The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-10-26 PAB Final Minutes1 PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD 2 Wednesday, October 26, 2016 3 SCOTT HEYMAN CONFERENCE ROOM 4 125 East Court Street 5 6 MEETING MINUTES 7 Members Attending: 8 Name Representation Martha Robertson P Planning Committee Monika Roth P Agriculture Kathy Schlather P Human Services Rob Steuteville A Built Environment Design Andy Zepp E Land Pres/Public Land Mgmt Dooley Kiefer P Associate Member Others Present Ed Marx P Commissioner of Planning Megan McDonald P Senior Planner Kristin McCarthy P Administrative Assistant 10 11 Call to Order & Changes to the Agenda – Chair David Kay called the meeting to order at 9:07 AM. There 12 were no changes to the agenda. 13 14 Approval of Minutes – Approval of the minutes was delayed as not enough voting members had arrived yet 15 to make a quorum. 16 17 Housing Needs Assessment & Strategy Discussion 18 19 Megan McDonald led a discussion on the Housing Needs Assessment completed by Tompkins County and 20 provided members with a handout summarizing the study’s findings and possible strategies for moving 21 forward. With the Housing Summit coming up in late November, the hope is that the PAB can help identify 22 some possible targets for the Housing Strategy to get feedback on before presenting them to the public. She 23 informed members that the Planning Department has also been having initial discussions with other groups to 24 get their reactions. 25 26 Megan went through housing needs first, directing members to reference the summary table at the top of the 27 handout. In particular she emphasized the county’s existing housing deficit, which presumably may continue 28 to build over the next 10 years when factoring in projected job growth in the area. She added, however, that 29 though some housing units fall short in numbers, there is an excess of other types, so figures may adjust in 30 the future. Proximity to jobs and transportation was also a critical factor among those surveyed and will be 31 an important consideration in deciding where those units are located. 32 33 Megan also pointed out the model is designed so that figures can be added or changed in the spreadsheet as 34 needed. Given the complexity of the Housing Needs Assessment itself, the discussion was also intricate and 35 members touched on various areas of concern. Below are some of the findings Megan and Ed brought to the 36 board’s attention as well as the questions and comments that arose during the members’ conversation: 37 38 •Good response from in-commuters, with more than 50% interested in moving into town if they can39 afford it. However, 90% of those respondents are homeowners and unlikely to move.40 Name Representation Martha Armstrong P Economic Development Todd Bittner E Natural Environment Joe Bowes P Housing Sue Cosentini E Business Fernando de Aragón E Transportation John Gutenberger A Education Dave Herrick P Facilities/Infrastructure Ruth Hopkins E At-Large Rod Howe P Historical/Cultural Resources David Kay P Local Planning (urban) Darby Kiley P Local Planning (non-urban) Gay Nicholson P At-Large •Survey results indicate that walkability is strongly favored by respondents, but new single family 41 homes are being built in areas not conducive to foot traffic.42 43 Lots of demand in Ithaca City for single family homes in the $150,000 - $200,000 price range but no 44 supply. There is also a huge deficit in two-bedroom apartments. 45 46 Have to keep in mind that the risk is higher and the profit/margin lower for developers and 47 banks when they take on low-income housing projects. In addition the cost of building is 48 higher than the price of housing most people can afford to buy. One idea is to target 49 construction cost factors that can be potentially lowered to alleviate some of the financial 50 burden on developers. 51 52 •Kathy: Breaking things down by different groups and numbers makes it more accessible to53 audience. Help people understand what you can realistically get, say, for $200,000-250,000.54 55 •Gay: Explore in-field housing options, such as tiny houses, converted shipping containers, and other56 structures built on existing house plots.57 58 •Martha R.: What’s the cost differential between Ithaca & Cortland housing? Why so much harder59 and expensive to build here? David K: What are the implications of these new numbers policywise?60 Is there a feasibile politically acceptable response? Martha R:. We can’t denigrate big developers.61 County can raise the profile & look at what’s the nature of change our community will accept?62 63 •Dave: Where are the college & university in partnering with community on housing needs? Is there64 any way to get the schools to improve on-campus housing? Cornell plans to add 500 new beds, but it65 wouldn’t be completed until at least six years out. The administration there recognizes the need but66 feels constrained financially. We as a community, however, can encourage them not to increase67 enrollment without also increasing the number of beds needed for the new students.68 69 •Gay: Her sense is that the market will address the needs of students and higher-income70 housing. She would prefer that policymakers focus on growing affordable housing for the71 community’s low-income residents. Ed: Areas such as Dryden, Jacksonville, and Varna72 have the potential to become walkable communities with middle-income housing