HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2026-07-21
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, July 21, 2026 6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Persons to be heard.
2. Continue to 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 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
July 21, 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: Liz Bageant, Vice Chair, Bill Arms, Sara Reynolds, Vincent Ferrara (ZOOM), and
Jenni Minner Absent: Caitlin Cameron, Kelda McGurk, and Gideon Casper
CJ Randall, Director of Planning (8:15), Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, and Nick Quilty-
Koval, Planner; Nate VanWhy, Attorney for the Town; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer;
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
Ms. Bageant called the meeting to order and introduced new board member Jenni Minner.
1. Persons to be heard - None
2. Continue to consider a recommendation to the Town Board regarding proposed
amendments to Town Code, Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land.
Ms. Cameron noted that some Board members began the review of the draft legislation at the
July 7th meeting and that review will continue tonight.
Mr. Quilty-Koval gave another presentation on the Resource Analysis calculations depicting the
different types of buildings requested by the board at the last meeting. The presentation also
contained a different buildout analysis that met the percentages required. (Attachment 1)
The Board then continued their review of the draft legislation, picking up where they left off on
July 7th:
Article VII: Subdivision Design Standards
§234-24. Cluster subdivisions.
B – Cluster general design standards and procedures.
Who does the analysis of the whole site? The developer does the Resource Analysis, and staff
reviews it. If there are questions about particular resources, the Planning Board can require the
developer to engage a professional consultant, e.g., an arborist or botanist.
Who is going to manage the open space that is set aside and how? How do we ensure we achieve
PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 2
the objective of having open space? We cannot control land we do not own. It is an aspirational
goal. If you look under D.3., “the preliminary plat is required to show any lands that should be
protected by a conservation easement or a plat notation or other conservation measures.” That is
new in this draft; the initial thought was to require conservation easements, but on the advice of
Counsel, we broadened it to allow other options because the Town may not want to hold a
conservation easement in every instance.
Discussion followed on how the open space could or would be managed.
D – Resource Analysis.
Why is there a requirement to show a conventional lot layout? It is the standard requirement in
New York State Law and is in our current Code. Some of the issues with this section is that we
need to work around the underlying law which is not appropriate for what we are trying to do.
Discussion followed, with Board members expressing disappointment that there is no incentive
to cluster in terms of units; e.g., 70 units allowed either way, using conventional or clustered
layouts. Some Board members felt there is a tradeoff between the ease of subdivision happening
and housing being built and the conservation - and the 40% preservation requirement is quite
high and may have the unintended consequences of nothing being built.
Board members asked staff to provide more information related to density bonuses.
How are we going to require applicants to avoid “fragmentation of conservation assets to
maintain wildlife corridors?” The wording is vague as to what urban wildlife that is accustomed
to humans and birds that are sensitive to them.
Regarding parking and staging under canopy or trip lines of trees. What if they are diseased, or
must be removed? It is very specific there, but how is the input on a view of the lake? Is it going
to be the Planning Board’s job to decide what preserved because there is a wide range of
scenarios in those descriptive words without a lot of guidance in the law?
Staff explained that the procedures listed in D.1-4 are not new. This Board evaluates
subdivisions the same way right now. For example, staff looks at the DEC-protected lists and
mapping programs and our Open Space Index, and all our other resources and we work with the
developers to identify the most environmentally sensitive land. Staff composes a memo for the
Board detailing those discussions, our recommendations, and draft resolutions.
The Board has the authority to preserve certain trees and allow other trees to be cut, when
necessary, even when they are above the diameters listed. The proposed metrics are more
specific because we were advised by Counsel to be very specific in the revised regulation. This
draft law puts current practices in writing.
Are we concerned about segmentation? One large parcel builds on 20% then comes back in 10
years wanting to build on another part of the parcel. Yes - we have always been told that the
Planning Board can only look at what is in front of them. We are not allowed to look at adjacent
PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 3
properties or assume future development and our analysis can only be on what they are telling us
as stated in their application materials, memos, correspondence and appearances before the
board. We try to avoid segmentation under B.7.
A good portion of this revised law was based extensively on the Town of Canandaigua’s law
which is a really good, progressive conservation subdivision regulation and design guideline that
is quite successful. Also from Randall Arendt’s Conservation Subdivision books, which are the
gold standard in subdivision regulations.
