HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2016-AllTOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JANUARY 21, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Pat Leary, Rod Howe.
TOWN STAFF/OFFICIALS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of
Codes; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Pam Bleiwas, Town Board.
GUESTS: David West (Randall + West); Steve Eddy, resident; Alfred Eddy, resident; 2 additional
guests, names unknown.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. He welcomed Pat Leary who is
replacing Bill Goodman on the committee.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee Announcements and Concerns: None.
Discuss form-based code zoning and local calibration with David West:
- Rich: Turned the meeting over to guest speaker David West, an urban planner with Randall +
West.
- David West: Described his affiliation with Form Ithaca, a group that has been working with the
City and Town on form-based zoning. He explained that he has been working recently with town
planning staff on developing the metrics for a form-based code (FBC). These metrics are derived
from examining places and buildings we know and like in Ithaca and elsewhere, taking the metrics
from those features we want to see applied in new developments and incorporating them in the
FBC. He explained that the goal was to enable new compact traditional neighborhood development
in those areas that call for it in the Town’s new Comprehensive Plan (land use plan). The FBC
enables recreating the traditional village character and diversity that we see in parts of the City that
were developed before zoning.
Using Google Earth, David illustrated how different areas can be examined and measured. The first
area viewed was a conventional subdivision in the town’s NE area. He explained that with
conventional zoning you get monoculture development because the zoning has one set of rules that
cover a large area. Earlier (pre-zoning) traditional neighborhoods weren’t developed this way, and
instead you find a diverse mix of housing styles and sizes.
David reviewed the work from Form Ithaca’s June charrette and the preliminary design concepts
for South Hill area (King/Danby Rd area). He also introduced the concept of “transects” which is
used in FBC. He explained that the concept was stolen from biology which uses transects in the
study of different habitat types within a given area. Used in planning, the concept illustrates the
different elements that comprise the urban to rural community/neighborhood types. Illustrated
locally, there is the dense City of Ithaca center/downtown, the Fall Creek neighborhood, the less
dense and more car dependent neighborhood of Cayuga Heights and then moving further out to
rural areas. The transects are often referred to as T-zones (T1 through T6), but Form Ithaca has
adopted a naming convention to be less jargony, as follows: T6 regional, T5 main street, T4 general
urban neighborhood, T3 neighborhood edge, T2 rural ag, T1 natural.
With Google Earth, David zoomed into the Commons for a discussion on building features. He
measured the 1970’s era Rothschild building as around 200 feet in length. This monolithic structure
2
was compared to the nearby older and narrower buildings, averaging around 65 feet wide. David
noted how the architecture/character of these older buildings are often praised. If we want more of
this type of architecture, rather than the former, then the FBC could include requirements that long
buildings must be broken up (i.e. with variability in their façade). The idea is to find examples of
things we like and use similar metrics for height, width, and form, replicating the elements we like
through requirements in the FBC.
David then zoomed into what he felt were good examples of new traditional neighborhood
developments, including Town Center, New Jersey. This development is similar in size to the King
Rd./Danby Rd. site, and is comprised of transects at different densities and contexts. It has a
commercial main street/town center, senior apartments, townhouses, and large single family
homes around the outskirts. David noted that the business model was not really different than a
strip mall (housing typical national chains) but the aesthetics are much different (better). The
development serves the 400 residential units within walking distance (as well as commuters) and
provides a sense of community. There is the same parking as a strip mall, but distributed
differently. David explained that the development was an intervention to give a town center to an
existing sprawling area.
David examined a couple of other locations to illustrate new developments with successful mixed
use/mixed housing developments.
He touched on Form Ithaca’s current work of establishing metrics for a set of building types
(residential and commercial) appropriate for a walkable village.
He also described the concept of being able to walk anywhere within a neighborhood in 5-10
minutes.
He explained that each of the individual transects would have the same metrics, however, how
much (the proportion) of a particular transect was appropriate for South Hill would be different for
East Hill. He explained that FBC zoning is much finer grained than current zoning, providing the
control necessary to create the difference scales that you want in a neighborhood.
Next steps are for David to return to the committee in a couple months to discuss the specific
metrics for transects and housing types.
Discuss Purchase of Development Rights application for Seven Mile Drive property and
consider recommendation to Town Board:
- Rich: Asked Mike Smith to provide a primer on the purchase of development rights (PDR), its
implications, limitation, etc.
- Mike: Explained that the goal of PDR is to preserve farmland by placing a conservation easement
(CE) on the property. He described the two farms that the town holds CEs on: Indian Creek Farm
and Laughing Goat Farm. The CEs on these farms prevent additional residential development, but
do allow additional development for farming purposes (to the extent that there is enough acreage
to continue farming). Indian Creek CE is more complicated given the needs for the various business
activities at the farm (farm stand, tree nursery, orchards/other plants).
- Mike: Described the two parcels under consideration on Seven Mile Drive, their zoning (LDR and
LI), existing utilities (municipal water/sewer), and that they are in the County Ag District.
- Rich: Stated that this proposal is more complicated than it might appear, given that the town has
bandied about several different development concepts for the properties over the years.
- Mike: Reported that the most recent PDR appraisal was for the Indian Creek Farm and the cost
was $5500. He explained that PDR appraisals are more complicated than typical appraisals because
they involve two appraisals, one for the land at full development value and the other for just the
3
agricultural use. The difference between the two is what the development rights would be valued
at.
- Rich: Stated that at this point he supported getting the appraisals done. The information will help
provide direction on which way to go.
- Rod: Indicated support for the appraisal. He stated that agricultural protection has been a
consistent theme for the corridor and this was one step in that direction.
- Pat: Responded that with water and sewer utilities available there would be potential for other
types of development to occur on the properties which would be preferable to developing new
utilities elsewhere. She thought having the option for development would be good, but she
questioned whether it was a forgone conclusion that lands were intended to remain undeveloped in
the Inlet Valley corridor.
- Rod: Responded that it was definitely not a forgone conclusion, and that development within the
corridor was very much part of the plan, but that we wanted to look at a mix and in that mix there is
support for maintaining agriculture. He also mentioned that the Economic Development Ad-Hoc
Committee, at their upcoming meeting, will be discussing the NYS grant award for funding a study
concerning development in the Inlet Valley corridor.
- Committee: Following additional discussion, Rich asked for a motion on recommending to the
Town Board that an appraisal be requested for the two parcels on Seven Mile Drive.
Rich, moved the motion; Rod, seconded; all in favor.
- Mike: Asked if there was any additional information that would be helpful to the town board.
Members suggested providing a larger scaled map to see more surrounding area, information on
the how the town’s PDR targeted areas were determined, and information on the importance of
prime and statewide soil.
New business:
- Sue: Reported on Cornell University’s proposal to install a deer fence to enclose a large area
containing research farm plots. The land (Cornell Precinct 7) is a Planned Development Zone (PDZ)
and deer fences are not a permitted use. Sue was looking for committee input on amending the PDZ
to allow the fencing. She showed maps identifying the location of the fence and other materials that
were provided to the Planning Board for a recent sketch plan discussion. She explained that the
PDZ includes a “View Area”, for protecting views seen to the east from Route 366. The PDZ
language for the View Area (271-10 H (13)) includes parameters for roads, building sizes, building
additions and lampposts, but the language remains silent on fences.
Sue explained that per definition in Town Code, a deer fence must be made of open
weave/construction (85% of its face is open when viewed from a position that is at a right angle).
Because of the open construction and relative low profile of the proposed deer fence the Planning
Board had not expressed concern with negative impacts to the “View Area”.
- Committee: After discussion, Rich moved; Pat seconded; all in favor of recommending to the Town
Board that language be added to the PDZ to allow deer fencing in Cornell’s Precinct 7 area.
Consider the November meeting summary:
- Rich: Requested several modifications to the meeting summary. Rich moved; Rod seconded; Pat
abstained. Summary with edits were approved.
Staff updates and reports:
- Bruce: Reported that ZBA member, John DeRosa, has resigned from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
4
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items:
Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 18th.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 18, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/OFFICIALS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of
Codes.
GUESTS: Scott Whitham and Cathy De Almeida (Whitham Planning & Design); Murphy Antoine
(Torti Gallas and Partners); Jeremy Thomas and John Gutenberger (Cornell University); Travis
Cleveland, numerous residents/stakeholders.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:35 p.m. The meeting location
was switched to the Town Board Room given anticipated interest in the agenda items and the
possibility of exceeding the Aurora Room’s capacity.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
CU Maplewood Apartments redevelopment proposal and request for a Planned Development
Zone:
- Rich: Provided a brief introduction and mentioned that the Town Board saw a presentation of the
Maplewood proposal at their meeting on Monday. The Town Board referred the project to the
Planning Committee because the project will require a rezoning. Rich asked the development team
to provide a brief overview since audience members may not be familiar with the project. He asked
that information be given on the timeline and to describe plans for public engagement. Rich added
that he would be giving the public an opportunity to speak later in the meeting.
- Murphy Antoine: Provided a slide presentation, beginning by describing the different roles of the
development team. EDR is the project developer and manager; the design team includes Torti
Gallus and Whitham Planning and Design; engineering consultants are T.G. Miller. Mr. Antione
presented aerial imagery slides of the site and illustrated its proximity and relationship to various
nearby locations. Mr. Antoine described the current development of one-story monotonous
buildings as standing out from the fabric of the town/city/Belle Sherman neighborhood. Their goal
and challenge is to better integrate the proposed development into the neighborhood in a more
connected way. The site is situated such that it is walkable, within a ¼ to ½ mile radius, to parts of
the Cornell campus and East Hill Plaza area. The East Ithaca Recreation Way is situated
immediately adjacent to the site and there is a bus route on Mitchell Street. A very small portion of
the project along Maple Ave. is within the City.
Mr. Antoine indicated the highest topographic point within the site contains the Mitchell family
cemetery plot. This wooded knoll offers nice views and is a valued feature to be preserved. The
topographically low points are along the East Ithaca Recreation Way and the vicinity of where
stormwater management practices would be located.
Mr. Antoine presented the concept plan and stated that the plan is to demolish all the current
buildings and replace them with graduate and professional student housing, to consist of 500-600
units, 850-975 bedrooms, (bedrooms or beds?) within a mix of 3-4 story apartment buildings, 2-3
story stacked flats, and 2-3 story townhouses. The goal is to create a walkable connected (to the
town/city/Cornell) community that is affordable to professional/graduate students and sustainable
for the long term. The current Maplewood Apartments were built in 1989 but are in poor condition
2
and their single story is an inefficient use of land. Other project elements described by Mr. Antoine
included: celebrating the trail with a plaza/small scale retail to compliment the Coal Yard Café; bike
and pedestrian connections to the trail; creation of a block and street network; a street hierarchy
with a main street, secondary streets, and alleys.
- Rich: Gave the public an opportunity to speak and ask questions.
- Residents: Several residents spoke with questions and concerns largely focused on the proposed
4-story buildings that would front on Mitchell Street. Residents expressed concern for the character
of Mitchell Street, privacy for nearby single-family homes (wall of windows looking over their
backyards), and concern about the appearance of the buildings long wall and visual impact on
adjoining neighborhood. They asked if the placement of these buildings was in stone or could be
reconsidered.
- Scott Whitham: Responded that the concept plan was not in stone and that locations and building
articulation will be important.
- Committee/Team: Discussed development of the Planned Development Zone and desire for some
form-based code elements to be incorporated into the language. In terms of time line, the opening
date for the project is July 2018, so the team is hoping to have the Town’s review process completed
by Fall 2016.
- Rich: Asked about whether the project was sized in anticipation of a growing number of graduate
students or in an effort to have more of the existing population reside there.
- Jeremy Thomas: Responded that Cornell was seeking to house more of its graduate students
through its housing program and described the current status.
- Rod: Mentioned the current capacity issue of the town’s East Hill water tank and the need to factor
that into the conversation.
