HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2024-10-10 TOWN OF ITHACA
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC)
Meeting of October 10, 2024—5:30 pm
Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall
Minutes
Members present: Rob Rosen, Chair, Chris Jung, Bill Arms, Eva Hoffmann. Eric Levine via Zoom.
Member absent: Susie Gutenberger-Fitzpatrick
Staff Present: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning; David O'Shea, Director of Engineering; Dana Magnuson,
Senior Code Officer; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town;
Chris Balestra, Senior Planner; Nick Quilty-Koval, Planner.
Guests: One student in the audience.
The meeting began at 5:35 p.m.,was recorded on Zoom and streamed live on the Town of Ithaca YouTube
channel.
1. Member comments/concerns. None
2. Review minutes from September 12, 2024, COC meeting. Rob moved to accept the minutes; Bill
seconded, and Eva offered a minor change in addition to two minor changes submitted by Susan Brock.
All members voted in favor of approval of the September 12, 2024, COC meeting minutes as amended.
3. Continued review of initial Draft Subdivision of Land regulations: Planner Nick Quilty-Koval began
with an additional graphic presentation of the same three sites that were previously shown to the
committee. The previous presentation applied the proposed clustered provisions and focused on
preserving more of the natural features than the proposed regulations required, leaving housing layouts
to be dense in focused areas on smaller lots.
At the request of the committee,Nick gave a new presentation that showed each site using the minimum
proposed clustered preservation requirements. For comparison, the resource analysis and dwelling unit
breakdowns were shown for each site along with the progression of each of the three versions shown to
the COC to date. C.J. noted that the Planning Board had the authority to review and determine that the
plans meet the overall preservation goals. Since each site in the town is unique and has individual
constraints, the Planning Board has the authority to issue waivers to individual aspects of the clustered
provisions. Nick and Rob both noted that these illustrations were done without professional surveyor
work, and it is likely that the preservation goals could be met on all of the sites if a developer invested in
the time.
Chris B commented that, based on the different versions shown and the proposed regulations, the overall
takeaway is that cluster subdivision is a good development tool. There can be a significant amount of
density while preserving a significant amount of environmentally sensitive land. Rob summarized that
there appears to be a 60%build to 40%preserve overall requirement and it seemed achievable by the
visual representations provided by staff. Eva commented about the uniqueness of Ithaca, developing in
the way that the cluster subdivision proposes. She cautioned, however, that it is best to have clear
regulations to follow without having to change or flex based on the rules. Bill's concern was the
1
Planning Board being presented with a plan that does not fit with the regulations and being tasked to
determine each situation differently, which could be a deterrent to developers. C.J. explained that the
Planning Board could waive requirements, depending on each situation. Chris J commented that the
proposed regulations are helpful in providing different types of housing, providing affordable housing,
and saving on infrastructure and construction costs.
The committee went back to review the proposed revised Subdivision Regulations, beginning with
Section G: Conservation Standards. Susan highlighted her previous note/comment to revise the law to
list the standards the Planning Board should apply to determine if the applicable conservation goals are
met. This will give the Planning Board directions to follow. Marty concurred that this would help the
board making findings for a waiver. Committee members were in favor of this list, so staff will revise
the law accordingly.
Marty asked about Section G(3)(d) "required conservation buffers,"referencing the "suitable buffer"
requirement. The proposed law states that a buffer should be provided where a conservation subdivision
abuts an existing residence in a residentially zoned area, and it states that the buffer should be at least the
same distance as the rear or side yard setback. Marty noted that those setback numbers are often
different, and the proposed law does not specify which should apply. This should be revised.
Related to specific environmental resource issues, Eva asked if the stream setback law should be
reviewed relative to climate change, suggesting greater setbacks if there is a greater chance of the water
rising above a certain level. Staff explained that the stream setback law requires measurements to be
from the top of the streambank and not the center of the stream, so this will apply with higher water
levels in the future. C.J. mentioned that there are the NYS Wetland regulation changes coming, and the
town will be looking at its own regulations. The town can also review the stream setback regulations at
the same time.
The committee left off on page 21 of the paper copy of the law, Section H. Conservation subdivision
design steps and review procedures. C.J. noted there is some redundancy in the language that will be
removed. A note from previous review mentioned the 6 steps, especially 1 (c) which needs to be written
more clearly as well. There was discussion of roads being essentially their own parcel and part of the
common/open space and not including them into the buildable calculation. Private road ownership
versus town ownership was discussed as well. The committee will pick back up with this section,
page 21,line 820, next month.
Bill noted that the original online version page/line numbers of the proposed regulations do not quite
line up with the paper version anymore with the changes added to date. He wondered if it would be
worth it to re-print copies for the committee. Staff stated that there is the ability to download and print
from the online version, but it might be least complicated to have only one printed version for now. Staff
will direct the committee to the pertinent pages and lines. Then, when the committee is done reviewing
the initial (current) draft, staff will update everything and provide the COC with a revised draft version
from which to work.
Other business: Next meeting - November 14, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. Agenda- Continued review of the draft
subdivision regulations.
The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m.
2