numbers of housing units. - Committee: Discussed grandfathering and the possibility of only applying the regulations to certain zones in the Town. - Rich: Explained that his intent was to take a first step into these types of regulations and to focus on addressing the most egregious violations. - Bill: Stated he thought more problems existed with rentals on South Hill, and asked others if this was their understanding too. - Rich: Referred to Susan Brock’s memo and the Brookhaven case in which the court upheld the right of the municipality to limit permits to owner-occupied units. While the Town is not necessarily contemplating a permit system, the case indicates that the precedent is there. - Bill: Questioned how the Town would actually enforce an owner occupancy requirement if there is no permit system. In the absence of some Town involvement with rentals, we would not know the status unless there was a complaint. If someone applies to build an additional unit, the permit could be conditioned on owner-occupancy, but for existing rentals, the Town would not necessarily have any involvement. - Rich: Said he could research the grandfathering clause with the Brookhaven case. - Bill: Noted that if the Town is going to start a program incrementally, then maybe start to apply the owner-occupancy requirement to new construction, or to modification of existing dwellings. - Rod: Agreed with the idea of starting a program incrementally. - Sue: Questioned how enforcement would be handled when the original owners sell and the new owners are not aware of the building permit conditions/Town requirements, or if the owners go on sabbatical and want to rent the primary dwelling. - Bill: Suggested that the committee think about the enforcement aspect. Subsequent owners are unlikely to be aware of the building permit conditions requiring owner occupancy. And if the owner does move out, and begins renting both units, does the Town send them an enforcement letter stating they must move back in or else sell the property? And what happens after that? Bill suggested that we investigate how this works in municipalities with this type of regulation. 4 - Rich: Questioned what the penalties would be. He also asked Bruce about the content of the rental leases, and whether a rental agreement could acknowledge the Town’s occupancy requirements. - Bruce: Explained the current penalty system for zoning violations. - Bill/Sue: Suggested sending notices of the Town’s occupancy requirements each year to students that rent in areas of concern. - Rich: Concluded the discussion, stating that they would go to the Board and propose that owner- occupancy requirements be applied to new construction and see if the Board is inclined to have Susan Brock work on language for consideration. -Rod: Added that this legislative initiative needs to involve the community with meetings scheduled to make people aware of the proposed legislation; reach out to developers, homeowners, residents, etc. 6. New business: Rich: Reported on a conversation with solar installers who wanted to know why the Town requires the racks on the roof to be inspected before the panels are installed; why is the Town not part of the unified solar permitting process?; why does only the Town of Ithaca require this? - Bruce: Responded that through NYSERDA training, staff has been instructed on how to conduct inspections for solar installations, which include determining how they are fastened to the roof and how they are fastened into the rafters. These are NYSERDA instructions. Some municipalities may have chosen to enforce these provisions differently, but the Town has chosen to follow the NYSERDA instructions. The Town is not participating in the unified solar permitting process, however, NYSERDA reviewed the Town’s permitting process and deemed it fine. - Rich: Asked whether these inspections could be done when the panels are on, so only one inspection would be required? - Bruce: Responded that you can’t inspect the fastening when the panels are on, and they are not always able to obtain interior access to attics for these inspections, so exterior observations are relied upon. Also, there is a risk of waiting until the panels are on to perform the inspection, given that they would need to be removed if the inspection discovers improper connections. Bruce has spoken with several other local code enforcement officers who have stated that they are also requiring inspections this way. - Rod: Reported on a conversation with Warren Allmon who had asked him whether the Planning Committee would be the right committee for discussing overall planning issues along the stretch of the Route 96 corridor between the Cayuga Medical Center and the Town/City municipal line. Discussion items include sidewalks, connections with the Black Diamond Trail, transit service, and the nodal development concept, etc. The committee suggested asking Warren to attend an upcoming meeting to clarify his concerns. 7. Next meeting and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting: Thursday, June 18th. Possible agenda item: Discussion with Warren Allmon. Committee adjourned at 6:30pm TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF JUNE 18, 2015 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; MaryDena Apodaca, Planning/Sustainability Intern. GUESTS: Jennifer Tavares (Chamber of Commerce), Tom Knipe (Tompkins County Planning), Warren Allmon (PRI/Museum of the Earth) Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m. 1. Persons to Be Heard: Held for later in the meeting. 2. Committee Announcements and Concerns: None reported. 3. Wayfinding and Interpretive Signage Project: Jennifer Tavares and Tom Knipe attended on behalf of the Wayfinding and Interpretive Signage Project. Jennifer Tavares gave a presentation highlighting aspects of the project. She described the project’s purpose as aiding tourists and visitors (i.e. college students/parents) in navigating around the community, as well as providing attractive and consistent signage throughout the county. The plan’s hierarchy of signage includes: - County and municipal gateway signs; - Vehicular wayfinding/directional signs, including 52 signs identifying local attractions (tourism assets, colleges/university, State parks, the Commons, Finger Lakes trails, etc.); - Pedestrian/bicyclist wayfinding and directional signs; and - Interpretive kiosks. Other major points covered in the presentation: - How signage can provide a statement for what the community cares about and values (i.e. trails); - That Cornell is currently developing a campus wayfinding sign program and the timing links up well with the county project. Efforts are being made to ensure the two projects work seamlessly together and compliment and avoid duplicating efforts. - Circulation hierarchy has been considered in order to thoughtfully steer people to destinations via preferred routes (particularly relevant for City destinations); - The nine interpretive kiosks are not budgeted in this part of the project, nor is the pedestrian and bicyclist component; - Digital wayfinding is contemplated for a future phase of the project. - The planning process involved whittling down around 300 identified destinations to just 52, involving much discussion and public input. Funding: - The Chamber of Commerce is submitting a NYS Consolidated Funding Application in hopes of obtaining 40% of the $1.226 million total project cost in grant funding. They are seeking support and a financial commitment from the Town and other municipalities (letter/resolution) to be included in the grant application (July 31st deadline). 