HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2026-07-07
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, July 7, 2026 6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Persons to be heard.
2. Consider a recommendation to the Town Board regarding proposed amendments to Town Code,
Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land.
3. Approval of Minutes.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
C.J. Randall
Director of Planning
607-273-1747
Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom videoconference at
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382 or by calling (929) 436-2866 and entering Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382. The public will
have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments directly to the Board during Persons to be Heard
and/or Public Hearing.
To watch the meeting live, please visit www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live. Recorded meetings are
viewable at YouTube.com/TownofIthacaVideo.
Written comments can be addressed to the Planning Board (in-person at Town Hall; by mail; or via email at
Planning@townithacany.gov) until noon the day of the meeting. Comments addressed to the Board will be distributed to all
Board members and Applicant(s). Comments received after the posting of the agenda packet (five business days prior to the
meeting) are distributed to the Board on the day of the meeting. Comments are public and become part of the project file.
Applications and associated project materials are available on the Town’s website at https://townithacany.gov/meeting-
calendar-agendas/ under the calendar meeting date.
PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
July 7, 2026
MINUTES
The full video recording of this meeting is available on YouTube@TownofIthacaVideo
(Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24
hours after the meeting can be found in the updated packet online and will be filed permanently
with the project folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline.)
Present: Caitlin Cameron, Chair; Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Sara Reynolds (via
videoconferencing) and Gideon Casper Absent: Kelda McGurk and Vincent Ferrara
CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Nick Quilty-Koval,
Planner; Nate VanWhy, Attorney for the Town; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Justin
McNeal, Director of Engineering; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
Ms. Cameron called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m.
1. Persons to be heard – None
2. Consider a recommendation to the Town Board regarding proposed amendments to
Town Code, Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land (Attachment 1 – Memo/History)
Ms. Randall gave a brief history of the Subdivision regulations and the process so far of revising
them and referred to the Planning Department’s memo outlining same.
Ms. Bageant asked for a big picture summary- the revised regulations solving problems or
changing the direction of certain actions? From a Planning Board perspective, what were some
of the challenges with the existing legislation and what changes are addressing those?
Ms. Balestra responded that the easiest changes to explain is one that clearly lays out the
difference between a lot-line modification and a small subdivision request and the other that
clarifies what a major subdivision is and how many lots that involves.
The biggest change is related to cluster subdivisions. The Comprehensive Plan has very clearly
stated goals and objectives regarding clustered subdivisions.
Ms. Bageant said she reads this draft as clustered subdivisions are the default and traditional or
conventional subdivisions are still permitted but there are criteria that developers will need to
meet to prove that they can achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan better by following a
conventional subdivision rather than a cluster subdivision. She added that the current legislation
is very hard to read and follow, and this is much better in that way.
Ms. Reynolds asked what they should be considering as pressure points or challenges over the
PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 2
next 10, 15, 20 and more years as we review this.
Ms. Randall responded that there are a number of goals in the 2014 Comprehensive Plan to shift
toward clustering and the 1992 Open Space Index essentially laid out a plan to do that.
The Board discussed options for going through the draft.
Mr. Arms stated that he was on the Codes & Ordinances Committee which spent the better part
of 3 years drafting this, and, unless there are specific questions on a section, the one with the
most fundamental policy decisions in his opinion is the section on cluster subdivisions and space
usage and he felt that should be the focus of this Board.
The Board decided to go through the revised regulations Article by Article:
Article I Policy and Applicability – Staff clarified NYS Law vs Town Code for members.
Article II Terminology – No substantive comments.
Article III Classification & Procedures Applicable to All Applicants, §234-10.G – There was
confusion about “application provisions” versus “application submissions.” Ms. Balestra said
that staff would work on clarifying the wording.
Article IV Lot Line Adjustments – No substantive comments.
Article V Minor Subdivisions – No substantive comments.
Article VI Major Subdivisions – The Board broke this Article into sections for discussion:
§ 234-20 Final Subdivision Review: Ms. Reynolds asked about the process of the Town
accepting utilities and/or streets and whether that is automatic or the developer has to ask for it.
Mr. McNeal explained that it is generally an option that goes through committee and
departmental review and then if the developer wants the Town to accept it, any infrastructure
must be built to Town specifications, and then it is up to the Town Board whether or not to
accept it.
§ 234-21 Planning Board findings and decision: Mr. Arms noted that this is where the legislation
gives the Planning Board more discretion than it has now and when one thinks of planning and
what a Planning Board can do; at one extreme there are just a set of rules and we have to follow
them and the other extreme of do we like it or not.
Our Zoning says if it fits the rules, it is approved, and this legislation gives the Planning Board a
bit more discretion in influencing design in aesthetic criteria, and he said he personally did not
want to get to a situation in which our aesthetics become dominant, but he does welcome a bit of
movement towards giving us a bit more opportunity to have input into design criteria.