In D.3 of the Resource Analysis, it says this cluster subdivision must be designed to protect the
conservation assets proposed to be preserved from future disturbance due to incompatible
development, changes in ecological function or other impacts associated with the development of
the site. Is that protecting it from incompatible development on those lands or lands next to it?
What is “incompatible development?” A playground? A dog park? A new trail or path? Those
are considered an asset in the beginning, but would they be “incompatible development” later
on through old forest? Staff understood the point of the comment and will review and look at
clarifying.
Moving back to Section C, it essentially rules out conventional subdivisions and that is a very big
barrier and maybe it should not be so strict. It seems onerous to have a developer have to go
through both the conventional and cluster subdivision calculations and layout to prove that
clustering will not work. One must meet all three criteria in the Resource Analysis, not and/or,
correct? How many cluster subdivisions have come to the town and how many were built or not
built? Staff responded that if the lot is less than 5 acres in size, the developer can have a
conventional subdivision and not sketch out a cluster option or do a Resource Analysis. On more
than 5 acres, a conventional and Resource Analysis for a cluster subdivision is required and
conventional subdivision can only happen if the analysis shows clustering cannot be done, for
example, topography or easement restrictions on the parcel that preclude clustering, but
clustering is the default under this draft legislation.
Staff added that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan is very explicit about requiring clustered
subdivisions for all new subdivisions; and staff tried their best to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan
Regarding clustered subdivisions in the town, the Holochuck Subdivision was a cluster
subdivision that went through the full process with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) but
was never built. Planning staff explained that the Town grows slowly, about half of a percent a
year, and so we put plans in place such as the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations, and
Traditional Neighborhood Development-Regulating Plans to think many, many years in the
future and build out incrementally.
The Town also has an Open Space Report that was done in the 1990’s that outlines, categorizes
and maps all of the really sensitive environmental characteristics in the Town; the slopes, the
woods, the streams, etc. We used the Open Space Index in the report to create the Resource
Analysis categories and metrics.
PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 4
The term and implications of “immediately adjacent” should be reviewed. A barn on one corner
of a 10 acre parcel; is development on the other side “immediately adjacent” to the “historic
site?” Is it a site or a house? Land including or immediately adjacent to historic sites. What's a
historic site?
For example, solar developments proposed adjacent to a historic property, but the historic part
of that historic property, even though they don't own the farmland over there where solar is
proposed, but you are supposed to be at that historic site and look upon the landscape and feel
like you're in farm, would that array be denied? What is the intention behind this?
Discussion on historic sites and the National Register and how an old barn or farmhouse would
come in to play in the analysis. The Town did a historic resources inventory of all of the homes
and buildings in the Town; and there are a bunch that are eligible for listing, but there aren’t any
undeveloped areas listed on the National or State Register. The Town's Limited Historic
Commercial Overlay District was created to accommodate a few properties that are on West Hill
that have historic significance and are eligible for listing on the National and State Registers.
There's an application process for owners to put those properties under Overlay, but unlike the
City of Ithaca, the Town does not have a ton of historical buildings or a Landmark Preservation
Committee that oversees historic preservation.
The intention behind this is to preserve the integrity of historic sites which could include
structures or lands depending on what NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation (SHPO) says has historic value. The other section in the Resource Analysis is
related to the preservation of views. The County and the Town both have Scenic Resource
Inventories that list the viewsheds that have been classified as Views of Significant Importance
or Noteworthy with some also being along the NYS Scenic Byway.
We would look at these as two different things, but in the same Resource Analysis category.
Why are there 3 classes? Because it seems some items in Class 2 could be included in Class 1 if
historic preservation is that important? Including historic sites in Class 4 (b) [6] was a request
by town staff because we do not have many of them.
What is meant by “immediately adjacent”? An old barn on the far corner of 10 acres is not
immediately adjacent to the parcel on the other end. Taken from the vantage of a historical site,
solar farms where you are looking out and expect to see a farm, but instead you see solar panels
on the adjacent site; what is the intention behind the statement? The intention is to preserve the
integrity of historic sites which could include structures, depending on what SHPO says.
