HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-13 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: May 8th, 2013
TIME: 6pm
LOCATION: 3rd floor
City Hall Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s) Time
Start
Call to Order/Agenda Review
1. Special Order of Business
a. Public Hearing – Addition of Green Space
Definition in City Code
b. Public Hearing – Revision of Building
Height in City Code
c. Public Hearing – Collegetown Area Form
Districts
d. Public Hearing – Revisions to Rental
Housing Ordinance
e. Public Hearing – IURA Action Plan
2. Public Comment and Response from Committee
Members
3. Announcements, Updates, and Reports
4. Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a. Downtown Zoning Changes
b. Addition of Green Space Definition in City
Code
c. Revision of Building Height in City Code
d. Revisions to Rental Housing Ordinance
e. IURA Action Plan
5. Discussion
a. Collegetown Area Form Districts
b. Revisions to Noise Ordinance
6. Review and Approval of Minutes
a. February 2012 and December 2012
7. Adjournment
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Chair, Seph Murtagh
*Note on public comment: We will review
the number of cards received at the
beginning of each meeting and adjust time
if needed.
JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director
Jennifer Kusznir, Planning Staff
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
Graham Kerslick, Common Council
Sue Kittel, IURA Staff
All
All
6:00
6:05
6:30
6:50
7:00
7:20
7:30
7:40
8:00
8:10
8:45
9:00
9:05
Committee Charge: Review issues pertaining to planning, housing, land use, zoning, historic preservation, neighborhood
initiatives, building codes and processes, and economic development.
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at
274-6570 by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 7, 2013.
To: Svante Myrick, Mayor Ray Benjamin, Acting Superintendent of Public Works
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
Common Council Conservation Advisory Council
Julie Holcomb, City Clerk Planning & Development Board
Aaron Lavine, City Attorney Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Acting Building Commissioner
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Building, and Economic Development
Edward Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning
From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
Date: May 2, 2013
RE: Proposal to Amend Downtown Zoning Districts
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding a proposal to rezone portions of the Central Business
District (CBD). Proposed revisions to the CBD zoning districts were previously circulated in March 2013; however,
the proposal has been changed in response to comments that were received. Enclosed for your consideration is a
map showing the proposed boundaries for the revisions to the CBD Zoning Districts.
When proposed revisions to the CBD were last circulated, concerns were raised over certain areas being considered.
These areas have been re-evaluated and the following changes have been made to the previous proposal (all changes
that have been made since the previous circulation are highlighted and underlined):
• Parcel 69.-4-1, which is b ounded by East State/MLK, Jr. Street, which is currently zoned CBD-60, is now
proposed to be changed to CBD-120, rather than the previously proposed CBD-140. This has been changed
in order to create a more gradual transition from the proposed CBD-140 along Green Street to the CBD-100
located along Seneca Way.
• Parcels 71.-5-23, 71.-5-24, 71.-6-13, and 71.-6-14, and a portion of 71.-6-15 and a portion of 71.-5-22, have been
removed from the area proposed for CBD-60 and are now proposed to be rezoned from B-2c to B-2d. Upon
closer evaluation of this area, it has been determined that the strong residential neighborhood that exists in
this location acts as a gateway to the Plain Street neighborhood and should be protected.
• Transition Zones have been eliminated in CBD zones. The proposal to eliminate transitional zones citywide
was determined to require further study. However, in the CBD zones, the zoning lines have been drawn in
order to accommodate appropriate transitional areas and therefore the transitional regulations are not
appropriate in this location.
• Off-street loading zone requirements have been eliminated in the CBD zoning districts. The high cost of real
estate in the Central Business District, the scarcity of developable land, and the availability of on-street
loading areas, make off-street loading requirements unnecessary in the CBD Zoning Districts.
A revised environmental review of this action has been completed and the draft full environmental review form is
enclosed, along with the draft ordinances. A public hearing for this action will be held on June 5th, 2013. Your
comments are respectfully requested by May 29th, 2013. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
274-6410.
Item # 4 a
It
e
m
#
4
a
Page 2
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FEAF)
PART 1 — PROJECT INFORMATION
NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a
significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these
questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification
and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) will be dependent on
information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information
requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance.
Name of Action: Establishment of CBD-50 Zoning District and rezoning of portions of the CBD Zoning
Districts, the removal of transition zone regulations, and the removal of loading zone requirements for the
CBD Zoning Districts.
Location of Action: City of Ithaca
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: City of Ithaca
Address: 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
City/Town/Village: Ithaca State: NY ZIP: 14850
Business Phone: 607-274-6550
Name of Owner (if different):
Address:
City/Town/Village: State: ZIP:
Business Phone:
Description of Action: Establishment of CBD-50 Zoning District; rezoning portions of B-2c Zoning District
to CBD-60; rezoning portions of CBD-60 Zoning District to CBD-85; rezoning portions of CBD-60 Zoning
District to CBD-120; rezoning of portions of CBD-60 Zoning District to CBD-140; rezoning of portions of
CBD-60 Zoning District to CBD-100; rezoning portions of CBD-85 Zoning District to CBD-60; rezoning of
B-2c Zoning District to B-2d; and rezoning portions of B-1b, B-1a, and P-1 Zoning Districts to newly
established CBD-50 Zoning District; and removal of transitional zoning requirements and loading zone
requirements in any CBD Zoning District.
Item # 4 a
Page 3
Please Complete Each Question ― Indicate N/A if not applicable:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
(Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas.)