Ms. Balestra responded that Section C applies when Site Plan Review is required, and that is
PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 3
when the board would discuss design criteria for architectural integrity and cohesiveness of the
entire subdivision.
Discussion followed with members asking if the Site Design Criteria Manual is expected to be
guidelines or requirements.
Ms. Randall gave the history and scope of developing the Site Design and Criteria Manual
which will include specifications for roads, water and sewers which will have technical
requirements for developers.
Ms. Cameron asked if that was just the technical requirements but not to Mr. Arms’s point. She
said her understanding has been that this Board does not comment on design unless it is a PDZ
so she was confused where this section lists design principles. Are these reiterating the Design
and Site Plan Criteria that is technical or are these things we are supposed to consider?
Ms. Randall responded that it is the latter and this is the line we are trying to walk. Subdivision
regulations are not Zoning but if we are looking at large subdivision development then the
Planning Board should have some ability to think about at least some options related to design.
She used a recent presentation for some modular homes that just looked like cars lived there (all
garages),so we asked for other models and careful placement of the structures.
When a subdivision that is really big, we don’t want all the structures to look identical, and this
is to give some of that flexibility to the Board. She added that Staff is open to suggestions on
how to make that happen.
Ms. Bageant said she had the same question; does this align with what we do now? Because the
language is more specific than the language that goes through my mind when looking at a
subdivision. She also said the 25 lot distinction was confusing- is it a separate category or a
major subdivision, minor subdivision? What triggers these considerations that give us a lot of
discretion?
She said she did not have a strong opinion on the fundamental question of how much we want to
be able to shape these really big subdivisions in terms of design.
She asked if, for example, you are allowed 20 lots under conventional subdivision, with 40 units
and the developer comes in and says they are going to put all 40 units in one building and the rest
will be parks and trails, the Planning Board can waive mass restrictions such as the types of
housing area and dimensional requirements and building heights in the cluster subdivisions in
Section F because we are trying to cluster or compress the allowed units into one area, correct?
Mr. Arms added that the proposed language in section C provides discretion that depends upon
having a responsible planning board and responsible planning staff, which we have, but that is
not the case in other municipalities that he has read about. He said a developer should have the
reasonable expectation that a reasonable application will be accepted without a random member
of the board saying, “I don’t like it, go back to square one.”
PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 4
Ms. Reynolds said the legislation does say “…to ensure the proposals meet the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan’s Goals…” which sets a base. She asked Ms. Randall to clarify her earlier
statement about Zoning not having design standards.
Ms. Randall said that zoning does not have design standards; if you pull a building permit and
the project meets the Zoning requirements as to lot size, setbacks, height and footprint, and NYS
Building Code safety requirements, then you can build it. What we are trying to do is to give us
the ability to ask for plans to be a bit more deliberate about the design and how it would function
as a neighborhood and also have some aesthetic considerations to go along with it.
The Board asked for examples that have been through the cluster subdivision approval process.
Ms. Balestra responded that the only recent cluster subdivisions (2010 to present) were the
Holochuck Homes and Amabel subdivisions – Amabel involved a re-zoning and Holochuck was
never built.
Ms. Cameron said she felt Section C needed revision. Her concern was that the language said
“the exterior characteristics of proposed structures shall demonstrate consistency with objective
architectural design principles including but not limited to…” and then it lists topic areas but
there's nothing there that are actual objective architectural design principles.
She asked if the law contained those principals elsewhere and questioned whether there would be
an architectural design manual, or if the list in the draft law was supposed to be objective
architectural design criteria because they are design principles, not design criteria and the list is
not objective enough to guide the board or applicants.
The board discussed clarifying the language in the list to avoid the situation where a board
member could make arbitrary determinations based on their opinion and not through applying
objective criteria. One idea would be to prioritize the most important requirements and to clearly
write criteria based on those requirements.
Ms. Cameron asked if the list in Section C was more like a template or palette of guidelines for
future home development in a subdivision.
Planning staff responded yes and provided an example scenario: a developer seeks approval for a
25-lot subdivision. The layout meets the cluster provisions; the town gets smaller or a variety of
lots, along with conservation lands, an arterial road with street trees, playground, and amenities.
There are ten (10) home designs to choose from. The developer provides the Planning Board
with what the designs are, and the board has the discretion to require front porches, or different
placement on the lots, etc.
Ms. Cameron said she tends towards not wanting to review reviewing for design when it's not
going to result in more units, which is the scenario you just laid out.
She added that the scenario raised another question for her, which is when would the design
criteria be applied? If the subdivision is just a property being subdivided without any plans to
PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 5
build yet, then the homes are not designed at that point. Is this intended to be a template or
palette of guidelines for future homes as they come through subdivision approval?
Ms. Randall responded that it is, yes. Here is a list of 10 homes that this builder is going to
choose from. Here's what they look like, give or take and they may need to scooch them back
and forth or make a different porch or garage to accommodate it. The Planning Board can feel
fairly confident that this is the style of home that this builder is going to do over the next five
years as they build out .
Ms. Cameron clarified that this would be a submittal from the developer then, depicting the types
of homes they plan on building.
Ms. Randall said yes, and it is important to remember that the Traditional Neighborhood Design
(TND) areas in the town are going to follow the New Neighborhood Code which has a lot of
design standards in it; it's pretty much a full form based code. It does have uses in it, but it is
fairly strict in design elements, and she said that is where we are ultimately going to see most of
the development in town where the items listed in Section C contain much less form and design.
She said she would not be heartbroken if this was left out, but the intent was to give the Planning
Board some control to make large subdivisions less cookie-cutter while not feeling intimidated
by our having some design standards.
Ms. Bageant asked if the sentence under discussion was removed, what would the findings be
based upon? What does the sentence and the one prior to it add other than ambiguity? She said
she is concerned about future planning boards blocking development based on something that
she considers subjective.
Mr. VanWhy asked if the Planning Board’s concern is the litany of things listed in the sentence
in Section C because he was not sure that keeping the following sentence avoided the issue
either, because what is “visual monotony, excessive bulk or discord forms?” If the Board’s
concern is that a lack of objective standards here, I think those are also not objective standards.
He said what he sees is that the Board does not want to undermine the Town's Comprehensive
Plan goals and wants compatibility with the surrounding context; visual cohesion and alignment
with any existing guidelines and neighborhoods. Those are the points that seem substantial or
firm.
Mr. Arms said that the Comprehensive Plan’s goals are written at a very high level and they are
not things that you can use to make operational decisions. He said the wording is basically
reasonable, and the Board could wordsmith it forever without solving the underlying problem of
where judgment comes in, but he would go with the consensus of the members.
Discussion followed, noting that a building permit can allow a house that is “out of scale” with
the neighborhood, but if you build under subdivision, that is under scrutiny.
Ms. Randall reminded that board that, per NYS law, subdivision is a privilege. It is discretionary
PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 6
and therefore a lot of these findings the Planning Board has to make are somewhat discretionary
because it is a privilege to subdivide, as opposed to the right to build upon an approved lot. You
have to seek approval for a subdivision and have an approved subdivision to build on it.
Ms. Cameron moved on to §234-21.I
Ms. Bageant noticed that the item lists the specific species and diameter of trees to preserve,
stating that she loves that because trees are often discussed without this type of guideline to
consider.
Ms. Balestra said that these findings will be listed in the Planning Board resolution for a project.
We envision the findings list as a template for the board to essentially go through the findings at
the meeting and state the reasons for the findings in the resolution- like we do with special
permit criteria. Town staff would have met with developers prior to Planning Board appearances
to help them meet the rules and regulations of the town. Staff then provide draft findings in the
resolution for the board to consider and amend. She added that this type of approach is only
possible because the Town of Ithaca has professional planners on staff to provide this support
and that is not the norm in other municipalities.
Ms. Cameron suggested putting this section on hold to allow members to think more about it and
discuss at the next meeting. The board agreed. Section C in §234-21 will be revisited.
Article VII Subdivision Design Standards – §234-23. General Procedures
Mr. Arms said that the first statement, “Cluster subdivision is required in all cases of new major
subdivisions” is a very major policy decision and he cannot remember any large subdivision that
didn't ask for specialized zoning, which we call a planned development zone (PDZ). When
developers look at what they want to do and what makes sense for the town, they say we'll do a
special purpose zoning or PDZ, and that worries him. The other thing is we're seeing only a
handful of smaller developments because for some reason the incentives are not there for
developers to put their money on the table and build any housing, let alone affordable housing.
So, the question is, when we say cluster subdivision is required in all cases, with some minor
exceptions, what impact are we going to have on what happens in the future? Is this going to
mean that we get more or less, or better or worse, or no housing at all?
Mr. Arms added that he had his say at the Codes and Ordinances Committee meetings and lost
that battle, but he wanted to say it here too.
Ms. Bageant said she had a different perspective; there's an argument to be made that clustered
subdivisions actually align with incentives better than traditional subdivisions because financing
is a lot easier with larger numbers of units, things like that, so she wasn’t sure she agreed with
the premise that starting at clustering as a default is inherently screwing up the incentives and she
thought it is moving us in in a better direction. She added that there is room for someone to show
they cannot cluster due to Y or Z, so it is not as prescriptive as it seems. There has been a lot of
outside forces like COVID and post COVID economics that have changed the trajectory and
financial costs of development for everyone involved.
PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 7
Ms. Reynolds said that we use the word “encourage” and that is meaningless; it should either be
required or not. This is very progressive and commendable, but to Mr. Arm’s point, it is very
important to have incentives to make it financially feasible or to make it required.
§234.24 Cluster Subdivision – Ms. Cameron polled the board on continuing given the hour.
Members felt this section would take a lot of time because there is a lot of detail and Ms.
Cameron asked for immediate reactions.
Ms. Bageant mentioned that the color scheme on the depictions are confusing and suggested
blue for water features. She also suggested that buffers or non-buildable areas should be a non-
natural color like red or yellow, etc. and she would be happy to help with that. Planning staff
appreciated the comments and will revise the graphics accordingly.
Mr. Quilty-Koval gave a presentation on the Resources Analysis process that a developer would
follow to create the yield for a clustered subdivision, taking into account the criteria in §234-
24.D. (Attachment 1)
Comments for future discussions:
Once you consider clustering, are the underlying zoning limitations waived?
Yes, because they limit the buildable area.
Where did the 40% open space figure come from? Basis for 80% in classes 1 and 2?
That is new and from the Town of Canangaigua’s Conservation Subdivision
regulations. The current open space requirement in the existing town law is 10%
and not specified as to what type of open space is preserved.
The board should discuss whether we are comfortable with those numbers.
What are the incentives to developers to cluster? Can you build more units? If not, why?
Infrastructure cost savings are an incentive to builders.
Why are there 3 Natural Resources classes instead of 2; combine the similar ones?
Concerns about scaring away builders.
Concerns about the rigidity of the requirements that could last for the next 10-20 or more
years.
Size of parcel and natural restrictions play a huge role.
Ms. Cameron suggested wrapping up the discussions and thinking about it all for the next
meeting and bringing our comments then. She said this will probably take at least another
couple of meetings to go through.
Board left off on §234-24, page 11 of the pdf, line 544.
PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 8
3. Approval of Minutes – Motion made by Ms. Bageant, seconded by Mr. Arms to approve
the May 5th and 19th minutes; unanimous.
4. Other Business – Ms. Balestra reviewed the status and process of the SouthWorks
project and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and other projects coming
soon to the Board. She mentioned that there was a new Planning Board member that
would attend the next meeting on July 21, 2026.
The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second; unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
Cluster Subdivision Development Review
CREATED BY NICK QUILTY-KOVAL
Subdivision Steps
1.Identify the parcel
2.Review Town Code
3.Create conventional subdivision plan (yield)
4.Conduct Resource Analysis
4a. Identify Class 1 Land
4b. Identify Class 2 Land
4c. Identify Class 3 Land
5.Create cluster subdivision
Step 1: Identify the Parcel
Attributes:
◦27.97 acres
◦Roadway access:
◦Southern connections to major thoroughfare
◦Eastern connections to local street
◦Wooded lot with small areas of open space
◦Water access & sewer:
◦Accessible along the southern and eastern parcel boundaries
◦Contains notable slopes
◦Zoning: Medium Density Residential (15,000 square foot lot
size)
Step 2: Review
Town Code
Zoning: Medium Density Residential
A.Front yard
B.Rear yard
C.Side yard
D.Minimum lot area
E.Minimum width at the street
line
F.Minimum width at the
maximum required front yard
setback line
G.Minimum depth from the
highway right-of-way
Step 3: Create
Conventional
Subdivision Plan
Yield
◦2.79 acres allocated for roadway (10%
road allocation)
◦25.18 developable acres (27.97 – 2.79)
◦73 estimated dwelling unit total after road
allocation (25.18 acres / 15,000 square
feet)
Conventional Layout
◦35 buildable lots
◦Meets zoning code
◦70 dwelling units (35 lots + 35 accessory
dwelling units)
Step 4a: Resource
Analysis Class 1
No Class 1 Resources
Step 4b: Resource
Analysis Class 2
Class 2
◦Mature woods (green)
◦Slopes between 15% and 40%
(brown)
Step 4c: Resource
Analysis Class 3
Class 3
◦Trail (hatched area)
Step 4: Resource Analysis Lands
Resource Analysis Calculations
Permanent
Preservation
(40% of all land)
Class 3
Total
(40%)
Class 2 Total
(80%)
Class 1
Total
(100%)
Site Size
11.180.75
(0.3)
22.49
(17.99)
N/A27.97
Values are shown in acres
Step 5: Create
a Cluster Subdivision
35 Single-Family Homes (1,900sqft)
Resource Analysis Calculations
Total land in
permanent
preservation
Permanent
Preservation
(40% of all
land)
Class 3
Proposed
Preservation
Class 3
Total
(40%)
Class 2
Proposed
Preservation
Class 2
Total
(80%)
Class 1
Total
(100%)
Site
Size
15.8811.180.380.75
(0.3)
15.5022.49
(17.99)
N/A27.97
Values are shown in acres