E – Calculation methodology to determine required open space and conservation assets in cluster
subdivisions, based on Resource Analysis.
Members felt the 40% required open space of the parent parcel was very high, especially with no
incentive for additional units, and were concerned about the unintended consequence of people
not building in the Town because it isn’t financially feasible without added units. We will get
more undeveloped land, and maybe that is the Town’s intent, but the Town Board should think of
PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 5
that trade off specifically. Turning back to the calculation methodology, what is the rationale for
at least 80% versus at least 40% preserved open space for class 2 and 3 assets? What is the
nexus or the rationale for the percentages? The draft law requires preservation of 80% Class 2
assets but only 40% of Class 3 assets, which implies that Class 3 assets are half as important as
Class 2. Could they be combined to streamline them, outside of the actual discussion on the
actual percentages? Staff stated that the percentages were taken from the Canandaigua law; and
staff knew that we might have to tweak the numbers. When staff went through the exercise of
trying to figure out what we could accomplish in terms of preservation through the Resource
Analysis, we thought that we were able to capture what we needed to capture and still allow
development under these numbers.
What about the Class 2 - 80% number? We wanted to prioritize the assets in Class 2 because
they rose to a higher level in the Open Space Index. Some of the Class 3 resources were not
identified in the Open Space Index. For example, we didn’t have the Scenic Resources Inventory
in the 1990’s, so it was not envisioned in the Open Space Index.
Mr. Arms expressed concern over the increase of required preserved land for clustered
subdivisions, from 10% requirement in the current regulation to 40% in the proposed. He quoted
a section of the 1997 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan [staff note: that plan is also being
updated to reflect the 2014 goals of the Comprehensive Plan].
He said he can't support the numbers. He said he could accept that at least 30% of all land that
contains Class 2 assets and maybe 30% of Class 3, that would be okay. He said Nick’s example
was a good one. It showed what looked like a good conventional subdivision, but it didn’t meet
the requirements.
Mr. Arms went on to say that if he owned 25 acres, he would have the choice to build 35 homes
with 35 accessory units over the entire land, or he can cluster the same number of units on 9.5
acres. His opinion is that that is a major disincentive to people who may build affordable or
good housing and he believes that is fundamentally wrong. Discussion followed with members
not having specific suggestions on the percentages but agreeing that this needs more discussion
and speaking broadly.
Ms. Bageant - The policy decision around the tradeoff of disincentivizing housing by prioritizing
conservation when the Town really wants to prioritize housing is something that should be given
careful thought.
Ms. Minner - If we're talking about whether considering generally that there should be a cluster
for developers to pursue, I would be in support in spirit of having that option. I think it's
important to have an option that incentivizes conservation. There may be negative effects if this
is the only option for large scale subdivisions and we don't want to zone out the ability for the
Town to contribute to traditional neighborhood development that serves others and helps us
meet the density needed for transportation options or to achieve affordable housing. Density
bonuses or inclusionary zoning or other options should be considered.
The reason we have a Comprehensive Plan is to try to outline all of these goals. We should be
PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 6
achieving our housing goals, and we should be preserving ecological functions. I'm not against
whenever we take a piece of land and say it will not be built on for all time but that also means
we are condemning some other piece of land to be built upon, otherwise we won't get the houses.
But the primary consideration is the disincentives to anybody to build anything, which is a
serious problem.
Are the percentages defensible or arbitrary and does it serve our goals to have 3 classes.
Members wanted to hear staff’s rationale of the numbers given.
Ms. Balestra responded, saying that we modeled this on another municipality’s law and the goals
of the Comprehensive Plan, which are very strict. When we did the draft based upon the
percentages given and went through a development exercise using the requirements and the
Resource Analysis, we were pleasantly surprised that the property in the example was
developable. This proved to us that it is doable. She added that it is also reasonable to ask for
those numbers to be tweaked.
Ms. Randall apologized for coming in late and clarified that the intention with the subdivision
regulations are to provide a framework for major subdivisions, specifically in areas that would
not necessarily be serviced by utilities because we don't want to see utilities further extended.