Discuss possible moratorium on the construction of new two-family dwelling structures and
consider referral to Town Board:
- Rich: Began the discussion by stating that the Planning Committee has been discussing the topic
of rental property oversight for over a year. He explained that the town has had ongoing issues with
rental properties in the town as related to occupancy, aesthetics, and loopholes in the regulations
that result in the construction of duplex housing. In light of these issues, the committee began
examining the zoning regulations and investigating ideas that would provide for clear
interpretation of what we expect as a community and what builders can expect when they apply for
permits.
Rich went on to explain that the original idea behind the two-family dwelling, as it exists in our
code, was to allow for a traditional “granny flat”, a “mother-in-law” apartment, or to allow a
homeowner to supplement their income to enable them to pay for their primary dwelling. It was
never intended as it is currently being utilized; to enable builders/landlords to construct duplexes
(equal sized units rather than smaller accessory apartment) by having a second unit entirely in the
basement. It has become an area of contention between builders and our code enforcement
department to determine what constitutes a basement, how much dirt do you have to throw against
the foundation in order to call it a basement, along with issues related to occupancy.
Rich continued, stating that while we want to have a variety of housing available, it is long overdue
that we take a look at where certain types of housing is appropriate. Right now there’s a
concerning pattern emerging in parts of the Town where builders will acquire properties and
convert them to dwellings that somehow fit through these loopholes in our code. And so we end up
with over-occupancy issues, we end up with a monoculture of housing where every house looks the
3
same. We have well-established single- family neighborhoods in the Town that we would like to
preserve and neighborhood character is an issue.
Rich referred to the committee’s research and previous discussion on rental management
approaches (rental registry, grandfathering, overlay zones, geographically based tier-rental
oversight system) and stated that he felt that the committee was at a point of wanting to codify
some controls, but there are still questions to be addressed in determining the right approaches for
the town. In the interim, it would be prudent and practical to consider a moratorium on certain
types of dwellings
- Rod: Raised the question on the amount of time needed to look at all the options and the research
done thus far and assess them.
- Rich: Responded that he envisioned a moratorium for a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 1
year.
- Bruce: Responded to questions concerning the definition of “family” and described his
experiences with occupancy issues.
- Rich: Stated that the committee understands that we live in a college town where there are going
to be a high percentage of renters. We are not trying to close the door on rental opportunities, but
that it’s become an unfortunate burden for the Town, with lack of clarity to builders, and occupancy
rules that are unclear to tenants, who then have to plead their case with the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The system is not working as currently constructed and the town needs to make changes.
– Rich: Invited the public to provide comments to the committee.
– Travis Cleveland: Stated that the Town should allow the construction of duplexes. He and the
committee engaged in a lengthy discussion about this.
No other members of the public offered comments.
- Rich: Asked for committee member’s input on recommending that the Town Board consider
enacting a moratorium on construction of new 2-family dwellings to provide time to tighten up
zoning and make it clearer.
- Rod: Responded that he does not take this lightly, but does think it is a good step and that we
need time to step back and look at the options. He referenced a current proposal before the
Planning Board that seeks to demolish a historic house and replace it with 2 two-family dwellings
for student rentals. Rod further stated that there are lots of issues to be studied and for him
aesthetics would be one. He summarized that he supports a moratorium as long as it has some
bookends and defined goals.
- Pat: Responded that she would be comfortable with a limited moratorium, but no more than one
year. She expressed concern with some of the rental management approaches discussed earlier
and would want more details about these. She explained that she did not want to limit the
availability of housing to renters because of the concerns/issues regarding students.
Motion: Recommending consideration of a moratorium to the Town Board for the purposes of
investigating rental property oversight:
Moved: - Rod Howe; Seconded: - Rich DePaolo; Vote: all in favor.
Discuss Zoning Review and Approach Report prepared by the Planning Department:
- Sue: Provided a brief introduction to the Zoning Review and Approach Report. She explained that
the purpose of the document was to provide an overview of the many changes proposed for the
town’s land use regulations. She described three broad areas of proposed changes, including
making the regulations easier to understand with clearer language and charts and tables; new
planning/zoning tools, such as form-based codes and traditional neighborhood development; and
improving administrative aspects, with clearer procedures on how the development review
process works.
4
- Committee: Members expressed general support for the document Provided initial positive
comments on the report and stated that they were interested in continuing to discuss it at the next
meeting.
Consider the January meeting summary:
Rich had some typos needing correction. Moved: Rich: Seconded: Pat All in favor
Committee Announcements and Concerns: .
- Rod: Stated that he would like to have the committee at some point focus on historic resource
preservation in the town.
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items:
Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 17th; March 23rd is scheduled for a joint meeting with
the City Planning Committee (5:30) to discuss Chain Works.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MARCH 17, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/OFFICIALS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of
Codes; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bill Goodman, Town Board; Pam Bleiwas, Town Board.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Consider February Meeting Summary: Rich provided a minor modification to clarify his question
to the applicant concerning the sizing of the facility and whether it was for future student
population growth or to accommodate the existing population. Rich moved the meeting summary,
as amended; Rod seconded; all in favor.
Discuss Chain Works District Form and Use Regulations (PDZ language):
- Rich: Asked Sue to introduce the staff memo providing comments on the draft PDZ language.
- Sue: Explained that the Form and Use Regulations document is the proposed draft Chain Works
PDZ language minus the administrative section which still needs to be completed. It was included
in the Appendix of the Chain Works draft DGEIS, satisfying scoping requirements that the GEIS
address design principles (aesthetic concerns). Town and City planning staff previously submitted
comments on the language during the adequacy determination, but not all the comments were
addressed. Staff prepared this more thorough critique in preparation for the City/Town joint
Planning Committee meeting scheduled for next week. Staff is looking for feedback from the
Committee to see if there is agreement and/or additional comments or concerns from members.
- Planning Committee: Members discussed the staff memo and asked questions.
- Sue: Noted that planning staff had met with City staff earlier in day and together they made some
minor changes to the list of comments. The modified memo will be provided to the City Planning
Committee (this afternoon) for the joint meeting next week. Sue will get the modified version to the
committee. Sue also discussed the idea of the Town/City staff potentially taking over responsibility
for revising the draft PDZ.
- Planning Committee: Members expressed agreement with the staff recommendations outlined in
the memo and then turned attention to the PDZ/Form and Use Regulations document itself. The
following comments/concerns were discussed:
Page 5; - (3) Buffer: a) Regulate the types of accessory building structures in a buffer area and limit
size and function.
Page 5; - (6) Building Story: Concern with the view shed and need to be careful not to create a
development that walls off the view of West Hill or Cayuga Lake, etc.
Page 6; - (8) Design Speed: Design speed is not needed in the PDZ.
Page 8; - (27) Public Way: Question about the proposed heights and purpose; need to determine if
the height is adequate (i.e. fire department) and what the use will be.
Page 8; - (29) Row House: Definition needs tweaking.
Page 9; - (33) Thoroughfare: Define whether a pedestrian/bicycle-only facility is also considered a
thoroughfare.
Page 10; - (1 I) Natural Area/CW1- Site: Need to determine if language is referring to coverage
footprint or gross floor area.
Page 11; - (1 II b.) Building Heights: Need clarification whether this intends to refer to the roof
peak/is inclusive of the roof.
2
Page 13: - (2 II c.) Maximum Façade Length – 120 feet may be too long, need to revisit.
Page 16: - (3 II g.) Maximum Blank Wall - needs to be more specific, the PDZ lacks information on
what types of buildings are allowed, where this applies, and what to do after reaching 120ft; needs
more criteria on how to break up the blank wall.
Page 23: - Thoroughfare Assemblies: raised numerous comments/concerns, including:
• Type A – 4 ft. sidewalk – needs to be 5 ft.
• Lane widths seem mis-matched for their use, i.e. some are narrow like a Belle Sherman
neighborhood but are being applied in a denser multi-residential where you would expect
wider widths.
• Type D – back-in parking concept raised concern; especially with the 20’ lane, while in other
areas there are 8’ lanes.
• Type E – sidewalks are flush with road, this is a ‘woonerf’ mixed street pedestrian and
vehicular.
Page 31: Signage chart – inconsistencies with by-right versus requiring planning board approval,
needs to be fixed.
- Rich: Summarized that the direction forward would be to have town staff, working with city staff,
begin making changes to the PDZ language.
Staff Updates and Reports:
• Maplewood Housing Project: Sue asked for Committee input on plans for having the Planning
Board move ahead with initial SEQR steps (establishing lead agency, scoping, etc.) prior to a
draft being referred to the Town Board and then Planning Board. This is a different process than
previous Town PDZs, but it is the same path currently underway for Chain Works, also involving
a lengthy EIS process. Committee members indicated they were comfortable with the proposed
process.
• South Hill King/Danby Rd area: There is a possibility that Evan Monkemeyer may be partnering
with a developer for his property. More will be known in the coming weeks.
New Business:
- Rich: Introduced a new topic for the Committee to consider. Affordable housing set asides which
had been on the COC’s work plan but is being moved to the Planning Committee. Rich explained
that Pat and Bill had done some initial research and Rich invited Pat to describe their efforts thus
far.
- Pat: Explained that they had researched laws from other communities, including Barnstable
County on Cape Cod and the Town of Beekman, NY. These communities had successfully enacted
laws requiring a certain percentage of affordable housing set-aside for developments over a certain
number of units. For the Town, Pat indicated they were thinking of requiring a 20% set-aside for
developments of 5 units or more, equating to 1 out of 5 units within a development requiring to be
affordable. This requirement would be linked to what would be considered affordable, with
affordability defined as around 30% of household income based on the median income of County or
Town.
- Rich: Asked Pat to share electronic resources she had collected with the committee. He suggested
that the Committee look at the information for the next meeting. Rich also mentioned a
conversation with Sue who thought it would be useful to talk with local developers and others
having experience with housing construction.
- Sue: Added that she thought it would be helpful to hear from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Service (INHS) given their development experience. She mentioned that the Greenways project
ended up being too costly for INHS to undertake, so getting some understanding from them on costs
and the problems they have run into would be useful to the Committee’s discussion. Sue described
talking with various developers and their report on the high costs of construction in the Ithaca area.
- Pat: Responded that it is assumed that development costs are high, otherwise we would have
lower priced housing, but if we want housing to be affordable, then we need the regulations. The
3
assumption is that the prices on other houses in the development would subsidize the lower cost
houses.
- Sue: Referred to the potential benefits of new zoning that would allow within a development
different lot sizes and housing types, as well as the potential for density bonuses, all of which is
expected to help create more affordable options. This would provide more of a carrot approach to
the regulations.
- Bill: Stated that he had talked with Paul Mazzarella (INHS) about meeting with the Committee. He
also mentioned that the City is on hold with their proposed affordable housing requirements
because of a Supreme Court case (inclusionary zoning to require affordable housing) expected to be
argued this spring. The City is proposing a voluntary program with density bonuses. Bill thought it
would be useful for the Committee to look at what the City is proposing.
- Committee: Agreed that they would invite Paul Mazzarella a future meeting to discuss
development costs.
- Rich: After more discussion on costs and approaches for affordable housing, he suggested that we
contact those communities that have regulations to see what their implementation experience has
been.
- Rod: Added that he supported having a discussion with the City on the approaches they are
considering.
Committee announcement and concerns
- Rod: Briefly mentioned that for a future agenda item he would like the Committee to have a
discussion with representatives of Historic Ithaca on ways the town could protect historic
structures.
Meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items:
Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 21st.
• Maplewood PDZ
• Zoning Review and Approach Report document – pages 1 - 20
• Affordable Housing
Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF APRIL 21, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce
Bates, Director of Codes; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Pam
Bleiwas, Town Board, TeeAnn Hunter, Town Board.
GUEST: Scott Whitham, Cathy De Almeida, and Peter Jensen (Whitham Planning & Design); Jeremy
Thomas and John Gutenberger (Cornell University); John Beach, Larry Fabbroni.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee announcement and concerns: Rod mentioned informational materials received from
a Town resident containing ideas on historic resource protection. He wanted to make sure we
continue to keep this topic on the agenda.
Consider March meeting summary:
Several typographical errors were identified. Rod moved; Pat seconded: all in favor, with
corrections.