1. Present Land Use: Urban Industrial Commercial Public Forest
Agricultural Other: ________
2. Total area of project area: ~27 Acres square feet (chosen units also apply to following section)
Approximate Area (units in Question 2 apply to this section) Currently After Completion
2a. Meadow or Brushland (non-agricultural)
2b. Forested
2c. Agricultural
2d. Wetland [as per Articles 24 of Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)]
2e. Water Surface Area
2f. Public
2g. Water Surface Area
2h. Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill)
2i. Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 27 27
2j. Other (indicate type)
3a. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site (e.g., HdB, silty loam, etc.): Howard Chenango/Urban Fill
3b. Soil Drainage: N/A Well-Drained, ______% of Site
Moderately Well-Drained, ______% of Site
Poorly Drained, ______% of Site
4a. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Yes No N/A
4b. What is depth of bedrock? N/A (feet)
4c. What is depth to the water table? N/A (feet)
5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site
with slopes:
0-10% 100 % 10-15% %
15% or greater %
6a. Is project substantially contiguous to, or does it
contain a building, site or district, listed on or
eligible for the National or State Register of
Historic Places?
Yes No N/A If yes, identify:
• Commons National District
• Dewitt Local & National District
6b. Or designated a local landmark or in a local
landmark district?
Yes No N/A
7. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently
exist in the project area? Yes No N/A If yes, identify each species:
Item # 4 a
Page 4
A. SITE DESCRIPTION (concluded)
8. Does project site contain any species of plant or
animal life that is identified as threatened or
endangered?
Yes No N/A
According to:
Identify each species:
9. Are there any unique or unusual landforms on the
project site? (i.e., cliffs, other geological
formations)
Yes No N/A
If yes, describe:
10. Is the project site presently used by the
community or neighborhood as an open space or
recreation area?
Yes No N/A
If yes, explain:
11. Does the present site offer or include scenic views
known to be important to the community? Yes No N/A
If yes, describe:
12. Is project within or contiguous to a site
designated a Unique Natural Area (UNA) or
critical environmental area by a local or state
agency?
Yes No N/A
If yes, describe:
13. Streams within or contiguous to project area:
N/A
a. Names of stream or name of river to which it is a
tributary: N/A
14. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous
to project area: N/A
a. Name:
b. Size (in acres):
15. Has the site been used for land disposal of solid
or hazardous wastes? Yes No N/A
Describe:
16. Is the site served by existing public utilities?
a. If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow
connection?
b. If Yes, will improvements be necessary to
allow connection?
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
Yes No N/A
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
1a. Total contiguous area owned by project sponsor in acres: 27
1b. Project acreage developed: 27 acres initially 27 acres ultimately
1c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: N/A
1d. Length of project in miles: (if appropriate) N/A or feet: N/A
1e. If project is an expansion, indicate percent of change proposed: N/A
1f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing: N/A proposed: N/A
Item # 4 a
Page 5
1g. Maximum vehicular trips generated (upon completion of project) per day: N/A and per hour: N/A
1h. Height of tallest proposed structure: N/A feet. No structures are proposed; proposed amendment
could allow for construction of structures up to 140’ in height, in some sections of CBD districts.
1j. Linear feet of frontage along a public street or thoroughfare that the project will occupy? N/A
2. Specify what type of natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) and how much will be removed from the site:
N/A or added to the site: N/A
3. Specify what type of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) and how much will be removed from the site:
acres: N/A type of vegetation: N/A
4. Will any mature trees or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? N/A
5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? N/A
6. If single phase project, anticipated period of construction: N/A months (including demolition)
7. If multi-phased project, anticipated period of construction: N/A months (including demolition)
7a. Total number of phases anticipated: N/A
7b. Anticipated date of commencement for first phase: N/A month N/A year (including demolition)
7c. Approximate completion date of final phase: N/A month N/A year
7d. Is phase one financially dependent on subsequent phases? Yes No N/A
8. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes No N/A; if yes, explain:
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction: 0 after project is completed: 0
10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project: 0 Explain:
11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes No N/A; if yes, explain:
12a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes No N/A; if yes, explain:
12b. If #12a is yes, indicate type of waste (e.g., sewage, industrial, etc): N/A
12c. If surface disposal, where specifically will effluent be discharged? N/A
13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, or other surface waterways be increased or decreased
by proposal? Yes No N/A; if yes, explain:
14a. Will project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to the 100 year flood
plain? Yes No N/A
14b. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to: Cayuga Inlet
Fall Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Cayuga Lake, Six Mile Creek, Silver Creek? (Circle all that apply.) N/A
14c. Does project or any portion of project occur wholly or partially within or contiguous to wetlands as
described in Article 24 Of the ECL? Yes No N/A
14d. If #14a, b, or c is yes, explain: N/A
15a. Does project involve disposal or solid waste? Yes No N/A
15b. If #15a is yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No N/A
15c. If #15b is yes, give name of disposal facility: N/A and its location: N/A
15d. Will there be any wastes that will not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
Yes No N/A; if yes, explain:
Item # 4 a
Page 6
15e. Will any solid waste be disposed of on site? Yes No N/A; if yes, explain:
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No N/A; if yes, specify:
17. Will project affect a building or site listed on or eligible for the National or State Register of Historic
Places or a local landmark or in a landmark district? Yes No N/A; if yes, explain: Some
areas being rezoned are located within the Dewitt nationally and locally designated historic district
and the Commons nationally designated district. The proposal carefully attempts to avoid
impacting nearby historically significant properties.