She said that is part of the philosophical basis for this draft. More intense housing construction
and development will absolutely happen but is intended in other areas of the Town.
Ms. Randall shared the Future Land Use map and pointed out some of the major character areas
where other forms of more dense development would be permitted. The Country Club of Ithaca
is an area of concern. We have the TND High Density area with the Maplewood Apartment
developments where 615 units are not developed yet. SouthWorks, which will provide housing
of about 100 units in the City and 130 in the Town is another area, and then there’s the South
Hill TND area. The Town has been active in purchasing open space: the Sage Preserve, Ithaca
College Wetlands and Buttermilk Falls, creating a great opportunity for high-density
development in the South Hill TND area. There are areas on West Hill that are designated for
TND Medium Density.
The Planning, Public Works, and Engineering Departments worked really closely when
developing this Future Land Use map to make sure these lines are kind of hard, almost growth
boundaries in a way, but a bit softer because they are not zoning boundaries, although they do
follow zoning boundaries pretty closely. Ms. Randall said that if Board members are concerned
about how the subdivision regulations will affect those areas slated for development, they
shouldn’t be, because they are already slated for TND. TNDs have their own rules where density
should be maxed out, and so we are thinking about this subdivision regulation as being
complimentary to our efforts towards developing the TNDs.
Mr. Arms stated that he raised this in Committee, but it seems like all major development seem to
come through by Planned Development Zone, presumably because the subdivision rules don’t
allow what they want to do, and passing this legislation will simply push more of them to turn to
PDZ requests to give them flexibility.
PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 7
Ms. Bageant assed that that begs the question if cluster subdivision regulations are needed.
Ms. Randall responded that the cluster subdivision regulations are a guided path for an option
other than special zoning for a PDZ. The intent is to make sure we are aiming the developer
towards the conservation we want to see.
Ms. Bageant suggested this meaty section be put aside and the Board can review the remaining
sections that are somewhat standard. The Board agreed.
F- Housing types, area and dimensional requirements, building heights in cluster subdivisions.
Why are the setbacks being required? To provide a buffer to existing homes that may be next to
a proposed cluster subdivision.
G- Flag lots.
What is the basis for limiting flag lots to two. Staff showed the board an example of a flag lot
subdivision and explained that we want to discourage these because they can cause legal
problems with easements and similar, but on the positive side, they do allow for infill. Some
issues with the example given: all have their own driveways rather than a shared one and four
driveways in a row is not great for sight line visibility; people are upset when development
happens behind them in what was their “backyard”; our Town Code limits them especially in
length to avoid issues of being able to get into your property.
The existing subdivision regulations are silent on flag lots, so we thought there should at least be
some criteria to follow. From a land use perspective and maximizing yield flag lots are not
preferred, and we are trying to develop little neighborhoods, not a string of driveways.
§234-28. Reservation of land for public utilities.
Letter B, related to individual sewage system provisions, is this another reason we are
encouraging or requiring cluster subdivision? Are you trying to steer people where you want
development to go and then steer where cluster subdivision happens? We want people to go
through the process of looking at both conventional and cluster subdivisions to open them to the
alternative to conventional subdivisions and we do not want to extend public water and sewer.
We want to preserve our agricultural lands and needing 2 acres for private septic…before you
know it, that is all you have.
§234-29. Reservations of parks and recreational lands.
The first sentence in A.3. should be moved up to be the first sentence in A.
What is the purpose of the plat notations of reserved park land in conventional subdivision?
Final plat notations make it clear that the land would be unbuildable. The Town does not
necessarily want to take ownership of all designated park land.
PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 8
Discussion followed on the legalities of Town-owned parkland verses non-Town owned but
designated parkland under NYS law and what the Planning Board could require and how.
Discussion around noting a portion as unbuildable by conservation easements, plat notations and
deed restrictions.
The remaining sections in the draft law had some basic discussion but the Board had no
substantive comments.
Do you have what you need to review and list the Board’s discussion? Staff felt they were clear
on the major concerns. Staff will take the Planning Board comments and recommendations and
compile a bulleted list of the concerns raised for the Board to review and provide further
comments at a future meeting.
3. Approval of Minutes - None
4. Other Business – Brief review of upcoming projects.
The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second, unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk