HomeMy WebLinkAboutComprehensive-Plan-Review-Summary
1
Comprehensive Plan Review 1
2
Periodic review of a Comprehensive Plan is required by Chapter 64 § 7-722.10 of New York State 3
Village Law. 4
5
The Village’s current Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board of Trustees in 2014, recommends 6
(page 62) that the Plan should be reviewed and updated as needed in ten years to ensure that the 7
Plan still reflects the Village’s needs and that it facilitates the continued provision of services to 8
Village residents. 9
10
At its April 19, 2023, the Village’s Board of Trustees passed a resolution meeting requesting that 11
the Village’s Planning Board review the 2014 Comprehensive Plan and, based on that review, 12
recommend whether the Plan should be revised. 13
14
Over the past twelve months, the Planning Board has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan. In 15
conducting its review, the Board focused on the seven sections contained in Part 2 of the Plan, 16
Goals and Objectives (page 45). Those sections are titled Quality of Life, Community Character, 17
Ecology and Scenic Assets, Economy, Housing, Transportation, Public Services and Utilities. The 18
Board reviewed these sections, evaluated whether the Goals and Objectives had been met and, for 19
those that had not been met, whether they required revision. 20
21
Following is a brief summation of Planning Board findings regarding the Goals and Objectives of 22
the 2014 Comprehensive Plan: 23
24
The “Quality of Life” section focuses too much on looking backward rather than looking forward. 25
Although the Olmstedian vision of the Village as a residential park contributes significantly to its 26
sense of place and it is important to preserve its residential character moving forward, priorities 27
and the times have changed. Since the Plan was adopted in 2014, environmental sustainability 28
and climate change have become much more significant concerns and a revision of the 29
Comprehensive Plan is required to better reflect them. 30
31
The “Community Character” section in many ways echoes the “Quality of Life” section. The two 32
sections should be combined. 33
34
Many of the Goals and Objectives recommendations contained in the “Ecology and Scenic Assets” 35
section have been accomplished and, where they have not, the priorities articulated continue to be 36
relevant. Thought should now be given to modifying the recommendations associated with those 37
Goals and Objectives. For example, if reducing stormwater runoff remains a priority, then the 38
Comprehensive Plan could recommend regulation of impervious surface as a means to limiting 39
runoff. Similarly, improved signage for recreational amenities such as the trails at Kendal and 40
Palmer Woods could promote and encourage their usage and accessibility. 41
42
The “Economy” section focuses on the Community Corners area and in particular prioritizing its 43
re-vitalization. There has been considerable development in the Village’s Commercial Zone since 44
2
2014, but the scale of that development was not fully anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and 45
the proposed redevelopment of the former Ithaca Country Club presents additional challenges. 46
Because few vacant lots exist in the Village, the Commercial Zone is the area in the Village most 47
susceptible to redevelopment. Revision of this section is therefore warranted to articulate the type 48
and scale of future growth that the Village wishes to occur in the Community Corners area. 49
50
The “Housing” section builds on the Village’s residential character referenced in the “Quality of 51
Life” section. While the Village should continue to be a quality residential community, there is a 52
need to offer increased housing options and to provide additional housing units in response to the 53
current housing crisis. This is no simple task since the Village is nearly “built out” with few vacant 54
residential lots. Therefore, facilitating more diversity of housing types should be reflected in the 55
Comprehensive Plan and the Plan should be revised with stronger language encouraging 56
additional housing options, including more affordable ones. 57
58
The “Transportation” section’s Goal of reducing vehicular traffic, diversifying transportation 59
infrastructure, and creating a more walkable community still applies and does not need updating. 60
However, many Objectives in the section have yet to be achieved. Consideration should be given 61
to revising the strategies recommended and/or implementing new ones. For example, retrofitting 62
The Parkway into a bike boulevard similar to Tioga Street in the City of Ithaca is an idea that was 63
not included in the Comprehensive Plan but should be discussed as one possible step in reducing 64
reliance on automobiles and creating a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly community. 65
66
The “Public Services and Utilities” section is similar to “Transportation” in that its’ Goal of 67
maintain and improving Village services and infrastructure remains relevant as does the section’s 68
emphasis on environmental sustainability. However, since 2014, circumstances associated with 69
some Objectives and recommendations have changed. In particular, several metrics related to 70
sustainability are no longer current and should be updated. 71
72
After conducting its review and based upon its findings, the Planning Board has decided to 73
recommend to the Board of Trustees that the Comprehensive Plan, whether due to changes in the 74
Village’s needs and priorities or the fact that many of its Goals and Objectives have been met, 75
should be revised. 76
77
The Planning Board has also found that the Comprehensive Plan contains Goals and Objectives 78
that remain relevant but which for whatever reason were not implemented. It recommends that a 79
revision of the Plan should consider the factors that may have impeded implementation and revise 80
the Plan accordingly. 81
82
83
84