18. Will project produce odors? Yes No N/A; if yes, explain:
19. Will project product operating noise exceed the local ambient noise level during construction? Yes
No N/A; After construction? Yes No N/A
20. Will project result in an increase of energy use? Yes No N/A; if yes, indicate type(s): N/A
21. Total anticipated water usage per day: gals/day: N/A Source of water: N/A
C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION
1. Does the proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Yes No N/A; if yes, indicate
the decision required:
Zoning Amendment Zoning Variance New/revision of master plan Subdivision
Site Plan Special Use Permit Resource Management Plan Other:
2. What is the current zoning classification of site? R-3a & R-3b
3. If the site is developed as permitted by the present zoning, what is the maximum potential development?
• Currently, there are approximately 2.3 acres zoned CBD-85 that are located in the proposed areas to be
re-zoned. CBD-85 allows for 100% lot coverage and 85’ building height. For these areas,the maximum
potential buildout is 801,504 sf of space. This assumes a maximum of 8 stories. The maximum buildout
calculation does not take into consideration requirements for a 10-foot rear yard setback.
• Currently, there area approximately 4.3 acres zoned CBD-60 that are located in the proposed areas to be
re-zoned. CBD-60 allows for 100% lot coverage and 60’ building height. For these areas. the maximum
potential buildout is 950,000 sf of space. This assumes a maximum of 5stories. The maximum buildout
calculation does not take into consideration requirements for a 10-foot rear yard setback.
• Currently, there area approximately 17 acres zoned B-2c that are located in the proposed areas to be re-
zoned. B-2c allows for 85% lot coverage and 50’ building height. For these areas, the maximum
potential buildout is 2.5 million sf of space. This assumes a maximum of 4 stories. The maximum
buildout calculation does not take into consideration requirements for a 10-foot side yard setback and a
20’ rear yard setback.
• Currently, there area approximately 0.5acres zoned B-1b that are located in the proposed areas to be re-
zoned. B-1b allows for 90% lot coverage and 50’ building height. For these areas, the maximum
potential buildout is 86,000 sf of space. This assumes a maximum of 4 stories. The maximum buildout
calculation does not take into consideration requirements for a 10-foot rear yard setback.
• Currently, there area approximately 1.38 acres zoned B-1a that are located in the proposed areas to be re-
zoned. B-1a allows for 50% lot coverage and 40’ building height. For these areas, the maximum
potential build out is 90,000 sf of space. This assumes a maximum of 3 stories. The maximum buildout
calculation does not take into consideration requirements for a 5-foot front yard setback, sideyard
setbacks of 10’ and 5’, and a 20-foot rear yard setback.
Item # 4 a
Page 7
• Currently, there area approximately 0.5 acres zoned P-1 that are located in the proposed areas to be re-
zoned. P-1 allows for 35% lot coverage and no maximum building height. For these areas, the
maximum potential buildout footprint is 7,500 sf. The maximum buildout calculation does not take into
consideration requirements for a 25-foot front yard setback, sideyard setbacks of 10’, and a 10-foot rear
yard setback.
Zoning
Districts
Square
footage of
District to be
Rezoned
Acres of
District to be
Rezoned
Maximum
Allowable
Height
%lot
coverage stories
Maximum
Potential
Square
Footage
CBD-85 100188 2.3 85 100% 8 801,504
CBD-60 188130 4.318871 60 100% 5 940,650
B-2c 748,377.00 17.18 50 85% 4 2,544,481
B-1b 24000 0.55 50 90% 4 86,400.00
B-1a 60000 1.38 40 50% 3 90,000.00
P-1 21500 0.49 - 35% 1 7,525.00 *
Maximum Buildout Potential 4,463,035
*Since there is no maximum height in the P-1 district, this is the maximum building footprint.
4. Is proposed use consistent with present zoning? Yes No N/A
5. If #4 is no, indicate desired zoning:
from B-2c to CBD-60: 71.-1-11, 71.-1-12, 71.-1-13, 71.-1-14, 71.-1-15,
71.-1-16, 71.-1-17, 71.-1-18, 71.-1-19.1, 71.-1-19.2, 71.-1-19.2, 71.-1-
22, 71.-1-3, 71.-1-4, 71.-1-5, 71.-1-7, 71.-1-8, 71.-1-9, 71.-2-12, 71.-2-
14, 71.-2-15, 71.-2-18, 71.-2-19, 71.-2-2.1, 71.-2-20, 71.-2-3, 71.-2-4,
71.-2-5, 71.-3-3, 71.-3-4, 71.-3-5, 71.-3-6, 71.-3-7, 71.-4-1.1, 71.-4-
1.2, 71.-4-10, 71.-4-11, 71.-4-6, 71.-5-1, 71.-5-10, 71.-5-11, 71.-5-12,
71.-5-13, 71.-5-17.2, 71.-5-18, 71.-5-19, 71.-5-2, 71.-5-20, 71.-5-23,
71.-5-24, 71.-5-4, 71.-5-5, 71.-5-7, 71.-5-8, 71.-5-9, 71.-6-1, 71.-6-10,
71.-6-11, 71.-6-12, 71.-6-13, 71.-6-14, 71.-6-17, 71.-6-18, 71.-6-19, 71.-
6-20, 71.-6-21, 71.-6-22, 71.-6-23, 71.-6-24, 71.-6-26, 71.-6-5, 71.-6-6,
71.-6-7, 71.-6-8, 71.-6-9, 71.-6-9, 72.-3-10, 72.-3-12, 72.-3-14, 72.-3-
15, 72.-3-16, 72.-3-17, 72.-3-18.1, 72.-3-18.2, 72.-3-19, 72.-3-2, 72.-3-
20, 72.-3-23.2, 72.-3-24, 72.-3-26, 72.-3-3, 72.-3-6, 72.-3-7, 72.-3-8,
72.-4-10, 72.-4-13, 72.-4-14, 72.-4-3, 72.-4-4, 72.-4-5, and 72.-4-9;
from B-2c to B-2d 71.-5-23, 71.-5-24, 71.-6-13, and 71.-6-14, and a
portion of 71.-6-15 and a portion of 71.-5-22.