Discuss Draft Planned Development Zone language for the Maplewood Redevelopment
Project:
- Rich: Introduced the agenda item and mentioned the emailed comments from residents of the
Black Oak Townhouse development who expressed concerns about the height and length of the
apartment building proposed along Mitchell Street.
- Scott Whitham: Responded and described the public meetings held with area residents. He stated
that the development team was on their fourth iteration of the site layout and that changes included
proposed building location adjustments to address concerns expressed by neighbors. They are
working on the architectural elements which they feel with help to clarify what is intended; right
now the buildings are represented as just blocks on the site plan.
Staff provided a brief introduction of the proposed draft PDZ that utilizes a form-based code (FBC)
format. This is the first FBC for the Town. There are still a few thresholds yet to be determined and
these are indicated by “XX” in the document. The administrative section still needs work and staff
will be looking to the attorney for the Town for input on this.
The Committee went through the PDZ language page by page. Many questions were raised on
various aspects of the law. The following are decisions made for modifying the draft proposed law:
Page 1; 16.1 A. Purpose and intent, par 1, last sentence: Remove “pedestrian friendly” and
“sustainable”.
Page 1; 16.1 A. Purpose and intent, par 2: Reword to “…aims to weave the public realm…”
Page 1; 16.2, Transects, last line: Revise the range for the transect size which is currently listed as 6
to 10 acres.
Page 2; 16.3 B, Use chart: Replace X2 with sq. ft. (square feet).
Page 3; 16.4 C1, Thoroughfare type chart: Add an upper limit to the right-of-way widths.
Page 4; 16.4 C2, Thoroughfare layout: Define “stubout thoroughfare”.
2
Page 5; 16.5 D2, Accessory structure: Clarify “architecturally consistent” by adding language from
16.5 D1.
Page 6; 16.5 E1, Required parking spaces chart, footnote 1: Change motor vehicle parking space to
8.5’ x 18’
Page 6; 16.5 E5, Landscape area, first sentence: Change 9’ to 8.5; also it would be helpful to create a
graphic for visualizing the requirement for a landscaped interior island.
Page 6; 16.5 E6, Renewable energy, second sentence: Change “should” to “must”.
Page 6; 16.5 E6, Renewable energy, third sentence: Move up to section dealing with off-street
parking requirements.
Page 7; 16.5 I2 Outdoor Lighting-Poles-Design/location, second sentence: Change .33 to 4’’
Page 7; 16.5 I2 Outdoor Lighting-Poles-Design/location, third sentence: Delete prohibition on
metal poles.
Page 7; 16.5 I3 Outdoor Lighting-Attached fixtures, second sentence: Change “…fixtures are
acceptable…” to …fixtures are allowed…”.
Page 8; Glossary—Park: Remove the term “naturalistically” used in the sentence “Prominent
landscape (≥50%) includes naturalistically disposed paths and trails,…”.
Special Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
At approximately 6:15pm the Planning Committee meeting was temporarily interrupted for the
Town Board special meeting to consider revised language on the proposed local law “Providing for
a Moratorium on New Two-Family Dwellings, and on the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit to an
Existing One-Family Dwelling”. The minutes for this meeting are filed under Town Board meeting
minutes.
The Planning Committee meeting resumed at approximately 6:30pm.
Discussion of comments on the Draft GEIS for proposed Chain Works District Development
Project:
- Rich: Questioned how the Town Board wanted to go about compiling comments on the DGEIS.
There is hope that the comment period will be extended for at least 30 days to give more time for
members to review the document. Rich described his interest in Chapter 5 which describes the
public health/contaminations issues. Given the amount of material in the GEIS, he suggested not
duplicating the reviewing efforts of chapters/sections that members and staff were intending to
cover. Rich asked Sue to share which chapters staff intends to review.
- Rod: Indicated that he was interested in the particular parts of the chapter addressing growth
inducing impacts.
- Bill: Questioned whether adding a sidewalk along Danby Rd/Aurora St. parallel to the
development might ultimately be considered as a traffic mitigation measure.
- Sue: Described the internal pedestrian connection proposed between the southern-most section
(new development in the Town) and the northern section in the City (redeveloped factory section).
She said she would review the GEIS further in order to determine whether the project also
proposes a sidewalk along the Danby Rd./Aurora St. corridor. She can also follow up with City staff
on this.
- Committee: Contemplated whether the Town Board and Planning Board may want to combine
comments or if it might be less complicated to submit individually.
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items:
Next meeting is scheduled for May 19th; agenda items to include:
Maplewood PDZ; Zoning Review and Approach Report (pgs1-40); Affordable Housing; and Historic
Resources.
Meeting adjourned at 6:37pm
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MAY 19, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Codes; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor.
GUEST: Scott Whitham and Cathy De Almeida (Whitham Planning & Design); John Lewis, Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, Reporter (Ithaca Journal). Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee announcement and concerns: None reported.
Discussion on revised draft PDZ language for the Maplewood Redevelopment Project: - Sue: Introduced the revised PDZ, explaining that it included modifications requested at the April Committee meeting and also additional changes since the meeting. The changes are shown in two different colors. The additional changes were mostly suggestions from Susan Brock (attorney for the Town) especially on the administrative section, as well as staff. Sue explained that Susan B. focused on the administrative section and only took a cursory look at the other sections. - Rich: Asked about the thresholds yet to be determined in the draft law (indicated as “XX”s) and how and when in the process those would get addressed. - Scott Whitham: Explained that all of the remaining thresholds would be finalized through the environmental impact statement (EIS) analysis and public review process. - Rich: Asked if there were any indications of concern regarding the placement/size of the buildings during the sketch plan discussion with the Planning Board. - Scott: Responded that with a project of this scale, in an existing neighborhood, concerns with the buildings and their placement would be expected and this will clearly be a public discussion as the process moves through SEQR and site plan. The Committee went through the revised PDZ language and the following decisions were made for modifying the 5/12/16 draft proposed law: Page 5; 16.4 C1 Thoroughfare types and designs, second requirement: Remove “parking lanes” from the list of required improvements. Parking lanes on Maple/Mitchell Streets are not an element of the development plan. Page 7; 16.5 B Building type chart, gross floor area for civic building: Add a lower limit, which for now can be left as to be determined (XX ft2). Page 7; 16.5 B Building type chart: Add a note stating that PD-15-M may contain XX% of PD-15-H. This will allow for a transition between the two zones. Once the EIS process has concluded and the location of buildings are set, a map will accompany the zoning language identifying the two subzones. Page 9; 16.5 E4 Parking surfaces, first sentence: Reword to “Parking areas must have a fixed impervious or porous surface”:
2
Page 10: 16.5 F4 Tree species for required planting: Undelete “or prone to dropping heavy fruit”: This requirement pertains to street trees only and it was decided that heavy fruit could pose a hazard and the restriction should remain. - Sue: Suggested that Susan Brock be given an opportunity to review the revised law. - Committee: Voted to refer the draft PDZ language to the Town Board for referral to the Planning Board and that Susan Brock be given an opportunity to review it.
Discussion of draft Zoning Review and Approach Report - Dan: Introduced the report. He explained that staff prepared the report as a means of analyzing the existing Code (the planning-related regulations) and identifying necessary changes per recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Dan explained that many communities intending extensive Code changes prepare these types of reports. This is to make sure that everyone understands and is in agreement with the proposed changes. The document examines the language of the Code, describes existing problems or ways that the Code hinders the adopted goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and details specific solutions. - Sue: Added that it was her hope that the Town Board would accept/approve the report and that it could be eventually posted to the town’s website and made available to the public. The Committee went through the report page by page. The following are decisions made for modifying the draft report: Cover/Page 1/etc: Revisit the name “Ithacacode”. Discussion arose on the use/need of branding the rezoning effort and of potential confusion with the city’s efforts. Actions to consider include having no name (no branding), finding an alternative name, or leaving as is. Page 1, column 1, para 2: Add “related” between “planning laws”. Do this just once at the beginning of the report for clarity. Page 3, column 2, para 2: Add “are” (“…there are also some conflicts…”). Page 4, column 1, last full sentence: Add hyphen to read “old-school”. Page 4, column 2, para 2: Replace “like” for “including” (Older planning codes, “including” the Town’s…) Page 5, column 2, last para: Add “Town’s current” (“The Town’s current zoning and subdivision…”). Page 7, column 1, para 3: Replace reference to SmartArt/Word with “off-shelf technology” or similar to indicate that flowcharts are easy to do in-house. Page 8, column 1, last para above bulleted items: Change “consistently” to “consistency”. Page 8, column 2: Remove Tolstoy quote. Page 8, column 2: Replace ‘2 with “ft2”. Page 9, column 1, bullet 4 “shall versus must”. Dan will provide information to the Committee on the growing movement, and rationale, to replace shall with must. . Page 9, column 1, bullet 7: Shorten the list of examples. Page 9, general: Improve the formatting and remove quote. This is a busy page, tables at top and bottom, the word “everything” is carried up to column 2 and stands alone. Page 10, column 1, last sentence: Replace “current lineup” to “current slate” or something similar that is less dismissive sounding. Page 10, general: Improve formatting. Text in the segmented columns is confusing to follow. Possibly remove graphics since they are not essential. Page 11, column 1, para 1, last sentence: Eliminate sentence that begins with “There is a mismatch between the Town’s….” Page 11, column 1, sentence 1: Change “guides” to “guide”. Page 11, column 1, para 5: Eliminate “and how”.
3
Page 11, column 2, para 1, last sentence: Replace “require” with “enable” (“enable electric…”). Page 12, column 1, para 2: Change “resource” to “resources”. Page 12, column 1, para 2, second sentence: Replace “Syracuse, Binghamton, and Buffalo” with “Central NY”. Page 12, column 2, para 3, first sentence: Replace “estate” with some other term. Page 12, column 2, para 4, first sentence: Correct spelling for “should”. Page 12, column 2, para 6, first sentence: Replace “default” with “most common”. Page 12, column 2, very last sentence: Replace “pushing a site’s development potential to outlying towns” with “increasing development demand in other areas”. Page 13, column 1, para 1, first sentence: Add “medium and” (…“single family houses on medium and large lots.”) Page 13, column 1, para 2, last sentence: Replace “student special” with “purpose built student housing”. Page 13, bottom photo: Replace caption as described above. Page 13, column 1, para 3, sentence 2: Change “large” to “larger” (“larger lot MDR subdivisions”) Page 13, column 2, para 3, sentence 2: Eliminate “well-maintained” and instead add a photo that conveys its well-maintained character. Also, in the upcoming section on tiny homes, consider language comparing mobile home parks and tiny houses. For next meeting the Committee will begin at the top of page 14.
Consider approaches for protection of historic resources in the town. - Rod: Stated that he looked forward to starting a conversation on exploring effective and holistic approaches aimed at historic preservation. He mentioned the National Trust for Historic Preservation document titled “Protecting Potential Landmarks Through Demolition Review” provided by Bruce Brittain. He also stated that the Cornell Historic Preservation Planning Workshop that conducted a survey of historic structures in the town provided a good starting point and added that Historic Ithaca would be a good source of information too. Rod suggested that he and Sue could meet to begin charting out a road map. - Sue: Further described the survey work conducted by the Cornell class during 1997-2000 for structures in the town 50 years old and older. She will send the final report and the list of structures surveyed to the Committee for the next meeting. - Bill: Expressed interest in obtaining a map showing where the oldest houses in the town are located. - Sue: Said that she was particularly interested in learning of funding opportunities to help property owners who were having trouble maintaining their historic homes. She wondered if having a house listed or even eligible for listing on the State/Federal Register of Historic Places would have benefits. - John Lewis: Responded that there are tax credit programs, but only for those structures listed as historically significant, either locally or by the State (and preferably by the State) and they must also be located in certain census tracts. He explained additional programs, including: tax credits available for income producing houses designated as significant, or eligible for the designation; State tax credits for owner occupied houses located in historic districts in certain census tracts; and federal tax credits for income producing houses, though he thought this program is much more complicated.
4
John suggested that the town consider being a Certified Local Government (CLG) like the City, explaining that there are certain benefits that come from that designation, including funding opportunities. The process for becoming a CLG is through the NYS Historic Preservation Office. Requirements include having certain regulations to protect historic properties. John also recommended that the town not just consider protection for buildings, but also the context in which they are operating in. Particularly old farm houses with barns, for which a few still remain in the town. He suggested that the town undertake a reconnaissance survey in association with the structural survey already completed. This would involve a driving tour to examine the historic context of those buildings with the aim of protecting both the significant buildings and associated landscapes—the rural context. He thought this may go hand in hand with other aims of the town’s rezoning efforts. John concluded by stating that he would like Historic Ithaca to be at the table to help the town think about ways to protect historic resources
Consider April meeting: Rich moved, Rod seconded, no changes, all voted to approve.
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting is scheduled for June 16th (Bruce will be absent and Rod has another meeting at 6:30pm); agenda items to include: Zoning Review and Approach Report (continue from page 13); historic resources protection; affordable housing. Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:37pm
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JUNE 16, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee announcement and concerns: None reported.
Discussion of draft Zoning Review and Approach Report The Committee continued their review from the previous meeting at the top of page 14. The Committee went through the report page by page. The following are decisions made for modifying the draft report: Page 13, column 2, para 3, sentence 2: OK to leave “well maintained” (pertaining to College View Trailer Park). This reverses the decision made at the May meeting. Page 14, column 1, para 1: Change to “Rogan’s corner will be the last NC zone”. Page 14, column 2, para 1: change “trade or mechanical commercial uses” to “semi-industrial”. Page 14, column 1, para 2: Add “has” (“The Town has avoided”). Page 14, column 1, para 2: Replace “should” with “could” (“The NC zone could allow…”). Page 14, column 2, para 4: Modify sentence to remove “last stand”. Page 14, column 2, last para: Replace “- places” with “, including places” (“…for parts of the town, including places with …”). Page 15, column 2, para 2: Fix the sentence that reads “…location for locale…”. Page 15, column 2, last para: Spell out UDC as Unified Development Code. Page 16, column 1, before bullet list: Change “There’s” to “There are”. Page 19, column 1, para 4: Eliminate “– ideally 10 acres or more –“. Page 20, column 2, para 1: Consider modifying to make clear that the overlay would still allow a multiplicity of uses. Page 21, column 1, para 2: Correct “OV-TND-1” with “OV-TND-2”. Page 21, column 1, para 7: Eliminate repeated “to prevent”. Page 22, para 2, last sentence: Consider replacing “lighter colors” with a more accurate color theory description. Page 25, column 2, para 1: Change “closes” to “close”. Page 26, column 1, para 2: Remove “rather than those of the 1950s and 1960s.” and end sentence with “…. planning goals”. Page 26, column 2, para 2: Add “that” (one way to ensure “that” close-in) Page 26, column 2, para 3: Eliminate either “is” or “falls” (the average in a subdivision “falls” in OR the average in a subdivision “is” in). Page 26, column 2, para 3: replace “yet” with “while” (“…achieving certain density while keeping…”). Page 27, column 1, para 2: Change “leaves” to “leave” or “allow”.
2
Page 27, column 2, bullet 2: Include “conservation zones” to the list. Page 27, column 2, para 2: Change to “The Zoning Board has historically approved many variance requests”. Page 27, column 2, para 2: Consider changing “isolating” to “separating” (“…separating their residents from…”). Page 28, column 1, bullet 7: Insert “solely to” before “eliminate”. The Committee noted that some document photos are not applicable to the northeastern US. Dan responded that it is hard to find examples of new contemporary development approaches in NE communities. The Committee expressed a desire to finish reviewing the document in the next three months. For next meeting the Committee will begin reviewing on page 30, Section 2.3.4.
Discuss approaches for protection of historic resources in the town - Rich: Made note of the amount of information that exists on the town’s historical resources. Starting with the report (Final Report for the Intensive Level Survey Conducted by the Historic Preservation Planning Workshop at Cornell University 1997-2000), Rich noted that the Town had not followed through with identifying properties or districts that might merit a historic designation, nor did the town pursue creating a Certified Local Government (CLG). He did not see a downside to creating a CLG or forming some type of historic review committee. He wondered how a local committee would take shape (advisory or quasi-judicial) and if a local committee would make recommendations to the State, or if a Town has the power to make historical designations at the local level. - Rod: Responded that this is the type of question to get Historic Ithaca’s assistance on. He suggested developing a list of questions for their input on at a future meeting. He added that the Town currently does not have many registered sites and that the Committee should define what its goals are. - Rich: Pointed out that the town has only one historically designated cluster-the Forest Home Historic District. He noted the linear distribution of historical resources (houses over 50 years old) in the town, as shown on the map provided by staff, and thought the linear shape would make it harder to designate districts. -Rod: Mentioned that not all of the Forest Home neighborhood is designated a historic district, and eligible for tax credits, because the designation involves the census tracts. He expressed interest in informing homeowners in historic district that improvements made to their older homes may be eligible for tax credits, and that this may apply even if they are not in the district. These are questions that Historic Ithaca could help with. He added that the map was intriguing since it showed the pattern of settlement in the area. -Rich: Asked if any properties identified in the survey had been designated. -Sue: Responded that Hayts Chapel is the only one. -Rod: Stated that it would be a good idea to find another class to update the historical resources inventory since more houses may now be eligible (are greater than 50 years old). He revisited his previous thought concerning what the Committee’s goals should be, and asked whether this might be focused on educating residents, or working with Forest Home to expand the district designation, or other things.
3
-Rich: Said he thought there is an existing presumption among home owners that having a historical designation may limit their options for making improvements to their home. -Rod: Agreed but added that the Henry St. John neighborhood, in the City, was the most recent historic district designation that Historic Ithaca had worked on and he thought there had been support in the neighborhood for that effort. He suggested that an existing town committee be responsible for historic resource considerations rather that creating a new committee. -Rich: Responded that forming a CLG would open up opportunities for grant funding, and a dedicated review board of some kind would still need to be decided on. -Sue: Read from the document, “Model Historic Preservation Law for Municipalities in New York State” provided to staff from Historic Ithaca. The document discusses establishment of a preservation commission, powers and duties, and criteria and procedures for designating historical resources. -Rich: Said that the main requirements for a CLG would be to first enact the legislation and then to form the review commission. He wondered how the Committee could gauge the interest of residents for such an initiative. -Rod: Referred back to the map and said that the homes represented only a small percentage of the total homes in the town. He also questioned to what extent historical resource protection were covered in the Comprehensive Plan. -Sue: Responded that the map contained 520 data points and that the historical resources report referred to approximately 490 houses. She also said that the Comprehensive Plan recommended a number of actions to protect historical resources. She referred to the recent concern over a demolition permit as prompting this discussion. She thought any future application for a demolition permit impacting a historical house might require something like a CLG to review and provide guidance and suggest possible alternatives. -Bill: Responded that one of his key concerns was to prevent the loss of the Town’s historical resources. -Rich: Wondered if there could be some in-between step, under the current structure, like a Planning Board review, to consider a demolition permit. -Sue: Referred to the document, Protecting Potential Landmarks Through Demolition Review, stating that it appeared to require having someone who understands architecture be present on a historical resources review board. She also said that the City’s Landmark Commission might be a good resource to look at for expertise. -Bill: Asked if there was something simple that could be put in place soon without passing a law to start protecting historical resources. He suggested that the Planning Board might be able to hire an expert to provide a input on a house before a demolition permit is approval. -Rich: Responded that it would be like an appraisal and noted that the cost might be $300-$500 for producing a report.
4
-Sue: Reported that all the historical resource surveys have been entered into the Municity software so if a demolition permit is applied for, staff will be alerted that the property is on the historical resources inventory. The Building Dept. has also begun sending out weekly lists of their building permit applications to notify other department staff. -Rich: Suggested that the Committee compile a list of questions to email to John Lewis at Historic Ithaca. He expressed interest in asking whether or not properties can be placed under historical preservation review on a local level. -Rod: Asked Sue to send Committee members the model law and other CLG related documents. He also brought up the idea of potentially publicizing the historical resource survey information in the Town newsletter. -Sue: Raised a concern over the cost of maintaining older homes. She said that forming a CLG may open up more grant funding opportunities for resource protection that could thereby help homeowners who need assistance. She expressed interest in learning about what financial opportunities may exist. -Rich: Noted the time and wanted to carry the discussion into next meeting. He questioned how the Committee can research what financial resources are available. -Pat: Stated that the Better Housing for Tompkins County organization may be a potential option for providing funds to maintain older houses. -Sue: Reiterated that John Lewis from Historic Ithaca would be a good resource for information. Rich indicated that he would follow up with looking into additional programs.
Discussion of Potential Affordable Housing Set-Aside Requirements -Rich: Suggested inviting Paul Mazzarella, INHS Executive Director, to a future meeting to discuss affordable housing. -Pat: Mentioned the Town of Beekman local law (Moderately-Priced Housing) as providing a regulatory approach for consideration. Also mentioned was the document of initial topics/outline for a Town local law (Town of Ithaca Median Housing Draft) that Pat and Bill had begun working on. She noted that things start to get complicated as you get further into the details, such as retaining the affordability over time. The goal was to address the missing middle, and in this model, to directly require new housing developments with 5 units or more to set-aside 20%. The idea was to utilize market forces to self-subsidize the affordable units with the other units. She also reported finding a 2007 Town Board resolution endorsing a Tompkins County housing strategy, referencing the County Comp Plan and Affordable Housing Needs Study (2006). It includes goals for the amount of housing that was needed, but not much has been done since then. Pat also reported on the recent housing workshop sponsored by Sustainable Tompkins where speakers stressed the need for more mid-range housing in the community. -Rich: Questioned if there are any requirements for building aesthetics, wanting to ensure that affordable housing units are not physically distinctive. -Pat: Agreed that ensuring no distinction would be important and reported on an example of a skyscraper in NYC that had a separate entrance for affordable housing occupants. She felt having
5
requirements concerning housing quality was necessary to avoid shoddy construction and ensure well integration of affordable units in a neighborhood. -Rich: Added that he thought it important that the law be crafted such that it not create hardships and disincentives to build in the town, or that builders look for ways to work around the regulations, i.e. build only 4 units at a time. -Sue: Questioned how the law would handle situations where just lots are being sold, houses are not proposed as part of a subdivision application. -Bill: Responded that this was still an issue and that individuals will often hire their own builder once they purchase a lot. He thought it would be useful to talk to INHS and also have someone from the City of Ithaca come over to advise the Committee. The City is also working on a program, but it is more voluntary and includes things like cash payments into an affordable housing fund in lieu of building affordable units, and density bonuses or a quicker approval process in exchange for constructing affordable units. -Rich: Questioned if the Committee would consider property tax abatement, thinking that this might work best in rental developments where you don’t have the concern with maintaining the affordability overtime with subsequent owners. -Rich: Wrapped up the discussion by stating that Paul Mazzarella would be invited to next month’s meeting to help inform the committee on associated construction costs, etc.
Consider May meeting: Rich moved, Rod seconded, no changes, all voted to approve.
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 27th at 2:00pm; agenda items to include: Zoning Review and Approach Report (continue from page 30); historic resources protection; affordable housing. Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:12pm
'-K-« u *1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF lULY 27. 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo [Chair], Rod Howe, Fat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan
Tasman, Senior Planner; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code
Enforcement.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 2:07 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee announcement and concerns: None reported.
Discussion of proposed language for LI Zone to allow limited accessory retail uses
-Sue: Introduced proposed new language, a one sentence addition, to the Light Industrial zone:
"Ancillary retail sales of products made on-site or related items."
-Rich; Asked about potential unintended consequences of enacting this language and conferred
with Sue on existing businesses/manufacturers in the Light Industrial zone/Inlet Valley Corridor to
identify products that could be offered for sale under the new language.
-Rod: Questioned if "related items" was too broad and could cause problems in the future.
-Sue: Responded that GreenTree currently sells a wide variety of products related to farming and
gardening. Their retail component includes a number of these related to the soils made on-site. On
further thought, however, she suggested changing "or related items" to "and related items" to
tighten up the language. She also reported that she had a brief conversation with Susan Brock
concerning the language. In their phone conversation Susan seemed generally comfortable with the
proposal, but Sue said she would send her the written language for her consideration.