2 - To determine a fair way to distribute costs amongst the municipalities and supporting entities (Cornell, IC, etc) numerous funding model approaches were examined. These included: 1- divide by population; 2 - divide by sign locations; 3 - “Fair Share” model, where each entity funds based on what signs are pointing to; 4 – “Fair Share” minus smaller municipalities, with County covering those signs. - For the Town of Ithaca, there are 9 community gateway signs, 8 signs for the South Hill Recreation Way, and 4 signs for East Shore Park. The average of the four modelling calculations comes to $40,174 for the Town, with the “Fair Share” model calculated at $37,661. The Town’s share could be spread out over two budget years. - The project is asking for a commitment from the Town for $35,000 in cash support and in-kind support to help absorb the high costs of sign installation. Committee members discussed and asked questions about the project and the shared costs. Issues concerning installation responsibility were raised, in terms of who owns the roadway (NYS, County, municipality) versus where the sign is situated. - Rich: Suggested adding the East Ithaca Recreation Way to the list of destination signs. He also asked Jennifer what percentage of the $5,000/sign (average price) is installation cost? - Jennifer: Responded that about 50% of sign cost is the installation (this number based on consultants and estimation). - Tom: Further explained that there are three components to a sign: 1) construction, 2) installation, and 3) 15% contingency. For installation purposes, it is crucial that collaboration occur between NYSDOT, County, Towns, and the City. At this time, the $35,000 is a conceptual commitment for the grant application to make application strong. - Rich: Questioned the sign designs and whether there would be any flexibility. He expressed concern for the design potentially being too “cookie cutter”. - Tom: Responded that most of the new designs have some consistency, although the current design itself is not set in stone. They may hire a designer later down the road for more ideas. - Rich: Mentioned that the Town was developing a new sign law. - Bill: Added that the Codes and Ordinances Committee still needs to determine if the Town’s sign law has any jurisdiction on state/county signage. Tom: Stated that NYDOT is very much onboard and all signs are based on DOT standards. - Bill: Suggested that Rich provide a report to the Board at the upcoming Study Session meeting (Bill cannot attend) to raise awareness of the project and tentatively plan to bring it formally to the July 13th meeting for consideration of a resolution committing the Town to providing financial support. - Rod: Stated that he was supportive of the project, especially if it can be spread over a two year period. Committee members suggested that Jennifer and Tom attend the meeting on July 13th and be prepared to provide a brief presentation to the Board. 1. Persons to Be Heard: - Warren Allmon: Thanked the committee for inviting him to the meeting and hoped there would be future opportunities. Today he just wanted to focus on two particular issues. He stated that from PRI’s point of view there is one big issue and another smaller issue. The big issue is the lack of sidewalks on Route 96/Trumansburg Road. He said that someone will be killed in front of the museum if the current conditions continue. He regularly sees mothers with baby carriages walking up and down the road along the narrow shoulder. Recently a car clipped off the northbound Museum of the Earth sign and they have not yet been able to get DOT to replace it. Twenty years ago someone entirely clipped off their old sign and nineteen years ago someone drove into the 3 hedgerow between the hospital and PRI. There should be a sidewalk, even if it is only to serve the Overlook and hospital (sidewalk from the City to the hospital). Sidewalks and crosswalks were proposed during discussion of the nodal development concept. Mr. Allmon then turned attention to the Black Diamond Trail (BDT). He explained that it runs down the hill behind PRI/Museum of the Earth. He reported initiating discussions with Fred Bonn, of NYS Parks, over the future of this “L” shaped property that was sold to State Parks during consideration of the Holochuck development. PRI plans to submit a proposal to State Parks for programming ideas on this property. The State Parks land provides a potential connection between the museum and BDT. Mr Allmon went on to describe three existing connections to the BDT that present options This includes the NYSEG power line, the narrow trail behind the hospital, and the old road behind the hospital, all of which would need additional work to make accessible. Given how the BDT will connect with the Cayuga Nature Center (which PRI now owns) makes this opportunity particularly attractive to them. The opportunity to visit a State Park (Taughannock), a nature center and a museum, all along a multi-use trail, is a unique and important opportunity. As State Parks is getting ready to construct the trail, this is a good time to be thinking about connections and working together on a viable foot trail between West Hill and the BDT. Mr. Allmon stated that he would prefer that this be a community solution, rather than just PRI and the CMC coming up with something. - Bill: Referred to the Route 96B pedestrian corridor study and how this could be used as a model for figuring out pedestrian options along Trumansburg Road. - Rod: Stated that he would be interested in a site visit to see the current connections to the BDT. - Bill: Stated that in the near term a connection to the BDT would likely be more feasible and could help to get some pedestrians off of Trumansburg Road that are traveling to and from the City. He felt a sidewalk project along the state road would take more time. - Rich: Added that, given the costliness of developing a sidewalk and the maintenance issues, it would take time. - Warren: Stated that PRI was determined to get a trail up and running and hoped for community support in finding a means. - Bill: Stated that he would be interested in meeting with Warren on site and looking at possible connections. The committee agreed to schedule a site visit to see the various BDT connections. 