from CBD-60 to CBD -85:70.-6-1.1, 70.-6-14, 70.-6-15, 70.-6-17, 70.-6-18,
70.-6-19, and 70.-6-20, 70.-6-21;
from CBD-60 to CBD -140: 69.-4-1, 70.-5-3, 70.-5-4, 70.-5-5, 70.-5-7, 70.-
5-8, 70.-5-9, 70.-4-4.1, 70.-4-4.2, 70.-4-4.3, 70.-4-4.4, 70.-4-5.1, 70.-
4-5.2, and 70.-5-10;
from CBD-60 to CBD -100: 69.-1-1, 69.-1-11, 69.-1-14, 69.-1-3, 69.-1-4,
69.-1-6.2, 69.-1-7, and 69.-1-8;
Item # 4 a
Page 8
from CBD-85 to CBD -60: 70.-3-15.
from B-1b, B-1a, and P-1 to CBD-50: 61.-2-10.2, 61.-2-6, 61.-2-8, 61.-1-16, 61.-1-3, and 61.-
1-4.
6. If the site is developed by the proposed zoning, what is the maximum potential development of the site?
All properties in the CBD district have a 100% allowable lot coverage, except as required for rear yard
setback requirements.
• For those properties proposed to be rezoned to CBD-60, the maximum allowable height of any new
construction will be 60 feet with 100% lot coverage.
• For those properties proposed to be rezoned to CBD-50, the maximum allowable height of any new
construction will be 50 feet with 100% lot coverage.
• For those properties proposed to be rezoned to CBD-85, the maximum allowable height of any new
construction will be 85 feet with 100% lot coverage.
• For those properties proposed to be rezoned to CBD-100, the maximum allowable height of any new
construction will be 100 feet with 100% lot coverage.
• For those properties proposed to be rezoned to CBD-140, the maximum allowable height of any new
construction will be 140 feet with 100% lot coverage.
• For those properties proposed to be rezoned to B-2d, the maximum allowable height of any new
construction will be 40 feet with 75% lot coverage.
Proposed
Zoning
District
Square
footage of
District to be
Rezoned
Acres of
District to be
Rezoned
Maximum
Allowable
Height
%lot
coverage stories
Maximum Potential
Square Footage
CBD-50 106100 2 50 100% 4 424,400.00
CBD-60 592416 13.6 60 100% 5 2,962,080.00
CBD-85 46,460.00 1 85 100% 8 371,680.00
CBD-100 46670 1 100 100% 9 420,030.00
CBD-140 187240 4 140 100% 12 2,246,880.00
B-2d 17424 0.4 40 75% 3 39,204.00
Maximum Buildout Potential 6,464,274.00
7. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land-use plans?
Yes No N/A; If no, explain:
8. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a ¼-mile radius of the project?
(e.g. R-1a or R-1b) B-1a, B-1b, B-2a, B-2c, B-2d, B-4, CBD-100, CBD-120, CBD-60, CBD-85, C-SU,
P-1, R-1a, R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3aa, R-3b, SW-2, WEDZ-1b, WF-1, & WF-2
9. Is the proposed action compatible with adjacent land uses? Yes No N/A Explain:
10a. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A
10b. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/A
11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community-provided services? (e.g., recreation,
education, police, fire protection, etc.)? Yes No N/A Explain:
If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Yes No N/A
Item # 4 a
It
e
m
#
4
a
Page 10
City of Ithaca Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)
PART 2 – PROJECT IMPACTS & THEIR MAGNITUDES
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will there be an effect as a result of a physical change to project
site? Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100
foot of length), or where the general slope in the project exceeds
10%.
Yes No
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3
feet. Yes No
Construction of parking facility/area for 50 or more vehicles. Yes No
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3
feet of existing ground surface. Yes No
Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more
than one phase or stage. Yes No
Evacuation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000
tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Yes No
Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Yes No
Construction in a designated floodway. Yes No
Other impacts: existing development is in the 500 year flood plain Yes No
2. Will there be an effect on any unique landforms found on the site?
(i.e., cliffs, gorges, geological formations, etc.)
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Specific land forms: Yes No
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will project affect any water body designated as protected? (Under
article 15 or 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.)
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Developable area of site contains a protected water body Yes No
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a
protected stream. Yes No
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water
body. Yes No
Construction in a designated freshwater wetland. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
4. Will project affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water Yes No
Item # 4 a
Page 11
or more than a 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area.
Construction, alteration, or conversion of a body of water that
exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of surface area. Yes No
Fall Creek, Six Mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, Silver Creek, Cayuga
Lake, or the Cayuga Inlet? Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
5. Will project affect surface or groundwater quality?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Project will require a discharge permit. Yes No
Project requires use of a source of water that does not have approval
to serve proposed project. Yes No
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public
water supply system. Yes No
Project will adversely affect groundwater. Yes No
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which
presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity.