Rich moved to recommend that the Town Board approve the LI zone language proposal/addition
with the change of "or" to "and"; Rod seconded; all in favor.
Discussion of draft Zoning Review and Approach Report
The Committee continued their review from the previous meeting at the top of page 30.
The Committee went through the report page by page. The following are decisions made for
modifying the draft report:
Page 31, column 2, para 2: Strike "not conventional or clustered development" from end of
sentence.
Page 31, column 2, para 3: Change "They make up the largest amount of public space in the town
behind state parks," to "They make up the second largest amount of public space in the Town of
Ithaca behind state parks,".
Page 32, column 2, bullet 2: Change to "Pavement type, width, and geometry".
Page 33, column 1, para 1: Change "need" to "must have".
Page 33, column 1, para 1: Correct "area" to "areas".
Page 33, column 1, para 1: Correct "narrowe" to "narrower".
Page 33, column 1, bullets: Add in information about contrasting shoulder color and material for
traffic calming.
Page 33, column 1, para 3: Change "where they exist" to "where it exists".
Page 33, column 1, para 3: Strike "taking".
Page 33, column 2, para 1: Change to "Lack of conductivity prevents subdivisions and complexes
from integrating into a larger neighborhood or community".
Page 34, column 2, para 3: Remove sentence "An example is Rachel Carson Way, a long, unpaved
road that provides the only access for the 100-plus housing units of EcoVillage".
Page 35, column 2, para 2; Revise affordable housing sentence to '"Affordable housing' historically
meant low income-qualified or subsidized buildings, but now refers to housing affordable to all
incomes segments where housing costs are no more than 30% of a household's income."
Page 35, column 2, last para: Correct "costs In the Ithaca area" to "costs in the Ithaca area".
Page 36, column 2, bullet 3: Correct "In-lieu" to "in-lieu of.
Page 36, column 2, last para: Change "uses" to "units".
Page 37, column 1, para 4: Add language concerning building code requirements relevant to tiny
houses.
Page 37, column 1, para 5: Delete last sentence that reads "Outside of a tiny house cluster PD, they
should not be principal housing units.
Page 38, column 2, para 3: Correct "avoid" to "avoids".
Page 38, column 2, last para: Correct "ensure" to "ensures".
For next meeting the Committee will begin reviewing page 39, with the target of finishing Section
2.4 (pg. 58).
Discussion of rental property oversight strategies
-Rich: Expressed interest in narrowing down approaches for the Town to consider in terms of
rental property oversight. To move in that direction Rich suggested two action items he would like
to move ahead with. This included a phone/video conference with the Code Enforcement Officer
from the Town of Brookhaven to discuss the effectiveness and costs of their rental registry system
and accessory apartment licensure. Rich said he would coordinate this meeting for early August.
The other action item is to hold a roundtable discussion with a number of landlords in the Town.
The purpose would be to have frank discussion, explaining the problems that the town is
encountering and see if the landlords have ideas on how to move ahead. Rich suggested that this
meeting and the phone/video conference be held separate from the regular Committee meetings.
Members and staff expressed interest in attending the meetings.
-Rod: Suggested that the committee might also benefit from a meeting of other interested persons,
such as realtors, neighborhood members, and other stakeholders who might be feeling impacted
from rental housing.
-Committee: Responded favorably to that idea.
- Rod: Asked whether the Town had received any requests for exemptions to the moratorium.
-Bill: Responded that there had not been any requests to date.
-Committee: Brain-stormed a list of potential participants for landlord meeting; the goal is to
engage with about six landlords/developers in the town. Bruce and Bill will construct a list by 8/2
or thereabouts. Tentative dates and times discussed for the landlord roundtable included:
August 15^, 12:00pm at Town Hall
August 16^, 10:30am at Public Works
August 17^, 3pm at Town Hall
A Doodle poll or other form of solicitation will be sent out to determine which meeting date, time,
and location works best for the landlords.
Discussion of approaches for protection of historic resources in the town
- Rich: Reported on a conversation he had with John Lewis (Executive Director of Historic Ithaca)
concerning questions raised at the last meeting about the potential role for the Town to play in
historic preservation/designations. John Lewis noted historic protections that do not necessarily
involve the State. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission was established and
empowered by the City Common Council to make determinations on a property's historic
designation and for assessing whether proposed property alterations/modifications are in keeping
with the historic district designation/character. John Lewis also said that local regulations can have
broad authority along with the ability to constitute a board. The Town would need expertise, either
in-house with a Planning staff member learning about preservation, or perhaps contracting with
the City of Ithaca.
Rich suggested that the Committee review the model law document, "Model Landmarks
Preservation Local Law" and asked staff to send that out again.
Rich also reported that John Lewis explained that tax credits for historical preservation are targeted
to the lower income census tracts. However, by becoming a Certified Local Government (CLG)
there are more funding opportunities because the state reserves 10% of its overall state historic
preservation funds to projects within a community having a CLG; funds not otherwise available
without certification.
-Committee: Agreed to invite John Lewis and Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner for
the City of Ithaca, to the September meeting where the Committee will focus on historic
preservation.
Consider June meeting minutes
Rich moved. Rod seconded, no changes, all voted to approve.
Staff updates and reports
-Sue: Reported on PDZ/PUD language development update associated with the Chain Works
project, and that the Maplewood EIS will be handed out at the next Planning Board meeting, on
August 2n<i.
-Bruce: Reported that Codes receives approximately 2-3 phone calls per week from realtors and
potential buyers about owner-occupied rentals in relation to the moratorium.
New business
-Bill: Reported on a recent meeting he had with several landlord/developers who brought up the
issue of occupancy requirements associated with the definition of "family" in the Town Code. They
questioned whether the Town would consider changing occupancy limitations in HDR zones and
where the current numbers originated from. Bill mentioned this since it is likely to come up in
future meetings with the landlords.
-Bruce: Replied to the question of "family" definition saying that it is a provision that has been in
the zoning code for a very long time (possibly from the 1960's).
-Sue: Added that the Town's definition of "family is generally in line with other towns.
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items:
Next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August IB'i' at 4:30pm; agenda items to include: Zoning
Review and Approach Report (continue from page 39 through page 58]; and affordable housing
discussion with Paul Mazzarella.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 3:26 p.m.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF AUGUST 18, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
INVITED GUEST: Paul Mazzarella, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services Executive Director. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:32 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee announcement and concerns: None reported.
Discuss affordable housing issues with Paul Mazzarella (INHS Executive Director): - Rich: Introduced Paul Mazzarella and explained that the Committee (and previously the COC) has been considering mechanisms to encourage more affordable housing in the Town, especially for medium income levels. The discussion has involved both carrot and stick approaches, such as density bonuses and regulations requiring a certain percentage of affordable units. Rich explained that Paul was invited to share his considerable knowledge on affordable housing, including market aspects, needs, and cost factors. - Sue: Added that INHS’s Greenways project was unable to move forward due to cost issues, and with costs being such an important factor it would be good for the Committee to get a handle on the economic factors as we consider regulations requiring builders to provide affordable units. - Paul: Asked for clarification as to whether the committee’s focus was on housing for the middle income market exclusively, rather than low income. - Bill: Responded that there was already state and federal tax credit programs focused on low income housing, but there was nothing in place targeting housing needs just above low income levels, so this is the Town’s interest. - Sue: Asked if the claim that development/construction costs in Ithaca are more expensive than other locations was true, and if so, why. - Paul: Stated that it was true. Land costs are high. Construction costs over the last three years have risen from $150 to $190/$200 sq. ft. in Ithaca. INHS is now finding it very difficult to build for sale housing and make it cost effective. Paul explained that Ithaca has not seen any large scale residential development in a generation (i.e. Deer Run type development). The Ithaca development community is not interested in that scale and there is not the market for the really big developers from outside Ithaca to come here. That leaves the smaller builders, many of whom believe they can only make money building high end homes. In addition, it is risky to build on speculation as there are so many things that can go wrong. Paul used the proposed INHS Greenways project as an example. The plan was to have 2/3 of the 72 units be market rate at middle of the market prices, with the rest subsidized and targeted to low income. Ultimately, the partnering developer did not feel they could build the units for the
2
targeted price ($220,000 for town home) and they pulled out. The subsequent proposal was for INHS to develop 46 units at 100% affordable (affordable to those making 80% of the median income). However, once they received construction bids they realized the project would not work cost-wise for them either, even with a substantial subsidy ($90,000/ unit). INHS reluctantly, and for the first time ever, returned the subsidy. Particularly problematic were infrastructure costs. The Town required most of the infrastructure to be built up front, even though it had three discreet phases proposed over time. Also the site had stormwater runoff issues requiring expensive remedies. In addition, Ithaca’s current robust economy puts a high demand on the labor, resulting in imported labor from the metro areas and raising costs. - Paul: Responding to a question stated that home ownership peaked in 2005 at about 68%. It is now at 63% which is the lowest in 50+ years. Demand for rentals has increased due to a variety of factors: stagnant incomes, young people having trouble getting good jobs, student debt, and declining interest in ownership, though Ithaca doesn’t reflect national trends and owner occupied housing is still in high demand. INHS is seeing more singles wanting to purchase homes, which can be economically challenging. - Bill: Asked if Paul had any thought on the City’s recent proposal. - Paul: Didn’t think the voluntary proposed approach would work very well. In terms of a regulatory approach, with a mandate, where the higher cost units pay for the set aside, that has worked in expensive hot markets (i.e. NYC, San Francisco, D.C.) where you can be assured to make enough money on the market rate units that it makes sense to have subsidized units. Often, in places having a mandate, they pair it with an incentive, allowing the developer to build more units than normally allowed. - Pat: Questioned why, given the high demand for housing and all the in-commuters, some of whom would be presumably interested in living here, why developers don’t recognize this. - Rich: Responded that the demand for more affordable housing is recognized, but developers can’t build it and make money selling it. - Pat: Wondered if the approach should be through allowing more density. - Sue: Questioned whether a developer would lose money, or just not earn as much, by building moderate priced homes? - Paul: Responded that the cost of construction generally exceeds the selling price for a typical moderately priced home. If you consider $220,000 as a moderate price, for instance, a builder is unlikely to earn money on that, but maybe at $250,000. In addition, you can’t underestimate the issue of risk. A builder can’t know what the return is until he/she gets to the end of the project. From start to end is often a year long process in which a developer invests hundreds of thousands of dollars with an uncertain outcome. No one wants to build this middle market because the risk is too great. - Pat: Wondered whether there would be buyers for the higher priced homes, if the town had a mandate, or would they be harder to sell. And she also questioned, that given the town’s desirable location, wouldn’t builders be willing to accept a lower margin. - Paul: Said he didn’t know. He suggested Belle Sherman Cottages an example. That is a dense development where units sold for $350,000 and up. If some units instead sold at $400,000 could they also sell a few at more moderate prices; this question depends on the developers revenue expectations. - Rich: Added that it is strictly a business decision. Builders are not in it to save the world they want to make money, so the town needs to make it attractive to them to save the world. - Pat: If we let things roll along then nothing will change, but if we enact requirements we can move them along.
3
- Paul: Mentioned things to keep in mind when staring a program, such as how does affordability get enforced, who would be eligible, and what happens when the units are sold. - Dan: Asked about modular housing and if that type of housing can cut costs. - Paul: Paul responded that INHS has looked at this over the years and found that it does not save over stick built on an individual house basis, but at scale it might work, such as the Belle Sherman Cottages. - Bill: Asked if the Holly Creek model worked. - Paul: Responded that it worked very well. All buyers were less than 80% of median. This year were the first resales and they worked the way INHS had hoped, with buyers getting some appreciation, but the resale price is still affordable. This model they hope to repeat and would like to find other sites. He added that the City and Town might want to talk to each other to consider a regional approach to creating more affordable housing.