5. Report on Proposed Signs for Town-Held Conservation Easements - Mike Smith: Described a proposal for installing signage on properties that the Town holds agricultural conservation easements on. He has spoken with the two easement participants and they are interested in the idea. Mike brought examples of the two different sign proposals. One of the signs is approximately 12x18 inches in size and would include wording on the sign that promotes/advertises that the farm is participating in a conservation easement program and that the Town is the holder of the easement. The second type of sign is a smaller boundary marker, approximately 5.5” x 5.5” in size, and would be posted and demarcate the easement/property boundary line. This is similar type of sign that the Town uses along the boundary of the park preserves. The purpose would be to inform the neighboring property owners of the easement location, to insure against tree cutting or disturbances along the boundary, as well to help Town staff identify the boundary during the annual inspections. One farmer is interested in the no trespassing language in the sign, but the other farmer has a u-pick and feels that the “no trespass” wording may be misunderstood. 4 - Bruce: Asked Mike how the signs would work with the Town sign law. - Mike: Responded that the smaller signs would be exempt, while he is unsure about the larger sign. Committee members expressed support for the sign proposal, thought it was a good idea, made suggestions regarding some of the examples and encouraged Mike to continue working on the project. 6. Continue Discussion of Property Oversight: To be discussed with the Town Board before further work by the committee. 7. Staff Updates and Reports: - Sue: Reported that the mini golf proposal appears to be stalled over negotiations for the sale of the property at Elmira/Seven Mile Drive. The applicant sent an email to staff stating that they were disappointed, but that they would let us know if anything changes. Sue also reported that she would be proposing language changes for the South Hill Business Campus (SHBC) PDZ, particularly the uses, and will bring this to an upcoming committee meeting. SHBC has had to apply for several use variances recently. The variances were approved by the ZBA. The uses seemed appropriate for the facility but they had not been anticipated and were not listed in the PDZ language. Sue will be meeting with the SHBC Property Manager to discuss updating the language. 8. Consider the May Meeting Summary: Approved as drafted. 9. New Business: None reported. 9. Next Meeting and Upcoming Agenda Items: The committee decided to cancel the July 23rd meeting and tentatively scheduled a site visit to the BDT on July 20th. Sue will contact Warren Allmon to see if he is available. The Committee Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF AUGUST 20, 2015 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Persons to Be Heard: None. 2. Committee Announcements and Concerns: The committee rescheduled the field trip to the Black Diamond Trail to ascertain potential connections for September 15, 2015 at 4:00pm; Sue will contact Warren Allmon to let him know. - Rich reported that he had reviewed the Town zoning code and found just six references to second dwelling units for basement units (50% the floor area of the primary unit). This suggested to Rich that it may be relatively simple (technically) to introduce language requirements for owner occupancy, something the committee has been considering. Rich read the current language that states that a two-family dwelling is permitted provided that “the floor area of the second dwelling unit is not more than 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely with the basement area, it may exceed 50%”. He suggested a possible modification as “…except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely with the basement area and the basement is located in the primary residence of the property owner, it may exceed 50%.” This would provide an opportunity to test out the owner occupancy provision. Alternatively, the town could also just remove the provision for the basement unit entirely. Further discussion brought to light varying ideas on how far to take the owner occupancy requirement for secondary units. The decision was to put this back on the Planning Committee agenda for next time and think about how to proceed. - Rod: Added that Forest Home residents may be interested in a future opportunity to discuss the issue of rentals with the Planning Committee given the current situation there. 3. Consider the June meeting summary: Bill moved; Rod seconded; unanimous approval of the June summary as drafted; no changes. 4. Staff Updates and Reports: - Sue: Reported on the following: • GreenTree is interested in hosting spring/summer weekend events at their store involving 2-3 farmers. These would be farmers who utilize GreenTree soils. GreenTree would like to invite them to set up in the store’s parking lot to sell their plants. Retail is not an allowed use in the LI zone, and while GreenTree operates under a use variance, this new retail use would not be covered and would require a use variance from the ZBA. These can be hard to obtain due to the criteria requirements. This proposal is consistent with the Comp Plan’s vision for the Elmira Road corridor. The Town Ag Protection Plan (2011) recommends 2 revisions to the Town’s commercial, light industrial and agricultural zones to ensure that ag-related businesses would be permitted. Planning Committee members stated that they were open to the idea of a zoning amendment to allow the use and suggested that representatives from GreenTree attend an upcoming meeting to discuss the details of the proposal further with the committee. • Cornell University is currently seeking qualifications from developers who are interested in redeveloping the East Hill Plaza area (East Hill Village) into a mixed use pedestrian oriented “village”. They are also in the process of obtaining proposals for redevelopment of the Maplewood Apartments. Staff anticipates utilizing form-based zoning for these projects, both of which will undoubtedly be keeping the town busy in the near future. • Ithaca College has an approved new Master Plan for the campus which is posted on their website. There were no outreach efforts to the Town on this process. Staff is beginning to review their plans. • Sue Cosentini is making some additional design/layout changes to the Amabel project. Nothing formal has been submitted thus far, so we aren’t sure if this will warrant a return to the Planning Committee for consideration or not. - Rod: Inquired about the Chain Works project. - Sue: Responded that completion of the Environmental Impact Statement by the development team should be wrapping up soon. 5. Discuss Family Entertainment Facility Concept for Elmira Road/Seven Mile Drive: - Sue: Described the go-kart addition to the original mini-golf proposal. The added element was stated as being necessary to the financial viability of the project, to offset the land sale price. At this point the developers are just interested in determining whether the Town is receptive to the go-kart concept. They will provide additional information if there is interest. As with the mini golf proposal, the go-karts are not an allowed use in the LI zone. - Rich: Asked several questions concerning the project, including: What is the length of the track? The photo appears much longer than 600-700 feet described in the write-up. What material would the track be made of? What is the depth of this material? In terms of electrical usage, what is the estimated energy usage needed to continually recharge the go-karts? Would this usage warrant requiring/suggesting renewables? Rich suggested that the on-grade construction would allow ease of redeveloping the site in the future. Could the developers be held responsible for removing the track and equipment if the business leaves? - Rod: Expressed interest in continuing to explore the proposed project. He had questions concerning the noise. The narrative indicates that they would not make noise. - Bruce: Responded that the karts make a whining noise and that you may hear the tires on the track. You would hear something, but how much would leave the site he could not answer. - Rich: Added whether the noise might impact the hospitality uses nearby. - Rod: Questioned the proposed length of the track, following up on Rich’s comments earlier that the photo appeared longer than 600 - 700 feet of track described in the write up. - Bill: Noted that the revised drawing no longer indicated access from Elmira Road. He also expressed interest in learning more about the noise aspects. 3 During the meeting Rich located a computer video of a person riding in an electric go-kart. Members watched this and Committee members noted the whining sound, but it was not clear how far that sound might travel. - Committee members indicated that they were amenable to the idea of the go-karts addition to the mini-golf project and asked staff to extend an invitation to the developer to attend an upcoming meeting to provide additional information. 6. Discuss South Hill Business Campus Planned Development Zone Modifications: Sue reviewed the draft proposed changes to the PDZ language. Modifications and additional changes requested by the Committee include: 271-13 B (Allowed uses by right). (4) Optometrist, optician, and similar specialties. Delete; unnecessary given that all health related uses would be fully covered by provision (3) “Medical, and health and wellness practices…”; (10) Conference facilities and indoor and outdoor events. Add the following statement to the end of the sentence: “subject to applicable Town permits and laws”. (19) Radio, television, recording and broadcast. Add ‘film’ to the list. (20) - use pertaining to antennas, etc – Insert additional language as follows: …”provided that they do not extend more than five feet above the highest roof line “of the building on which the antenna is located, including…” (21) Automobile parking provided that surplus parking exists on the site for current uses and tenants. Revise as follows: “Automobile parking utilizing existing parking areas.” 271-13 D. (Prohibited uses) (1) Dwelling units, except as an accessory uses as set forth below. Remove from the prohibited section and place instead under 271-13C. to allow dwelling units by special permit from the Planning Board. (6) – remove comma after restaurant. 271-13 E. (Allowed accessory uses) (8) Greenhouses provided no on site direct sales of greenhouse products. Delete “provided no on-site direct sales of greenhouse products”. Committee requested that a requirement be added that would trigger site plan approval for new permanent outdoor lighting associated with a new use (i.e. playing fields, etc). Sue said she would discuss ideas with Susan Brock on how and where in the language this could be included. Committee members suggested that we ask Linda Luciano, property manager for the South Hill Business Campus, to come to the September meeting. Rod suggested that we use the opportunity to also convene the Economic Development Committee (ask Herb to attend) for discussion with SHBC. The Committee asked for a clean copy of the PDZ language at the next meeting. 7. New Business: Invite Ithaca College representative(s) to a future meeting (possibly October) to discuss their Master Plan. 4 8. Next Meeting and Upcoming Agenda Items: Next meeting scheduled for September 17, 2015. Agenda items: • South Hill Business Campus – PDZ modifications • GreenTree Garden Supply – seasonal farmer/vendors • Family Entertainment Facility (Elmira Road) – go-kart and mini golf (tentative) • Discuss owner occupancy for basement rental units. The Committee Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF/OFFICIALS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Herb Engman, Town Supervisor GUEST: Andy Sciarabba, South Hill Business Campus (Managing Partner); Linda Luciano, South Hill Business Campus (Property Manager); John Gaunt, GreenTree Garden Supply (owner). Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Persons to Be Heard: None. 2. Committee Announcements and Concerns: None. 3. Discuss South Hill Business Campus (SHBC) Planned Development Zone (PDZ) Modifications: -Sue: Introduced the revised PDZ draft document, dated 9/3/15. The document indicated the latest changes subsequent to the original 8/14/15 PDZ draft. All changes proposed in the 8/14/15 draft, and accepted by the Committee, have been integrated into the current revised draft. The redline edits identify modifications requested by the Committee at the August meeting and the yellow highlighted areas identify additional proposed changes not yet considered by the Committee. Sue described each of the highlighted areas. The following were additional changes discussed and requested by the Committee: • Subsection B(15) add “and classroom” after “…an office” (in parenthesis). Andy Sciarrabba requested this additional language to make it clear that classrooms would be an example of an allowed use and the Committee agreed to the change. • Subsection B(21) add “authorized” before “offsite entities parking.” This change was requested by the Committee to clarify that only SHBC authorized parking for offsite entities would be allowed. • Remove the proposed language for H(2). Following Committee discussion with SHBC representatives it was decided to omit a proposed requirement for site plan approval for new lighting at the facility. The Committee decided that the approval process would only address whether the proposed lighting fixture conforms to the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Law, something that staff already does. The SHBC