Yes No
Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000
gallons per day or 500 gallons per minute.
Yes No
Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing
body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual
contrast to natural conditions.
Yes No
Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical
products greater than 1,100 gallons.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
6. Will project alter drainage flow, drainage patterns or surface
water runoff?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Project would impede floodwater flows. Yes No
Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Yes No
Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will project affect air quality?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Project will induce 500 or more vehicle trips in any 8-hour period
per day. Yes No
Project will result in the incineration of more than 2.5 tons of refuse
per 24-hour day. Yes No
Item # 4 a
Page 12
Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs per hour
or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACTS ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will project affect any threatened or endangered
species?
Yes No
Small to Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Reduction of any species listed on the New York or
Federal list, using the site, found over, on, or near site. Yes No
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant
wildlife habitat. Yes No
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a
year other than for agricultural purposes. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-
threatened or non-endangered species?
Yes No
Small to Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Yes No
Proposed action requires the removal or more than 1/2
acre of mature woods or other locally important
vegetation.
Yes No
Other impacts: X Yes No
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE – See Part III
10. Will the proposed action affect views, vistas or the
visual character of the neighborhood or community?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Proposed land uses, or proposed action components
obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or
natural.
Yes No
Proposed land use, or proposed action components
visible to users of aesthetic resources which will
eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of
aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Yes No
Proposed action will result in the elimination or major
screening of scenic views known to be important to the
area.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON HISTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ― See Part III
Item # 4 a
Page 13
11. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of
historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or
contiguous to any facility or site listed on or eligible for
the National or State Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed
located within the project site. Yes No
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or
contiguous to any site designated as a local landmark or
in a landmark district.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
12. Will the proposed action affect the quantity or
quality of existing or future open spaces or recreationa
opportunities?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational
opportunity. Yes No
A major reduction of an open space important to the
community. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
13. Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a site designated as a unique
natural area (UNA) or a critical environmental area (CEA) by a local or state agency? Yes No
Proposed Action to locate within a UNA or CEA? Yes No
Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource Yes No
Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
14. Will there be an effect to existing
transportation systems? Small to moderate
X Yes x No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by Project
Change?
Alteration of present patterns of movement of
people and/or goods. Yes No
Proposed action will result in major traffic
problems. Yes No
Other impacts: See Part III Yes No
Item # 4 a
Page 14
IMPACT ON ENERGY
15. Will proposed action affect the community's
sources of fuel or energy supply?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large Impact
Can Impact be
Reduced by
Project Change?
Proposed action causing greater than 5% increase
in any form of energy used in municipality. Yes No
Proposed action requiring the creation or
extension of an energy transmission or supply
system to serve more than 50 single or two
family residences.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON NOISE AND ODORS
16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise,
glare, vibration or electrical disturbance during
construction of or after completion of this
proposed action?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be Reduced
by Project Change?
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school,
or other sensitive facility? Yes No
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour
per day) Yes No
Proposed action will produce operating noise
exceeding the local ambient noise levels for
noise outside of structure.
Yes No
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that
would act as a noise screen. Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety?
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential
Large Impact
Can Impact be Reduced by
Project Change?
Proposed action will cause a risk of explosion or release of
hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals,
radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions,
or there will be a chronic low-level discharge or emission.
Yes No
Proposed action may result in the burial of “hazardous
wastes” in any form (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
Yes No
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other
disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal
of solid or hazardous wastes.
Yes No
Item # 4 a
Page 15
Proposed action will result in the handling or disposal or
hazardous wastes (i.e., toxic, poisonous, highly reactive,
radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that
are solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gases).
Yes No
Storage facilities for 50,000 or more gallons of any liquid
fuel. Yes No
Use of any chemical for de-icing, soil stabilization or the
control of vegetation, insects or animal life on the premises
of any residential, commercial or industrial property in
excess of 30,000 square feet.
Yes No
Other impacts: Yes No
IMPACT GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
18. Will proposed action affect the character
of the existing community?
See Part III Yes No
Small to
Moderate Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be Reduced by
Project Change?
The population of the City in which the
proposed action is located is likely to grow by
more than 5% of resident human population.
Yes No
The municipal budgets for capital
expenditures or operating services will
increase by more than 5% per year as a result
of this proposed action.
Yes No
Proposed action will conflict with officially
adopted plans or goals: Yes No
Proposed action will cause a change in the
density of land use. Yes No
The proposed action will replace or eliminate
existing facilities, structures, or areas of
historic importance to the community.
Yes No
Development will create a demand for
additional community services (e.g. schools,
police, and fire, etc.
Yes No
Proposed action will set an important
precedent for future actions. Yes No
Proposed action will relocate 15 or more
employees in one or more businesses. Yes No
Other impacts: See Part III. Yes No
19. Is there public controversy concerning the
proposed action? TBD― See Part III
Yes No
Small to
Moderate
Impact
Potential Large
Impact
Can Impact be Reduced by
Project Change?
Item # 4 a
Page 16
Either government or citizens of adjacent
communities have expressed opposition or
rejected the proposed action or have not been
contacted.
Yes No
Objections to the proposed action from within
the community. Yes No
If any action in Part II is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the
magnitude of impact, proceed to Part III.
Item # 4 a
Page 17
City of Ithaca
Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) — Part III
Proposed Rezoning of Portions of CBD Zoning District
May 2, 2013
PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the rezoning of certain areas of the CBD district in order to support and encourage
dense urban development in the core of downtown, as is expressed in the Downtown Ithaca Alliance’s
Downtown Ithaca 2020 Strategic Plan, which was endorsed by the Common Council. Specifically, this
action includes the following changes to the CBD district: Rezoning from B-2c to CBD-60: 71.-1-11, 71.-
1-12, 71.-1-13, 71.-1-14, 71.-1-15, 71.-1-16, 71.-1-17, 71.-1-18, 71.-1-19.1, 71.-1-19.2, 71.-1-19.2, 71.-1-22,
71.-1-3, 71.-1-4, 71.-1-5, 71.-1-7, 71.-1-8, 71.-1-9, 71.-2-12, 71.-2-14, 71.-2-15, 71.-2-18, 71.-2-19, 71.-2-2.1,
71.-2-20, 71.-2-3, 71.-2-4, 71.-2-5, 71.-3-3, 71.-3-4, 71.-3-5, 71.-3-6, 71.-3-7, 71.-4-1.1, 71.-4-1.2, 71.-4-10,
71.-4-11, 71.-4-6, 71.-5-1, 71.-5-10, 71.-5-11, 71.-5-12, 71.-5-13, 71.-5-17.2, 71.-5-18, 71.-5-19, 71.-5-2, 71.-
5-20, 71.-5-23, 71.-5-24, 71.-5-4, 71.-5-5, 71.-5-7, 71.-5-8, 71.-5-9, 71.-6-1, 71.-6-10, 71.-6-11, 71.-6-12, 71.-
6-13, 71.-6-14, 71.-6-17, 71.-6-18, 71.-6-19, 71.-6-20, 71.-6-21, 71.-6-22, 71.-6-23, 71.-6-24, 71.-6-26, 71.-6-
5, 71.-6-6, 71.-6-7, 71.-6-8, 71.-6-9, 71.-6-9, 72.-3-10, 72.-3-12, 72.-3-14, 72.-3-15, 72.-3-16, 72.-3-17, 72.-3-
18.1, 72.-3-18.2, 72.-3-19, 72.-3-2, 72.-3-20, 72.-3-23.2, 72.-3-24, 72.-3-26, 72.-3-3, 72.-3-6, 72.-3-7, 72.-3-8,
72.-4-10, 72.-4-13, 72.-4-14, 72.-4-3, 72.-4-4, 72.-4-5, and 72.-4-9;
from CBD-60 to CBD -85:70.-6-1.1, 70.-6-14, 70.-6-15, 70.-6-17, 70.-6-18, 70.-6-19, and 70.-6-20, 70.-6-21;
from CBD-60 to CBD-120 69.-4-1
from CBD-60 to CBD -140: 69.-4-1, 70.-5-3, 70.-5-4, 70.-5-5, 70.-5-7, 70.-5-8, 70.-5-9, 70.-4-4.1, 70.-4-4.2,
70.-4-4.3, 70.-4-4.4, 70.-4-5.1, 70.-4-5.2, and 70.-5-10;
from CBD-60 to CBD -100: 69.-1-1, 69.-1-11, 69.-1-14, 69.-1-3, 69.-1-4, 69.-1-6.2, 69.-1-7, and 69.-1-8;
from CBD-85 to CBD -60: 70.-3-15.
from B-1b, B-1a, and P-1 to CBD-50: 61.-2-10.2, 61.-2-6, 61.-2-8, 61.-1-16, 61.-1-3, and 61.-1-4.
From B-2c to B-2d 71.-5-23, 71.-5-24, 71.-6-13, 71.-6-14
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impact on Land ― No Impact
There are no immediate impacts on land that are anticipated as a result of this change in zoning. The zoning
will allow for taller buildings to be constructed in some locations; however, there will be no immediate
change in the built environment as a result of this action. Any new construction will undergo a separate
environmental review and will assess any impacts on land.
Impact on Water ― No Impact
There are no impacts on water anticipated as a result of this action.
Impact of Air ― No Impact
There are no impacts on air anticipated as a result of this action.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources ― Small to Moderate Impact
The proposed action will allow for taller structures to be constructed in certain areas of downtown. If taller
structures are constructed, the views from some areas may be impacted. However, all of the areas being
rezoned are in the Central Business District and are all built areas. The tallest structure allowed under the
proposed zoning would be 140’. The area proposed for 140’ is located across the street from a 120’ Zoning
Item # 4 a
Page 18
District, therefore, the proposed changes are not in sharp contrast from the other allowable heights. New
construction in these districts is not expected to eliminate any scenic views that are significant to the
community. However, any new construction will have to undergo a full environmental review and to
determine the impacts on views.
Impact on Historic & Archaeological Resources ― Small to Moderate Impact
Some of the areas proposed to be rezoned are located in the nationally and locally designated Dewitt Historic
District and the nationally designated Commons Historic District. All new construction on properties that are
being re-zoned to the newly established CBD-50, which is located in the Dewitt Historic District, will have to
undergo ILPC review.
For properties located in the proposed CBD-140 District, beside the Commons Historic District, the Zoning
District has been drawn 60’ back from the building fronts on the Commons. All new construction would be
restricted to 60’ on the Commons front.
In addition, there is one property located in the Commons National Historic District being proposed to be
rezoned from CBD-85 to CBD-60. This change will allow a maximum allowable height of 60’ for any new
construction fronting on the Commons.