and access73 to public transport.74 75 •David K. – Access to affordable housing and reliable public transportation need to be a package deal.76 Ed: TCAT needs to commit resources, too.77 78 •Ed: County hopes to continue monitoring supply and demand going forward. There has been some79 pushback from the Landlords Association, with many members worried about vacancy rates.80 81 • – 82 83 •Gay: What does Cornell pay into the Tompkins County Housing Development Fund? Who else pays84 into it? What leverage is there for negotiating with Cornell to pay more? Why doesn’t the Tompkins85 County Department of Social Services inspect housing before awarding vouchers? There is no policy86 in place to force improvements to those properties. Kathy – need push to have minimum standards87 statewide. Martha R – it’s not enough $ for landlords. Ed – HUD vouchers have limits but88 municipalities can increase building codes. Martha – housing funds (Cornell pays in $200,000). Not89 enough applicants for housing fund.90 91 92 93 94 •Ed: The community needs a diversity of housing options. 95 96 •Darby Kiley: Most in-commuters traveling from Seneca County and elsewhere outside Tompkins97 County want to continue to live in rural communities. However, to accommodate an influx of new98 residents, places such as Ulysses will require a huge investment in infrastructure in areas like water99 and sewage.100 101 •Rod Howe: Exciting possibilities exist for new construction in South Hill thanks to new form-based102 zoning; he is still waiting to hear about the East Hill area. He asked Ed if he had thoughts on how103 this area could tie into the Housing Strategy or if it is still too amorphous. According to Ed, they will104 be trying to show the potential for 10-year development in these areas: South Hill, East Hill Plaza,105 and sections of downtown.106 107 108 109 Approval of Minutes 110 111 With a quorum now present, Martha Robertson moved to approve the minutes from the September 28th 112 meeting, and Martha Armstrong seconded the motion. The board approved the minutes unanimously. 113 114 115 Commissioner’s Report – Ed Marx reported the following: 116 . 117 In regards to the Energy Focus Area study, good progress has been made in looking at the capacity to meet 118 gas and electric needs in areas marked for development. Consultant has been able to quantify 10-year 119 demand projections in these targeted areas and has been working with NYSEG engineers on this study. So 120 far they’ve found all the areas have the capacity for gas and electric except the one around the airport, which 121 as was previously known faces gas constraints. Rectifying that deficit should be the focus of their efforts 122 over the next 10 years. 123 124 They’ve received final reports on the NYS Department of Transportation’s willingness to move its site from 125 the waterfront to the airport area. At this point, there is a path but no timeline set for making this happen. 126 However, the new DOT regional director is engaged and willing to work on it. 127 128 Work continues with the towns on the South Hill Recreation Way extension project. An open house is 129 tentatively scheduled for November 15 to update the public on the efforts being made to extend the trail to 130 Brooktondale. 131 132 The Conservation Reserve Funding, which PAB previously approved, was approved by PDEQ, and will go 133 to Legislature at next meeting. The Legislature approved the resolution supporting the Town of Dryden’s 134 application to extend the East Hill Recreation Way trail out toward Route 13 through Varna. 135 136 137 Ed, Martha A., and Katie Borgella went to the Upstate American Planning Association conference in late 138 September, where they presented on the Energy and Economic Development Task Force Energy Roadmap. 139 Ed found of particular interest the discussions he encountered regarding the challenges in urban re-140 development in Rochester and Buffalo. 141 142 Set November/December Meeting Date 143 144 Given the difficulty of reconciling everyone’s schedule toward the end of the year, the members 145 unanimously agreed to hold their last board meeting of 2016 on Wednesday, December 7. 146 147 Announcements 148 149 •Martha R.: More than 150 people have signed up to attend the Housing Summit without any press150 releases or other publicity being used to reach the public. The event is slated to take place at The151 Space @ Greenstar, but organizers are searching for a venue that could accommodate more152 attendees. People can visit HousingTompkins.com to sign up to attend. Certain groups were targeted153 early on.154 155 •Gay: The second “Seal the Cracks” campaign is under way for the Finger Lakes Climate Fund, and156 there is a new mobile-friendly website: www.fingerlakesclimatefund.org.157 158 •Martha A.: The Finger Lakes Regional Prosperity Network, formerly known as the TCAD159 Foundation, rolled out its new name and image with a meeting in Watkins Glen. About 80 people160 from area counties (Tompkins, Chemung, Steuben) gathered to discuss how their organizations could161 collaborate regionally on issues facing their communities. A large portion of their talk focused on the162 proposed incubation/development of a regional food processing hub. Another topic of great concern163 was regional transportation, specifically the lack thereof.164 165 166 167 168 Adjournment 169 170 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. 171 172 173 174