Continue Discussion of draft Zoning Review and Approach Report: The Committee continued their review from the previous meeting at the top of page 39, Section 2.4. The Committee went through the report page by page. The following are decisions made for modifying the draft report: Page 39, column 2, para 1: Change “laissez-faire” to “unregulated”. Page 39, column 2, para 2: Add a comma after “sprawl” in the last full sentence. Page 39, column 2, para 2: Change “and lost potential tax revenue” to “and lower potential tax revenue per acre”. Page 39, table, column 3, section 1: Change “Palate” to “Range”. Page 40, column 1, para 1: Change “gap toothed” to “incomplete” or other better term. Page 40, column 2, quote: Padriac Steinschneider – Who is this? What era? What credentials? Page 40, column 2, para 3: Rewrite “Form Ithaca”. Page 40, column 2, last sentence: Add “regulated by Form Based Code” after “Building types”. Page 40, tables, column 1 and 2: Not readable, need better resolution for these graphics. Page 41, column 1, bullet 4 and 5: Clarification of “Apartment house” and “Apartment building”. (question of different graphic to help explain). Page 41, column 1, para 4, sentence 6: Remove “lost revenue and”. Page 41, column 2, para 2: Correct “shod” to “should”. Page 41, column 2, para 2, last sentence: Add “less” before “enduring alternatives”. Page 41, column 2, para 3: Replace “Background research found no other communities in the United States using this approach, except the Town of Danby.” with “This approach is extremely unusual”. Page 41, column 2, para 5: Change “pane” to “plane”. Page 42, column 1, para 1, sentence 7: Add “where the garage is the dominant feature of the façade” after “snout houses,”. Page 42, column 2, para 2: Replace “shrunk” with “shrank”. Page 42, column 2, para 2, sentence 4: [Note: numerous zoning board request indicated] Page 42, column 2, para 2, last sentence: Delete “and the Zoning Board approves most of them”. Page 42, column 2, para 3, first sentence: Replace “to” to “with” and delete “previous”. Page 42, column 2, para 3, last sentence: Delete “whether they’re”. Page 42, column 2, para 3: Rewrite sentence to read as “UDC setback standards should align with more permissive setback requirements from the 2003 code or an…..”. Page 43, column 1, para 1, first sentence: Delete “where they make sense”. Page 44, column 1, bullet 3: Add “to” after “close”. Page 44, column 1, bullet 5: Replace “it” with “them”.
4
Page 44, column 2, para 2: Add language regarding, architectural design standards can potential affect costs and need to be considered during development. Page 44, column 2, quote: Add “Scenic America” after Ed McMahon. Page 44, column 2, footnote, last sentence starting with “Note”: Fix, this can’t appear as a footnote; this is an author editorial. Page 45, column 1, para 2, fourth sentence: Add “and some” before “civic”. Page 45, column 2, bullet 1: Add “front” before “façade”. Page 45, column 2, bullet 3: Re-work this bullet item. Page 47, column 1, bullet 6: “Materials” and “Ban vinyl”, exchange for similar language as is in residential section concerning material. Page 47, column 2, bullet 2: “Materials”, exchange for similar language as is in residential section concerning material. Page 47, column 2, after bullet 4: Add language regarding recognizing costs. Need weighed against costs (put this in residential section and put in Housing Residential Building page 45-46). Attention paid to costs. Page 48, column 1, para3: Replace “from” with “during”. Page 48, column 2, quote: Add attribution “(Pearl Jam), guitar player” after Stone Gossard. Page 48, column 2, bullet 2: Add “designated” before “landscape”. For next meeting the Committee will begin reviewing page 49 through page 66.
Status report on rental property oversight strategies investigation: - Rich: Reported on the 8/17/16 meeting with landlords. Nine landlords/builders attended the meeting and there was a good dialogue and helpful discussion. The landlords were in consensus in wanting the town to ease occupant limitations and allow duplexes. The town would need to consider what would be needed in exchange for easing these regulations. The landlords did not seem averse to the idea of a rental registry.
Consider July meeting minutes: Rich moved, Rod seconded, with corrections, all in favor.
Executive Session: An executive session was held regarding the potential purchase of land.
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 15th at 4:30pm; agenda item to include: Zoning Review and Approach Report (continue from page 49 through page 66). Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:34 p.m.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary (FaceTime).
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUEST: Christine O’Malley (Historic Ithaca); Bryan McCracken (City of Ithaca), Doug Brittain; Bruce Brittain; Mary Jo Yunis (Yunis Realty). Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee announcement and concerns: None reported.
Discuss approaches for protection of historic resources - Rich: Explained that the catalyst for discussing historic preservation was the impending demolition of an old farmhouse on Coddington Road. This issue brought to light the town’s lack of mechanisms to review and consider the demolition of historic structures and historic resource preservation generally. The committee was interested in reaching out to Historic Ithaca and City of Ithaca to learn what options are available for historic resource protection. Rich asked Bryan to give an overview of the City’s program. - Bryan McCracken: Described how the City enacted its first landmarks ordinance four years ago which established the Landmarks Preservation Commission and gave the commission the authority, with approval by Common Council, to designate landmarks in the City. The first historic district in the City was DeWitt Park, established in 1971. Under the landmarks ordinance, any exterior alternations to buildings in the historic district must be approved by the Landmarks Commission, with a few exemptions (i.e. roof in-kind replacement) that can be administratively approved by staff. The Landmarks Commission consists of seven voting members, plus two alternates, that are chosen based on their expertise (i.e. real estate, landlords, architect, architectural historian, residents, and residents of the historic districts). They review proposed building alterations to see if they are appropriate for the building style, property history, and if consistent with the overall district context (if in a district). Applications are either approved, denied, or approved with conditions. Ninety percent of proposals are approved. There are 8 historic districts in the City and 25 individual landmarks (i.e. Sage Hall). The City website provides a listing and other information on the program. The ordinance set forth 5 criteria for designating historic districts. The ordinance also includes federally established standards for reviewing exterior alternations (“certificate of appropriateness review”). - Rich: Asked Christine O’Malley to describe Historic Ithaca’s focus. - Christine O’Malley: Explained that Historic Ithaca’s main focus is education and outreach. They provide technical support, such as assisting property owners with researching history of their property and advising owners seeking alterations on their historically designated properties in the
2
City. Historic Ithaca staff often attends City Commission meetings. They also work with the City on district nominations and communications with the NYS Historic Preservation Office which is a conduit to the National Register of Historic Places (managed by the National Park Service). - Rich: Asked if there are different levels of protection. -Bryan: Responded that there are, and that the best protection for preventing demolition of historic property is having a local (Certified Local Government (CLG)) designation. Being listed on the State and National Register offers incentives and tax credit programs, but there is no protection from demolition. The City’s program requires proposed demolitions to be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission and it must receive a “certificate of appropriateness” to get approval. - Rich: Asked for suggestions on what the town could do. - Bryan: Responded that if there are historic resources the town wants to protect and there is support in the community for doing so, establishing a local landmarks ordinance is the best route. - Rich: Asked about getting pushback from the community, particularly from individuals with potentially affected properties. - Bryan: Responded by describing incentive programs available in the City. The City has a property tax abatement program for designated properties. If a property owner does a substantial amount of work to their property and it raises the assessed property there is abatement on that increased assessment over a 10 year period. There are also state and federal tax credit programs for commercial properties, those that are income producing (ranging from a bed and breakfast to a downtown store). Also for state/federal designations, residential properties are eligible for a 20% income tax credit if they make over $5000 of improvements. Tax credits are also available to properties that have been designated as “eligible” for national listing. To establish a historic district 60% of the residents have to agree to be listed. For an individual listing the property owner must agree to be listed. - Rod: Asked about the issue with the Forest Home designation. - Christine: Responded that the national register designation is correlated to the census tract and has resulted in parts of Forest Home being in the historic district and parts being out. The census tract designations are tied to income levels and these tracts can change with new census conducted every 10 years. - Rich: Asked about the CLG model law. - Bryan: Responded that the City’s law is a derivation of the model law. He explained that it is fairly straight forward and comprehensive. It can be tailored to the community, but he cautioned against veering too far from the model law and possibly creating loopholes. He described how one community had removed provisions requiring review of new construction on historically designated structures. Bryan: Explained that he works in the City Planning Dept. and works very closely with the Building Department. He also explained how a permit application works through the city process. - Rod: Asked about partnering opportunities with the City. - Bryan: Responded that not all the City Commission members are City residents and there would seem to be an opportunity for partnering. Being a CLG gives municipalities availability to funding opportunities to assist with survey work and develop nominations.
Continue discussion of draft Zoning Review and Approach Report: The Committee continued their review from the previous meeting on page 48, column 2.
3
The Committee went through the report page by page. The following are decisions made for modifying the draft report: Page 49, column 2, para 2: Add that this applies to new development. Page 49, column 2, bullet 1: Change “excmple mash” to “example ash”. Page 50, column 1, para 3: Replace “urbanism” with “communities”. Page 50, column 2, para 2: Add “Ithaca’s current” after “However”. Page 52, column 1, para 4: Replace “its” with “their”. Page 53, column 1, para 3: Replace “follows” with “complies with”. Page 54, column 1, para 1: Awkward, fix “uses practices in” and list these at end “paving, channeling, storage, and filtration”. Page 54, column 1, bullet 3: Replace “needs” with “goals” and “good urbanism” with “urban design”. Page 56, column 1, para 2: Replace “good urbanism” with “alternate phrases”. Page 56, column 2, bullet 2: Replace “Light” with “Color”. Page 56, column 2, bullet 4: Replace “Ban” with “Consider impacts of”. Page 57, column 1, para 4: Delete “perceptions”. Page 57, table, column 2, section 6, bullet 3: Replace “PA” with “AV”. Page 58, column 1, para 4: Replace “be carry forward” with “incorporate” or “consider”. Page 58, column 2, last para: Add comma after “uses”. Page 59, column 2, para 1: Put period inside the quote. Page 61, column 1, para 1: Replace “like” with “in allowing”. Page 61, column 1, para 1: Replace “the UDC should” with “the Town could consider”. Page 61, column 2, para 1: Reword paragraph. Page 61, column 2, para 1: Replace “it meets the needs of area residents rather than transients” with “that it is considerate of all the needs of area residents including neighborhood preservation”. Page 61, column 2, para 1: Replace “also legitimize” with “clearly address”. Page 61, column 2, para 1: Delete “with conditions to ensure it remains an accessory use, and won’t decrease the region’s housing supply”. Page 61, column 2, para 3: Fix “in to” and fix “and”. Page 62, column 1, para 1: Delete “like cabinet making”. For next meeting the Committee will begin reviewing page 64, at 2.5.3 with the target of finishing the Zoning Review and Approach Report in October.
New Business: Drive-throughs - Sue: Introduced Mary Jo Yunis, stating that she is the owner of the Dunkin Donuts building across from East Hill Plaza. - Rich: Explained that the request to amend the Community Commercial Zone threshold pertaining to drive-throughs was only recently referred to the Committee and they are not yet prepared to discuss it in depth. - Mary Jo: Explained that the zoning criteria/threshold (1,500 ft.) essentially prohibits any other restaurant from having a drive-through on E. Hill. There had originally been three drive-throughs on the building when it was a bank, prior to the Dunkin Donuts business. - Rich: Acknowledged that it has been awhile since the drive-through provisions were enacted, and possibly attitudes have changed. The vision for the E. Hill Plaza area is different now, with plans to increase density and create a more walkable environment. It’s questionable whether this would be more/less conducive for drive-throughs. - Mary Jo: Explained that a traffic study had been conducted (for Planning/Zoning Boards) that showed no negative impact from the drive-through; there are two means of access from two different roads and plenty of stacking. - Sue: Further explained that the Planning Board approved the restaurant with a drive-through, but the ZBA denied the variance request. She suggested that for the next meeting she could provide a
4
map of E. Hill indicating 1500 ft., language in the Community Commercial zone, traffic analysis from the site plan review, - Mary Jo: Mentioned that Dunkin Donuts had collected a large number of signatures on a petition concerning the drive-through. She added that no one had come to the meetings (ZBA/PB) to oppose the drive-through. - Rich: Responded that he would put more weight on the opinions of employees and residents who live and work in the immediate area rather than general customers of the restaurant. He stated it would be helpful to know whether drive-through are typically included in the type of mixed use development envisioned for this area. Can they be incorporated into this type of development without making it dangerous? - Dan: Responded that drive-through can be accommodated, but siting consideration is important. They should not be front and center to the development. He used Taco Bell on Elmira Road as an example of a bad location. - Rich: Said he would be interested in this research. - Rod: Stated that while not a deciding factor, it would be interesting to know the sales of a drive-through Dunkin Donuts versus a non-drive-through, though he realized it may be hard to compare since the contexts are different.