Impact on Transportation – Small to Moderate Impact
The zoning change will result in an increase in developable space, which could result in an increase in
vehicles. However, given that the increase in density is within the downtown area, where public transit is
easily accessible, it is expected that there will be less impacts on the transportation network than when
development occurs outside of the center. Also, as more mixed use development occurs, there are more
opportunities for people to live and work in the same area, thus reducing the reliance on personal vehicles. In
addition, the downtown parking garages have been built with excess capacity to accommodate additional
development. There are currently about 475 excess spaces in the garages.
Impact on Growth & Character of the Community or Neighborhood ― Small to Moderate Impact
The proposed zoning changes will allow for a greater square footage of buildout in the downtown area. By
encouraging more density in the downtown area, the City can discourage sprawl, create walkable
communities, reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicular travel, and encourage mixed-use
commercial/residential development. The action being reviewed is the zoning change to allow for greater
density. Any construction projects will have to undergo a separate environmental review in order to consider
any community impacts.
Public Controversy
A public hearing for this action was held on April 10, 2013. Six members of the public spoke, three spoke in
favor of the changes, one requested clarification, and two expressed concerns over the removal of citywide
transition regulations, which are no longer a part of this action.
In addition, concerns were raised from the County Planning Department regarding the impacts of larger
buildings on nearby buildings with roof top solar panels. After researching how this issue is handled in other
communities, the City feels that establishing regulations for the protection of solar access are more
appropriate in low density residential areas where the City has mechanisms for neighborhood protections
including maintaining more uniform building heights. The City is currently in the process of re-writing its
comprehensive plan and intends to further explore the potential for regulations to protect solar access.
Item # 4 a
EAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MAREAST MARPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TPARKER S T R E E TTERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACE
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CT
P
R
O
S
P
E
CTHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETSENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY SENECA WAY
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREET
P
L
EASANT STREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREETSTREET
SE A R S S T RE E TSEARS S T RE E TSEARS S T RE E TSEARS S T RE E TSEARS S T RE E TSEARS S T RE E TSEARS S T RE E TSEARS S T RE E TSEARS S T RE E T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
REET
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
CASCADILLA AVENUE
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
REET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
TREET
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
A
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
T U R N E R P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C ETURNER P L A C E
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
EAST CLINTON STREET
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
P
E
N
C
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
CASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADILCASCADIL
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
S
E
N
E
C
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
S O U T H C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E TSOUTH C A Y U G A S T R E E T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
F A Y E T T E S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E TFAYETTE S T R E E T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
/
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
S O U T H A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TSOUTH A L B A N Y S T R E E T
S O U T H G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E TSOUTH G E N E V A S T R E E T
S O U T H P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E TSOUTH P L A I N S T R E E T
NO R T H G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E TNORTH G E N E V A S T R E E T
N O R T H P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E TNORTH P L A I N S T R E E T
P A R K P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C EPARK P L A C E
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
S
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E TNORTH A L B A N Y S T R E E T
W A S H I N G T O N S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E TWASHINGTON S T R E E T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
S O U T H C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TSOUTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E TNORTH C O R N S T R E E T
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
L
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
T
A
T
E
R
T
E
7
9
(
S
T
A
T
E
R
O
U
T
E
9
6
)W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
E
S
T
C
L
I
N
T
O
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
fe
e
t
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B-
2
D
Prop
osed CBD-60
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
CB
D
-
6
0
Proposed CBD-120
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
B
D
-1
4
0
CB
D
-
6
0
Proposed CBD-100
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
CB
D
-
8
5
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
CB
D
-
5
0
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
CB
D
-
5
0
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
R-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1a R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3aR-3a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
C-
S
U
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2bR-2b R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
b
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
B-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1aB-1a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
a
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
2
c
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-
4
B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4B-4
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
1
b
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
B-
2
d
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
R-
2
a
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
P-
1
R-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1aR-1a P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1P-1 R-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2aR-2a CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60CBD-60
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
CB
D
-
6
0
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
B-
1
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
2
b
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
P-1
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
-
M
a
y
2
0
1
3
NY
S
t
a
t
e
P
l
a
n
e
,
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
G
R
S
8
0
D
a
t
u
m
Ma
p
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
I
t
h
a
c
a
Z
o
n
i
n
g
2
0
0
9
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Ma
p
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
:
G
I
S
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
I
t
h
a
c
a
,
N
Y
,
1
M
a
y
2
0
1
3
.
R-
3
b
R-
3
a
R-
3
a
a
R-
U
R-
2
b
R-
1
a
R-
1
b
R-
2
a
R-
2
c
B-
2
d
B-
4
B-
5
CB
D
-
6
0
MH
-
1
B-
2
b
B-
2
c
B-
2
a
B-
1
a
CB
D
-
8
5
CB
D
-
1
0
0
CB
D
-
1
2
0
B-
1
b
I-
1
C-
S
U
P-
1
WE
D
Z
-
1
a
U-
1
SW
-
1
SW
-
2
WE
D
Z
-
1
b
SW
-
3
WF
-
1
GP
-
A
GP
-
B
GP
-
C
WF
-
2
Historic District CPOZ Adult Uses Proposed Downtown RezoningBuilding of Historical SignificanceItem # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 1 of 10
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Establish the CBD-50 Zoning
District
WHEREAS, the Common Council is committed to dense urban
development in the core of downtown, as expressed in the
Downtown Ithaca Alliance’s Downtown Ithaca 2020 Strategic Plan,
which was endorsed by the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is also committed to promoting
development that preserves an active pedestrian experience along
the street frontage and that respects structures that are
historically significant, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca recognizes the importance of
maintaining a human scale along the street, especially in
transitional areas where commercial zones are located near
residential districts, and
WHEREAS, a subcommittee, consisting of City planning staff,
Common Council members, Planning Board members, the Mayor, and
the Executive Director of the Downtown Ithaca Alliance, has
evaluated the existing downtown zoning and walked the district,
and has determined that many areas of the Central Business
District are not adequately zoned for the desired development
potential in the core areas of the city, therefore
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-4 (“Establishment
of Districts”) of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is
hereby amended to establish and add the “CBD-50” Central
Business District thereto, and the District Regulations Chart,
which is made a part of Chapter 325 by Section 325-8, is hereby
amended by adding the following:
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 2 of 10
Column 1: Use District – add “CBD-50.”