representatives stated they would investigate their recently installed building-mounted lighting to determine if an adjustment could be made to reduce the excess brightness that had been reported. -Andy Sciarabba: Recommended that the Town look at the Lansing Town Code, Section 501, granting the code enforcement officer discretion to determine if a proposed use is similar in nature to a specifically permitted use. He thought this would be useful to SHBC because of the difficulty in thinking of every conceivable potential use that may arise. - Committee members: Responded favorably to the idea, but thought it should be applied more generally in the Town Code rather than specifically to the SHBC PDZ. They recommended considering this type of language for inclusion in the zoning code update. - Sue: Added that the Town’s Neighborhood Commercial zone has language outlining procedures for allowing a proposed use that is similar in nature to a permitted one listed in the Code. 2 The Committee voted to refer and recommend approval of the SHBC PDZ modifications to the Town Board; Bill moved, Rod seconded; all in favor. The Committee asked Andy Sciarabba if he could report on recent changes to the South Hill Business Campus: - Andy Sciarabba: Reported on the near completion of the combined heating and power energy project and also described a new business tenant that would be occupying a large portion of the facility, resulting in 90% occupancy at the SHBC. 4. Discuss GreenTree Garden Supply proposed seasonal outdoor vendor stands: -Rich: Summarized the Committee’s August discussion concerning GreenTree’s proposal for outdoor vendor stands. The proposal would require a change in zoning. -John Gaunt: Further described the proposal by explaining that GreenTree is a garden store, selling growing media, but not plants. The idea is to host vendors for a “farmer’s day” or farmer’s market type event on the GreenTree site. The purpose is to assist soil/biochar-buying customers in building their plant growing businesses. He envisions that the local farmers would bring whatever shelter (i.e. pop-up tents) and equipment they need for displaying their items for the day, or possibly the weekend, and then remove them when they leave. He explained that they do not want to invest a lot of money into this project yet. They want to just “stick their toe in the water” and see how it goes. - John Gaunt: Mentioned the farmer event (plant sale) in Press Bay Alley as similar to what he was envisioning. One of his farmer/customers found the event successful and was excited by the prospect at the GreenTree site. Mr. Gaunt thought an appropriate location on the site would be the wedge of land that adjoins their parcel or the side parking area that is surfaced with crusher rock. The market focus would be on vegetable transplants. There are approximately 30 area farmers that have started their vegetable transplants with GreenTree soil. He felt this use would fit with the Town’s vision for Inlet Valley corridor. -Rod: Asked whether the proposed plan would involve one weekend with many farmers or many weekends with one farmer? -John Gaunt: Replied that he and his colleagues were open to the events going either way. He didn’t think many farmers would want to participate every weekend. Ideally he would like to have an event every weekend and rotate the farmers. He mentioned that his GreenTree colleagues are the event organizers and may have different ideas on the frequency. He asked the Committee if they had a preference, or if this matters to them. -Herb: Replied that his main concern pertained to neighbors in the LI zone that would also want to have their own events and the potential problem with the proliferation of outdoor displays and concerns with these becoming permanent structures with stands being left up and problems of that nature. -Rich: Suggested the wording in the Light Industrial (LI) zone be tied to pre-existing agricultural/horticultural enterprises so that it would not apply everywhere within the zone. -Chris: Referred to language in the Town Code allowing road side stands in zones as principal permitted uses. She read language from the Conservation Zone, which allows 500 sq. ft. size farm stands, and suggested that the language be copied, with thresholds and requirements tailored for the LI Zone. The tailored standards could include additional setbacks, parking standards, controls on the number of stands, time of year they would be permitted, hours of operation, signage and cleanup/removal provisions. Chris offered to draft language for the Committee’s consideration. 3 -Bill: Asked how the East Hill farmers market was allowed and whether a variance of some sort was necessary. - Sue: Responded that the East Hill is zoned commercial so the retail use was already allowed. They did need to get site plan approval from the Planning Board. - Chris: Added that they may have needed a variance from the ZBA because there is no principal structure on the site and it was likely considered an accessory use. -Bill: Recommended allowing the market as a use in the LI Zone, acknowledging that this would apply to other parcels in the LI zone. - Committee: Considered the different LI parcels and how a change in the zoning would affect these areas. -Herb: Suggested including the term “seasonal” in the regulations. He indicated support for applying minimal restrictions/approval processes. - Rich: Agreed, as long as the requirements address the temporary nature of the structures. -John: Asked if there would be a problem, if the events proved successful, for GreenTree to design/create their own stands for the farmers to use. -Bill: Replied that as long as the stands are not attached and are moveable they should meet the requirements. -John Gaunt: Explained that he did not want to waste the Committee’s time with various scenarios, given the unknowns, but he also didn’t want to preclude future possibilities should this project go well. He asked about the Early Bird farm stand which was explained as being a permanent structure, but used seasonally. - Committee: Explained that they were interested in allowing just temporary structures for now, like the Farmers Market on East Hill or at the DeWitt Park, where the farmers remove the display structures once the event is over. -Bill: Suggested making just a simple change to the LI zone. He explained that the Town would be working on rezoning the Inlet Valley such that it will not be an LI zone in the near future. -Chris: Recommended that the new use be permitted with special permit (granted by the Planning Board). She expressed concern with traffic and egress on the busy state road and other details that may need additional consideration. - Committee: Expressed interest in allowing this use without Board approval, suggesting that the zoning language provide the necessary restrictions, such as tying the use with pre-existing agricultural related uses/activities. -Chris: Agreed to develop language for the Committee to consider next time. The Committee and John Gaunt continued to discuss GreenTree’s biochar business activity and potential expansion (use/production) in the Inlet Valley area as it pertains to the Town’s economic development interest for maintaining ag related uses in that area. 5. Discuss possible zoning modifications for certain dwellings having accessory apartments: -Rich: Distributed a hand out containing new language pertaining to owner occupancy requirements in order to have two-family dwellings. The handouts showed how this language could be easily inserted into the relevant residential zoning sections pertaining to permitted principal uses and accessory buildings. Rich explained that he had utilized language from the Town of Brookhaven which has occupancy requirements. - Rich: Put forth several questions for Committee consideration related to developing occupancy requirement language, including: 4 • Should the Town retain the basement exception in the two-family dwelling (where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area it is not required to be 50% the size of the principal building)? Rich suggested that it be retained. • Should the requirements apply to existing zoning boundaries or should there be an overlay zone established? Rich added that it may be easier to use the existing zones since the Town does not currently have a construct for overlay zones. • Should the requirements apply to only new two-family structures, as of the date of the law’s enactment, for instance, or apply to all existing two-family dwellings, with no grandfathering provisions? • Should there be licensing/registration requirements? If the regulations do not have grandfathering provisions, and instead apply to rentals of all existing and new two-family dwellings then a licensing/registration process will be necessary. This would add a great deal of complexity to proposal. • Should alternative regulatory options be considered? Rich described his discussion with a Department of State representative who suggested that certain rental properties, outside of an owner’s primary dwelling, could be categorized as a business and the Town has authority to regulate businesses in different zones. This would be an alternative way to address rentals rather than owner occupancy requirements. -Bill: Suggested starting with a simple regulatory approach in order to move this forward. He indicated that he does not have a problem maintaining the current regulation for basement apartments. - Rich: Stated that we will need to track ownership. He suggested bringing some simple language to the Town Board for their consideration. The purpose is to stem the tide on the proliferation of these types of houses creeping into established single-family neighborhoods. The Committee also needs to consider when the requirements would actually start and what is deemed to be grandfathered. -Committee: Discussed the Town Board meeting schedule and timing of when a report on the Committee’s proposal could be made to the Town Board. Given upcoming budget discussions, there may not be an opportunity for a month or more. 6. Consider the August meeting summary: Bill moved; Rod seconded. All in favor with a minor edit. 7. Staff updates and reports: - Sue: Reported that the developers who proposed a mini-golf development on Elmira Road/Seven Mile Drive are still interested but have temporarily shifted their focus on another project. They intend to get back in touch with us in the near future. 8. New Business: None reported. 9. Next Meeting and Upcoming Agenda Items: Next meeting scheduled for October 15, 2015 (Happy Birthday Bill!). Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 15, 2015 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF/OFFICIALS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Codes. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Persons to Be Heard: None. 2. Committee Announcements and Concerns: None. 3. Consider the September meeting summary: Bill moved; Rod seconded. Several modifications made; all in favor of modifications. 4. Staff updates and reports: Not discussed. 5. Discuss possible modifications to the Light Industrial Zone to allow temporary seasonal outdoor farm stands: Committee members discussed the memo drafted by planning staff containing proposed new language to allow seasonal outdoor farm stands in the Light Industrial Zone. This was prompted by a request from GreenTree Garden Supply, and a discussion at the September Committee meeting, for providing an opportunity for farmers using GreenTree soil to showcase and sell plants grown in the soil media sold at the store. - Rich: Raised a question concerning requirement no. 6 in the memo pertaining to removal of equipment at the end of the day. He thought this might be onerous for a farmer that participates in a multi-day (i.e. weekend) event. - Bruce: Suggested changing the wording from “end of the day” to the “end of the event”. - Rich: Questioned the Committee on whether they needed to include language on removing equipment. Are we concerned that without a time frame people will set up and leave the equipment for the entire season? - Chris: Responded that this was a concern and that she had used language from the ZBA condition of approval for the E. Hill Farmers Market. That approval stated “nothing will remain on the site after the market hours except possible signage”. - Rich: Based on the discussion at the October meeting, he envisioned canopy tents with tables that would be brought in with a truck or a van. - Bill: Added that it would be similar to the DeWitt Park Farmers Market where everyone removes their equipment at the end of the day. - Chris: Noted that both of these farmer’s markets are only one day events, but questioned if this should be handled differently given the potential for GreenTree having multi-day events. - Chris: Asked the Committee for their input on the period of operation, both in terms of the months and days of the week (requirements no. 4 and no. 5 in the memo). - Rod: Stated that as proposed, April through November appeared realistic and would likely be all the farmers would be interested in. In terms of regulating what days of the week it would be allowed, he wondered if this was needed. 2 - Chris: Responded that without any limits the farmers market could potentially operate 7 days/week, April through November. She reminded the Committee that the new use would pertain to the entire LI zone, not just GreenTree. - Rod: Suggested allowing the use for 3 days/week. - Bruce: Referring back to the months of operation, suggested 180 consecutive days. They could decide within this time frame what months would be included. - Rich: Expressed concern for requirement no. 3 in the memo, requiring that the use be allowed in association with an existing agricultural activity. He wondered if limiting a permitted use to an association with an on-site ancillary use/business would be problematic from a legal stand point. - Committee: Agreed to ask for Susan Brock’s legal opinion on this proposed provision. - Rich: Referred to the aerial maps that Chris brought to the meeting and asked her to indicate what 30 feet from the street line looked like (per requirement no. 1). - Chris: Indicated the 30 foot distance from the street line and described possible locations on the site where the display tables could be located and where site constraints existed. - Committee: After reviewing the maps and discussing the setback proposal, Rich recommended a maximum of 5 tables (requirement no. 8), given the available land and site constraints. Rod and Bill agreed. The Committee reviewed and finalized their recommendations for the requirements, as follows: 1. – Located a minimum of 30 feet from the street line. No change. 2. – Placed in such a manner as to permit safe access and egress for automobiles, and parking off the highway right-of-way. No change. 3. – Associated with an existing agricultural activity or agricultural business on the property. No decision--consult with Attorney for the Town on this item. 4. – Allow between the months of April 1st and October 31st only. 5. – Allow 3 days per week. 6. – Temporary, with clean-up and removal of all equipment and signage at the end of the day, unless operating on consecutive days—tentative language, still needs tweaking. 7. – All signs must comply with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law. No change. 8. – No more than 5 stands shall be permitted per day without site plan approval by the Planning Board. - Rich: Asked Chris to tweak the language, where necessary, consult with Attorney for the Town on No. 3, and revisit at November meeting with revisions. 6. Continue discussion of possible zoning modifications for certain dwellings having accessory apartments: - Rich: Explained that the Committee wanted to review proposed language with Bruce who had been away for the September meeting. Rich distributed language that he had provided at the September meeting to review with Bruce. The new language had owner occupancy requirements for two-family dwellings. The big question is enforcement. And in addition to the questions discussed and listed in the September meeting minutes, Rich added another for consideration: - would existing two-family dwellings be completely grandfathered or would this change when property is sold? Could a sale negate grandfathering? - Bruce: Asked various questions about the proposal, with particular concern for how it would apply to subsequent property owners and how they would be informed of the regulations. 3 Rich: Added that this is intended to be applied as an overlay zone and is not envisioned as being town-wide. The overlay areas are yet to be determined. Committee members and staff discussed enforcement aspects of the proposal and ideas for keeping track of property ownership and residency location. Bruce explained that the Municity software could assist. Also discussed was the need to notify realtors and attorneys of the new law when the time comes. Rich: Wrapped up the discussion, having brought Bruce up to speed on the proposal. The next step is to bring the discussion to the Town Board. Subsequent to initial Board discussion, and an exchange of members ideas, it will need Susan Brock’s input. This discussion will not be scheduled until the Board finishes its budget. 7. Follow up on the site visit to evaluate Black Diamond Trail connections: To be discussed at the next meeting. 8. New Business: - Bruce: Reported that he scheduled a meeting (upcoming) with Ithaca College Director of Housing Services, Linda Koenig, regarding off campus housing. This meeting was arranged following Bruce’s investigation of a student over-occupancy case. The students asked Bruce why they were never informed of this requirement. The student also questioned why Ithaca College didn’t inform students during IC’s off-campus housing processing program. Bruce had not been aware of this program which is necessary for students to participate in prior to moving off-campus. It includes informing students of the Town’s noise ordinance and how to be a good neighbor, but not of occupancy requirements. Bruce requested a meeting with Ithaca College in hopes that the Town’s occupancy requirements could be included in these communications with students. -Rich: Reported that the outdoor lights on the South Hill Business Campus (SHBC) property were much less conspicuous and a big improvement since reporting the problem to the SHBC representatives at the September meeting. 9. Next Meeting and Upcoming Agenda Items: Next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 18, 2015 (changing the meeting date to Wednesday due to member conflicts with the Thursday date). • Light Industrial Zone modifications. • Black Diamond Trail Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 18, 2015 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Bill Goodman, Rod Howe. TOWN STAFF/OFFICIALS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Codes. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. 1. Persons to Be Heard: None. 2. Committee Announcements and Concerns: None. 3. Consider the October meeting summary: Rich requested a modification in the wording on page 2 to read “using GreenTree soil to showcase and sell plants grown in the soil media sold at the store”. With no other changes requested, Rod moved; Bill seconded; all in favor. 4. Staff updates and reports: Ithaca College off-campus orientation presentation: - Bruce: Reported on his meeting with two Ithaca College (IC) Residential Life/Housing Services representatives. They shared with Bruce an IC orientation presentation given to students transitioning to off-campus housing. They asked him to review the presentation and provide suggestions for additional information that may be helpful to students planning to live off campus and in the Town. Bruce provided recommendations ranging from simple contact information to legal references in the Town Code. The IC officials could not guarantee that all the information Bruce provided would be added. The revised presentation would be available for next year’s student orientation program. - Bruce: Added that he had obtained a copy of the lease from a house with an over-occupancy issue, prompting the conversation with IC officials. The rental agreement for the seven students had a required total payment of $55,000/year. In addition, the lease included the word “family” and stated that the tenants (seven students) must agree to live as a family unit with no reference to the Town’s definition of family. - Sue: Reported on: • Chain Works project: City and Town planning staff are working with the Chain Works development team to provide initial comments on the organization/structure of the EIS. The EIS is close to completion but still needs additional work. • NYS 96B Pedestrian Corridor Study: Public meeting is scheduled for December 8th where the consultants will report on their initial recommendations for sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities within the corridor. 5. Continue discussion of possible modifications to the Light Industrial Zone to allow temporary seasonal outdoor farm stands: - Rich: Introduced the revised language for the LI zone per discussion at the October meeting. He referred to the email from Susan Brock indicating that the proposal for limiting farm stands to properties that have a connection/tie-in with the on-site activities (item #8) is legal and appropriate. Rich suggested a couple of modifications to the language, as follows: 2 --Item #5, pertaining to the handling of equipment for consecutive day events, add to the end of the sentence: “provided that materials left unattended shall be secured in a manner so as to remain stationary through strong wind and weather”. ---Item #8, modify the sentence to read as follows: “The majority of the products sold at such stands are grown by the enterprise on the property upon which the stand is located or derived primarily from products sold by the enterprise”. - Committee: Indicated approval with the above changes. Action: Recommendation to refer the LI Zone modifications to the Town Board; Bill moved; Rich seconded; all in favor. Rich: Thanked Chris for her work on the LI Zone modifications. 6. Follow up on the site visit to evaluate Black Diamond Trail (BDT) connections: - Rich: Began by explaining that the committee had not had an opportunity to discuss the BDT site visit back in September and that he wanted to get member’s impression of the trail connection issue (BDT to hospital/Museum of the Earth area). Rich stated that he questioned who the primary users of a trail connection would be and how many would actually use it. He thought the gradient posed a serious challenge and that creating any sort of handicap accessible trail would cost a significant amount of money. It’s a beautiful trail, but Rich felt it would take significant resources to make it accessible to enough people to warrant the undertaking. - Committee: Discussed the two trail connections they had walked; the narrow pedestrian trail behind the hospital and the old road that connects to the BDT where the former hospital heating plant was located. The trail connection behind the hospital was believed to be used by hospital employees for exercise. - Rod: Thought it was unlikely that a large number of visitors to the Museum of the Earth would come by way of the trail connection. While some may be interested, it is a question of having enough demand to warrant the costs required for improvements. - Bill: Expressed concern for costs and suggested initial less expensive options for trail improvements. He saw the trail behind the hospital as serving recreational users rather than commuters, though he added that occasionally in good weather some people might be interested in using the trail to get to work at the hospital or residents from Overlook might commute into the City. He proposed cutting back brush to widen the trail and applying wood chips in places to improve usability. He acknowledged that it would be too difficult to improve this trail for biking. - Committee: Decided that next steps would be to talk with the hospital to see what they may be interested in doing to improve the trail connections. If they have a program that includes encouraging staff to use the trail (health/wellness program) then there may be an interest. - Bill: Volunteered to contact John Rudd, President and CEO of CMC, in the new year to begin the discussion. - Committee: Agreed that the old road to the heating plant would be very costly to improve given the gradient and ADA issues. 7. Discuss Form Ithaca project: Rich: Opened the discussion stating that the Form Ithaca representatives had made a presentation at the last Town Board meeting, but that there was not much time for discussion with the Board. 3 Rod: Said that one question he wanted to pose was whether the charrette held this summer was disproportionately attended by people who are already attuned to the ideas that were discussed. He wondered how representative the organizers believed the attendees to be of the community. Rich: Responded that he had asked that same question at the event and there was some acknowledgement for “preaching to the choir”. Rod: Asked how this starts to connect with new zoning for the Town. - Sue: Explained that planning staff has been meeting with David West, from Form Ithaca, to begin developing ideas for the calibration of transects to be used in a Town form-based code. While the Town Board will ultimately need to weigh-in, she suggested that the conversation be brought to the Planning Committee for input on the detailed work thus far. She added that planning staff was also working on the Town’s existing zones and beginning to formulate ideas for modifications that will also need input. - Sue: Reported that there may be an opportunity to begin moving forward on the process for developing new zoning in Danby Rd./King Rd. intersection area and that Form Ithaca, utilizing their NYSERDA funding, would be willing to hold a public design charrette. This still needs to be explored with the larger landowners of that area, but Sue was interested in the committee’s reaction on moving this forward. - Committee: Recommended moving forward with a charrette for the South Hill area. - Rich: Reported that at the recent Public Works Committee meeting Jim Weber stated that maintenance of Town-owned sewage pump stations costs around $200,000/year (equipment and staff time). Further discussion with staff indicated that areas on South Hill (and other parts of Town) if developed, given topography and location of sewer lines, would not permit gravity flow, but instead necessitate more sewer pump stations. This warrants a bigger discussion on development in the Town and identifying locations where sewer pump stations would be necessary. The committee/staff discussed a variety of issues concerning housing and housing needs in the Town. - Sue: Mentioned that the County just recently hired The Danter Company to conduct a new housing study that will get underway in the next month or so. - Rich: Stated that the study should explore how likely in-commuters to the County would be to relocate if more housing options were available to them. - Committee: Asked Sue to send them the housing study Request for Proposals that outlines the scope of work. They also suggested having a County Planning staff person come to a committee meeting to discuss the study and demographic trends. 8. New Business: None. 9. Next Meeting and Upcoming Agenda Items: Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 17, 2015. Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m.