Status report on rental property oversight strategies investigation: - Rich: Reported on the 45 minute conference call earlier in the day with the Town of Brookhaven Chief Building Inspector, Arthur Gerhauser who provided valuable information on their rental oversight system. Rich described the following from the conversation with Mr. Gerhauser: The Brookhaven owner occupancy requirements have been in place since the 1980’s. Over the decades they’ve needed to revise the ordinance language, but he thought it was now is good shape. The intent of allowing accessory units was to promote affordable housing, either through giving family members their own space or providing income apartments. They wanted to maintain the character of the single-family neighborhoods and the owner occupancy requirement met that intent. Mr. Gerhauser described how the regulations pertaining to accessory units were working well, but expressed frustration with rentals of single family houses. Most of his headaches stemmed from houses that were significantly over-occupied by students in the vicinity of Stony Brook College. Lack of adequate staffing was a major impediment to enforcing the law. Brookhaven’s population base is 500,000. They have a known rental base of 3600 units, with possibly an additional 5600 being noncompliant. - Bruce: Liked reference to “single family dwelling” with an “accessory apartment”, rather than one- or two- family dwelling that the Town’s Code reference. He thought this way of thinking and constructing the language would be useful to the Town. - Rich: Thought that the Brookhaven ordinance would be a useful place to start if the Committee/Town Board chooses to go in that direction.
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 20th at 4:30pm; agenda items to include: - Zoning Review and Approach Report – (continuing from page 62) Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 20, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUEST: Doug Brittain and Bruce Brittain. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee announcement and concerns: None reported.
Continue discussion of draft Zoning Review and Approach Report: The Committee continued their review from the previous meeting on page 64, section 2.5.3. The Committee went through the report page by page and made a number of edits (the list of edits are on file and can be made available upon request). The Committee completed its review of the report and recommended that the changes/edits discussed over several Committee meetings be made and the revised report provided to the Town Board for consideration of acceptance.
Continue discussion on approaches for protection of historic resources in the town: - Rich: Recapped last month’s meeting where the Committee heard from the City’s Historic Preservation Planner and Historic Ithaca representative. He expressed interest in the idea of the Town potentially becoming a Certified Local Government (CLG) and to utilize the expertise of the City’s Landmark Commission, rather than having the Town create a new review body. This idea was mentioned as a possibility by Bryan McCracken at last month’s meeting. - Rod: Stated that he was very much in favor of this idea. - Pat: Stated that she was in favor too. - Bill: Suggested that the next step be to ask the Town Board if they are in favor of establishing a CLG. If the Town Board supports the idea, then have staff begin to work on language for a landmarks preservation law. - Doug B: Reminded the Committee that at last month’s meeting, Bryan recommended asking the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if utilizing the City’s Landmark Commission for the Town’s CLG would be permitted. - Bruce Brittain: Added that in terms of developing a local law, he hoped the Town’s program would include “carrots”, in addition to the “sticks”, so as to generate public enthusiasm rather than concern. - Rich: Stated that at the last meeting Bryan McCracken mentioned tax abatements as an incentive idea. - Sue: Offered to call the NYS Historic Preservation Office to see if it would be okay for the Town to utilize the City’s Landmark Commission.
2
Consider August and September meeting summaries: August 18th – Rich moved and Rod seconded, all approved as amended. September 15th – Rich moved and Pat seconded, all approved as amended. Rich recommended not including the list of requested edits to the Zoning Review and Approach Report in future minutes.
Consider rental property oversight strategies and recommendation to Town Board: - Rich: Recapped the Committee’s discussions thus far and summarized the questions remaining: Do we want to have a rental property registry for landlords? Do we want to have an owner occupancy requirement for accessary apartments, in certain areas? - Bruce: Referred to the HUD document that was provided (Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2008) and suggested that the Town incorporate ideas used by other communities, specifically, establishing a new residential dwelling classification of “single-family with accessory dwelling unit (ADU)”. He suggested that the ADU be defined as attached, unattached, or in another structure, and have an established ADU size limitation. Instead of the Town’s 50% size rule establish a maximum square footage limit threshold. Bruce added that requiring these to be owner occupied would go a long way towards keeping a neighborhood from being dominated with student rentals. - Rich: Expressed support and asked whether it makes sense to infuse the approach into the Town’s current zoning construct or to establish an overlay. He then asked Bruce whether he would want a rental registry. - Bruce: Responded that the key terminology is “single or two-family dwellings” and that essentially once these are built they are out of the town’s hands. He questioned whether we are trying to solve the problem of two-family dwellings that are undocumented or is it the two-family dwelling built as a McMansion in order to have an accessory unit that is 50% of the size that is the issue. - Rich: Responded that both are a problem and that he thought for a town this size it does not make sense that rental properties are not subject to inspection. - Pat: Asked whether the inspections would get to the issue of illegal occupancy? She did not want a new program that would result in reducing the availability of rentals. - Rich: Responded that he envisioned placing limits on rentals through owner occupancy requirement that would be off-set by allowing duplexes elsewhere. The occupancy issue is another question. - Bruce: Described some the means and tools he uses to identify the number of bedrooms, which helps to discern occupancy. - Rich: Added that if the rentals were subject to regular inspections we would know what is going on. The discussion ended due to the late time.
Discuss meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items: The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 16th at 4:30pm; rescheduled from Thursday, November 17th, due to member conflicts. Agenda items to include: - Maplewood PDZ - Rentals Future items: Character Code (Form Ithaca), Drive-thru’s, AirBnB Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Planning Committee Meeting 10-20-16 Addendum – Committee Edits from draft Zoning
Review and Approach Report:
The Committee continued their review from the previous meeting on page 64, 2.5.3.
The Committee went through the report page by page. The following are decisions made for
modifying the draft report:
Page 64, column 2, para 3: Rich – Added support to this language.
Page 65, column 1, para 1: Change “include” to includes”.
Page 66, column 1, para 2: Change “There’s” to “There are”.
Page 66, column 2, para 2: Fix “to confusing (and usually unnoted) cross-references and
inconsistencies.” and paste at the end of column 1, para 7.
Page 66, column 2, para 4: Change “the remotest” to “most remote”.
Page 66, column 2, para 5: Delete “Keep It Simple and Stupid” (KISS) approach” and replace with
“Keeping approaches simple”.
Page 66, column 2, last shaded bullets: Remove/delete – out, cynical.
Page 67, column 1, para 2: Capitalize “Use” in 3rd sentence.
Page 67, column 1, para 2: Add “to the public” after “unclear” in 4th sentence.
Page 67, column 1, para 2: Delete “in part because of their scattered location and inconsistent
presentation”.
Page 67, column 1, para 3: Change “performs” to “perform”.
Page 67, column 1, Quote: Delete quote by “New York State Comptroller, Opinion 65-770”.
Page 67, column 2, para 1: Delete “if not hesitant.” and “There was no incentive to make a process
“easy”” and delete “anxiety and”.
Page 67, column 2, para 2: Replace “should spell out” with “facilitates the Plans visions and
recommendations”.
Page 67, column 2, para 4: Change “Current codes don’t” to “The Town’s current code doesn’t”.
Page 68, column 2, Quote: Delete quote by “Zoning and Civic Development, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
(1950)”.
Page 69, column 1, para 1, bullet 2: Modify; add “to” after “standards” and change “reflecting” to
“reflect”.
Page 69, column 1, para 4: Delete “what” in the 4th sentence.
Page 70, column 2, shaded box: Legibility issue; needs to be better.
Page 71, column 1, para 3: Replace “adding” to “documenting”.
Page 71, column 2, para 1: Delete “provides some” in sentence 8 and 9.
Page 71 column 2, para 3: Change “balances” to “balance”.
Page 72 column 1, bullet 1: Talk to Dan Tasman regarding the three bulleted items beginning with
“Approval under old subdivision….”
Page 72, column 1, bullet 3 and 5: Confusing, where the…
Page 72, column 1, para 2 under 2.7 Form Ithaca initiative: Add “based” after “form” for clarity.
Page 72, bottom of page: Note to Dan regarding formatting issues and formatting for newspaper style,
if necessary.
Page 73, column 2, block 2 (LU-1-B) of bullets: Add “Reference viewshed protection with overlay zones”.
Page 73, column 2, block 9 (LU-1-L), bullet 2: Change “Resubdivision” to “Re-subdivision”.
Page 74, column 2, block 7 (LU-4-D): Add a new bullet that cross references HN-2-A.
Page 75, column 2, bottom, bullet 12: Delete “Wood boiler” and change to “Outdoor wood burning
requirements in use regulation”.
Page 76, column 1, block 3: Change “setasides” to “set-asides”.
Page 77, column 2, bullet 4: Change bullet 4 to read as “Context-sensitive road design standards for
Town roads. And add extra bullet to read as: “Encourage context-sensitive road design standards for
State and County roads”.
Page 77, column 2, bullet 13: Refer to Town Complete Streets Policy.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 16, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Tasman, Planning.
GUEST: Times Reporter. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: None.
Committee announcement and concerns: None reported.
Finalize Maplewood PDZ language and consider recommendation to the Town Board: - Rich: Opened the discussion and commented on the 11/1/16 Planning Board minutes where the recommendation for adding “subzone” to “transect” was discussed. - Sue: Explained that the highlighted sections in the draft PDZ language were Susan Brock’s comments from July and the redlined comments were recent changes based on the consultants and staff input. - Rich: Raised a question on the upper limits of the allowed dwelling unit range (Section 271-16.4) in which the sums are higher than the PD site total for both subzones. - Staff: Suggested changing the ranges for both transects (PD-15-M changed from 100 – 250 units to 100 – 175; PD-15-H changed from 250-400 units to 200-300 units). - Rich: Asked about the right-of-way width for the neighborhood primary street. He indicated that the upper limit of 64 feet was larger than what’s shown in the graphic. - Dan: Explained that the parameter range provides some flexibility, to accommodate a tree lawn, for instance. - Rich: Asked about the street-facing wall length in the table on pg. 8, and why the ground story would be less than the upper story. - Dan: Responded that staff had the same question, because often the ground floor has the longer unbroken wall length. For this project, the upper wall of the townhomes will appear to have an attic or penthouse and will appear less broken up than the bottom floor, which will have frequent jogs/indents so as not to have a long straight wall. - Staff: Discussed additional recommended changes, including: - Page 4 and elsewhere: the term “dwelling” units will likely be replaced with “housing” units; this is subject to more investigation and discussion with Attorney for Town who recommends maintaining consistency with the term used in Town Code. - Page 6, thoroughfare table: for “sidewalk width”, add language to address that trail/walkway does not necessarily front/touch the street. - Page 9, parking standard table: remove motorcycle/scooter parking requirements and instead add language below table stating that 2 motorcycle parking spaces may count as 1 motor vehicle parking space. - Page 14, Administration section: remove “Amendments” section dealing with site plan modifications and address this through future changes to 270-191 instead. - Page 14, Administration section: add a statement that explains that all provisions of the Town Code will apply to the PDZ, except those specifically called for in the PDZ. In future, the PDZ section in Chapter 270 will have this language incorporated.
2
The Committee voted to recommend the PDZ to the Town Board for consideration; pending revisions to the language as discussed; All in favor.
Continue consideration of rental property oversight strategies and recommendation to
Town Board: - Rich: Began by outlining the primary questions to be answered: 1. Are we in favor of pursuing a rental property registry? 2. Do we want to establish owner occupancy requirements? In terms of the rental registry, he acknowledged staffing concerns, especially as the program initially gets underway. The committee heard from other municipalities that initial start up of the program is labor intensive and he questioned the possibility of hiring a temp employee. After the initial startup, the work load is mainly inspections that can be staggered over time. - Rich: Asked Bruce if he thought it would be helpful to the Codes/Building Department to have access to a registry on a regular basis. - Bruce: Responded that he was concerned about the enforcement aspect and with having inspectors to do the work. He questioned what intervals would be established for inspections; every year or every time a unit is re-rented? The town’s Municity database is adequate for “tagging” properties and he often provides compliance reports to people seeking information on a property. Bruce then asked if the purpose of the registry is primarily to know which are/are not owner occupied. - Rich: Responded that it was for that, but additionally the registry would determine occupancy issues (i.e. rooms that aren’t supposed to be used as bedrooms). He also suggested a staggered inspection regime, one that does not fall at the same time each year. - Bruce: Explained that the City has one dedicated person that performs all of the rental inspections. He explained that with Municity the town has the infrastructure to handle a registry, but not the staffing. - Rich: Asked about current staffing levels (which led to a tangential discussion of the Maplewood project). - Rich: Asked the Committee members where to go from here. - Pat: Asked whether owner occupancy requirements would apply to a particular area, such as those with higher incidences of rental properties, and if there would be grandfathering. - Rich: Responded that this was still a question, whether to stick to zoning boundaries or apply an overlay zone. He thought an overlay zone would address areas of most concern. In terms of grandfathering, he thought owner occupancy requirements could either apply as soon as the property changed ownership or have a sunset provision, where the regulations would apply within a certain number of years (i.e. 3 or 5 years). . - Pat: Expressed concern with the sunset provision and how this could be disruptive to the current housing situation in the town. She asked where students would go to live, where will non-students go, and what would happen to those buildings. - Rich: Responded that if we thought it would be too disruptive, then this would be the case for grandfathering. He explained that he would rather see them grandfathered retroactively, such as from the beginning of the moratorium. - Rod: Stated that unless this is a huge problem from a staffing perspective, he thought it makes sense to move forward, both from a safety concern and a community character perspective, in terms of trying to protect the experience of the residents living in particular neighborhoods. He recalled from an earlier discussion that there had been some interest in permitting duplexes (not currently allowed) in areas where we want to see more density, in light of having the tighter regulations on rentals. - Committee: Briefly discussed whether it would be possible to have owner occupancy requirements without having a registry.
3
- Bruce: Said that if a registry is established he hoped it would give him a local contact person so if there is a problem with the rental, he knows who to contact. The other benefit of a registry is that it allows for inspections. NYS does not allow inspection of single and two-family dwellings used as rentals. - Rich: Added that the registry could be made available to potential renters. - Sue: Expressed support for allowing accessory dwelling units similar to the communities described in the HUD document. These are allowed to be attached or detached, and rather than 50% of the size of the principal building, they would have a maximum size, such as 800 square feet. - Rich: Suggested that the Committee figure out parameters of a registry that would be useful to have. - Bill: Suggested considering a time frame for notifying property owners and having them sign up for the registry. - Rich: Added that the Town should provide letters notifying residents about the registry. He acknowledged potential hardships for some property owners whose rental properties are not necessarily suitable to being returned to, or becoming, single-family residences. - Rich: Stated that we need to know where the preponderance of two-family rentals are in the Town. - Bill: Added that it would be helpful to see how many units are being rented in the town. - Committee: Asked staff to determine where rentals are in the town, both for single and two-family houses, get a sense of the preponderance of rentals, and where two-family dwellings are located. - Rich: Said he would meet with Bruce to discuss the parameters of a registry. He invited anyone else interested to sit in. - Bruce: Stated that he could contact the City of Norwich and City of Ithaca to learn more about their registry applications. - Rich: Suggested looking at the Town of Brookhaven for their application to determine what they require and also the registry fee to help cover costs and how the billing system and timing works. - Bruce: Compared the current system for town operating permits to the registry and the use of Municity for tracking.
Consider October meeting summary: Pat moved and Rich seconded, approved as drafted.
Staff updates and reports: - Bruce: Reported on efforts to get the old house on Coddington Road moved and the submission of the building permit he is currently reviewing. Tentative move date is November 30th. - Sue: Reported on her discussion with the State Historic Preservation Office concerning the town becoming a CLG. She was given initial information, but was referred to another person who she is still waiting to hear back from. She also provided an update on Chain Works.
Discuss next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 15th at 4:30pm. Possible future agenda items:
• Continue discussion of rental property oversight
• Airbnb's (Renwick Heights petition and referral from Operations Committee)
• Request for revising regulations on drive-throughs in Community Commercial zone. Meeting ended approximately at 6:30pm.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 15, 2016 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary.
TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUEST: Renwick Dr. residents; Denise Thompson, Cornell University Off-Campus Living. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Persons to Be Heard: Renwick Drive residents expressed concern over the growing occurrence of short-term rentals in their neighborhood and the impact this is having on the character and quality of life in their surrounding community. They explained that these involved property owners who vacate their houses for the duration of the rental. The rentals were occurring more frequently and more property owners were participating. These tended to happen on big event weekends for Cornell. There were also cases of long-term rentals in the neighborhood. The residents explained how this had changed relationships in the once tight-knit neighborhood. They have talked with their neighbors, but this has not helped. Because the County accepts tax dollars for AirBnB rentals it has created confusion on the legality of short-term rentals. - Bruce: Explained that short-term rentals like those on Renwick Drive are not legal. Renting out anything less than 30 days puts you in the category of a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast which have fire/health standards and are only allowed in certain Town zones. Bruce can continue to issue violation notices and send them to court. From there it would go to a judge, but based on his experience, the fines imposed are comparable to a slap on the wrist. - Resident: Described how one house was getting $2,500/night (6 people) so the economics make rentals very enticing. They thought it would help to have more media attention to inform the public that they are not legal (i.e. Town newsletter, article in I.J.). They reported that New York City increased fines for listing a residence on AirBnb to $7,000 as a deterrent. They are not opposed to long-term rentals, given that they are more stable and a better situation for a neighborhood. - Committee: Discussed the possibility of increasing Town fines as a deterrent for short-term rentals and including a newsletter article. - Rich: Concluded the discussion by stating that they would bring the idea of increasing fines to the Town Board as an interim solution.
Committee announcement and concerns: None reported.
Continue consideration of rental property oversight strategies and recommendation to
Town Board: - Rich: Recalled that at the November meeting the committee indicated a willingness to move forward on a rental registry. Since that meeting, he and Bruce have met to review registries/laws of other communities. Rich subsequently developed a potential list of registry application form questions and discussed these with the Committee. Rich explained that property management requirements are often an issue and he asked the Committee to consider what they thought a reasonable distance between the rental property and the owner’s residence would be, such that adequate management oversight can be provided. Essentially, what is too far and when would a local property manager be required?
2
- Denise Thompson: Introduced herself as a representative from Cornell University Off-Campus Living which advises students, staff, and faculty on finding rental housing. She thought this topic was relevant to her job. She suggested the Committee take a look at the City’s property information form to determine when they (the City) require a local management person. She added that knowing there is a responsible party nearby is important. - Rich: Explained that there would be interest in having some uniformity between the City and Town program. He then asked if it was true that Cornell maintains a current list of student’s off-campus addresses. - Denise Thompson: Responded that Cornell does not require students to provide a local address, so there is no way to know if a student lives at a particular address. She added that she manages the off-campus database and if a landlord or student wants to list, and their property is in the city she makes sure it has a certificate of compliance and will only accept those with a current listing. She would love it if the Town inspected every rental property as it would make her life easier and having a Town database for checking properties would be appreciated. - Rich: Explain that this is the direction that the Committee is exploring moving in. - Rod: Asked how having a database and inspections in the Town would make her life easier. - Denise Thompson: Responded that there are students living in rentals within the Town of Ithaca that are in deplorable condition. This includes a list of problems, such as no heat, mold, rodents, poor/no electricity. It is likely that the Town doesn’t even know they are rental properties. These properties end up being listed on the Cornell site whether or not they are in good condition because there are no inspection records to rely on. She described the City’s inspection policy and how these result in the properties being brought up to code, thus making life easier for those seeking rental units. - Bruce: Explained that if there are no complaints, and it is a single family house, he has no authority to inspect them; unlike multiple residences where inspections are mandated. He further explained that without the assistance of the tenant, who initially made the complaint, the judge will not be able to act and the Town cannot pursue the case/violation. - Rich: Explained that the Town also has an over-occupancy issue that the rental registry is intended to address too. - Pat: Suggested revisiting the “family” definition to see if there is a way to simplify and get rid of loopholes as a way to address occupancy. - Rich: Responded that “family” is somewhat universally applied throughout NYS; it is not unique to the Town to define it this way. - Rich: Suggested requiring a minimum square foot per occupant as another way to get at the occupancy issue; minimum square footage per person. He then brought the discussion back to the question of property management and the required maximum distance that would require having a local contact. He questioned having a 30 mile radius from Ithaca and showed what this would look like on a map. This could be a place holder for the time being. Committee members: Agreed on the 30-mile radius, as well as other registry information to require, including number of bedrooms; and total habitable square footage (need clarity of what is non-habitable, i.e. attic, basement (unfinished), closets). - Bruce: Suggested sticking to the Building Code definition of bedroom (requirements for egress, window size, etc.). - Rich: Brought attention to the Brookhaven application (provided at meeting) that included a workspace and checklist for determining habitable space and required measurements for various areas at the house (bedroom, bath, etc.). He then referred to the Binghamton registration application which by contrast is simpler than the Brookhaven application. He added that we need to establish on the application what occupancy requirements are, so we make it clear based on based on square footage and who is renting. He then asked Bruce for the minimum square footage in the Building Code.
3
- Bruce: Answered that for single bedroom/single person it is 75 square feet, but if it is two persons, it is down to 50 square feet/person. This is only for bedrooms. The Building Code has different requirements for kitchen and living room sizes, etc. - Bill: Questioned the idea of having different requirements for different zones. In some zones maybe a 5 bedroom house could be filled by students – per the required square footage. - Rich: Responded that this begged the question as to whether to tailor the regulations to a newly created overlay zone or use the Town’s established zones. - Denise: Added that the certificates issued by the City of Ithaca are tied to the square footage of bedrooms, and that she had experience where a 5-bedroom apartment is only allowed to have 4 persons living there. Either the 5th room was too small or the numbers don’t work with other zoning aspects. - Rich: Suggested requiring the square footage of the bedroom on the registry application. He then asked if we should ask for information about the tenants, but added that he had reservations about this, given privacy issues. - Committee: Decided that it could be too complex to try and keep up with the names of tenants, and to start without this information at the beginning to see how it works. The committee also agreed to have an inspection checklist included. - Rich: Asked for ideas on what an initial registration fee should cost and how to structure this to recoup the administrative and inspection costs? Fees also need to address re-inspection fees, if inspection fails, and create an incentive not to fail due to the additional fees; and renewal fees at the re-inspection interval. He suggested Bruce come up with some estimates. - Rod: Stated that he liked the Brookhaven fee schedule that had increasing costs for more bedrooms. - Rich: Asked whether a 3 year inspection interval was reasonable. - Bruce: Supported the 3 year interval, except if a valid complaint on the property is made. - Rich: Suggested requiring that rental permit requirements be provided to the renter (by landlord) so renter is informed and knows who to file complaints to. - Rich: Indicated that there was not enough time for a full discussion of two-family dwellings, but he asked the Committee to consider several aspects for next time, including: overlay zones versus using zoning boundaries; requiring permits to rent the second unit; grandfathering and/or sunset provisions.
Consider November meeting summary: Hold minutes until the January 2017 meeting.
Staff updates and reports: Sue reported on: proposed 100 ft. monopole at the NYSEG substation off Trumansburg Road; update on GreenTree expansion plans (December closing on Iacovelli property); and release of the announcement for the Elmira Road/Economic Development/Planning Study RFQ.
Discuss next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2017. Possible future agenda items:
• AirBnB's
• Drive-throughs
• Continue discussion of rental property oversight Meeting ended approximately at 6:30pm.