Column 2: Permitted Primary Uses (for CBD-50)–
1. Any primary use permitted in the B-2 District.
See §160, Design Review. See also 325-8D, Additional
Restrictions in the CBD districts.
Column 3: Permitted Accessory Uses (for CBD-50)–
1. Any accessory use permitted in the B-2 District.
See §160, Design Review.
Column 4: Off-Street Parking Requirements (for CBD-50) – None.
Column 5: Off-Street Loading Requirements (for CBD-50) –
Same as B-2a.
Column 6: Minimum Lot Size (for CBD-50) – No Minimum Lot Size.
Column 7: Minimum Lot Size, Width in Feet at Street Line
(for CBD-50) – 10.
Column 8: Maximum Building Height, Number of Stories (CBD-50) -
None.
Column 9: Maximum Height of Building, Height in Feet (for CBD-
50) – 50.
Column 10: Maximum Percent of Lot Coverage by Buildings (for
CBD-50) – 100% Except as required for rear yard.
Column 11: Yard Dimensions, Front, Required Minimum (for CBD-50)
– None.
Column 12: Yard Dimensions, Side, One Side at Least (for CBD-50)
– None.
Column 13: Yard Dimensions, Side, Other at Least (for CBD-50) –
None.
Columns 14/15: Yard Dimensions, Rear (for CBD-50) –
10 feet minimum.
Column 16: Minimum Height of Building, Height in Feet (CBD-50) –
Minimum height: 25 feet and a minimum of 2 stories.
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 3 of 10
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-8 “District Regulations” is
hereby amended to add a subsection 325-8D, Additional
Restrictions in the CBD Districts, to read as follows:
D. Additional Restrictions in the CBD Districts.
(1) The CBD-50 zone is located within the DeWitt Park
Historic District. New construction in any zone
that is located within a designated local
historic district is subject to review and
approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission for compliance with Sections 228-5 (B)
and (C) of the Municipal Code.
(2) Due its close proximity to historically
significant structures and in order to mitigate
the impacts of taller buildings on these nearby
structures, for all new construction located in
the portion of the CBD-85 district directly
fronting the 100 block of West Green Street, the
front façade of any newly-constructed structure
must contain a stepback of between 8-12’15-25’
after the first 2-4 stories, before the structure
can build up to the maximum allowable height of
this district.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 4 of 10
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325-19, Entitled “Transition Regulations,” is hereby
amended as follows:
WHEREAS, the current City code allows for properties that are
located within two zoning districts to carry the less
restrictive regulations into the more restrictive district for
up to 30 feet, and
WHEREAS, the boundaries of the City’s zoning districts have been
carefully planned to limit impacts from large development areas
on adjacent zones, and transitional areas have been incorporated
into the established boundary lines, and
WHEREAS, staff has found that the transitional zoning language
does not comply with the intent of the established zoning
boundaries, therefore
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-19 “Transition Regulations”
is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Lots in two districts, where neither zoning district is a CBD district. Where a district boundary line
divides a lot at the time such line is established, the regulations for the less-restricted portion of such
lot shall extend not more than 30 feet into the more-restricted portion, provided that the lot has
frontage on a street in the less-restricted district. This exception shall not apply to any properties or
portions of a property located within in any CBD district.(See illustration below.)
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 5 of 10
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 6 of 10
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325-21, Entitled “Off-Street Loading,” is hereby amended
as follows:
WHEREAS, the current City code sets standard off street loading
requirements for all business, industrial, and multiple dwelling
uses citywide, and
WHEREAS, the high cost of real estate in the central business
district, the availability of on street loading areas, and the
scarcity of developable land, make the standard loading
requirements not desirable in the central business district, ,
therefore
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-21B “Off-Street Loading-
Space Requirements” is hereby amended to read as follows:
B. Space requirements . The following off-street loading space requirements shall apply to all
business and industrial land uses and multiple dwelling structures having more than 25
units, except for properties located in any CBD district:
(1) One space shall be made available for each use having 3,000 to 10,000 feet of floor
space, plus one additional space for each additional 15,000 square feet or major
fraction thereof of floor space in a single occupancy over and above 10,000 square
feet. In no case shall more than four spaces be required for any use of a single
occupancy.
Section 2. Chapter 325, is hereby amended to add a new
subsection 325-21C, to read as follows:
C. There shall be no off street loading requirement for any properties located in any CBD
zoning district.
Section 3. Chapter 325a, “Zoning Map District Regulations”, is
hereby amended to update the district regulations zoning chart
to remove the off street loading requirement for all CBD zoning
districts.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 7 of 10
Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 8 of 10
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from B-2c to CBD-60:
71.-1-11, 71.-1-12, 71.-1-13, 71.-1-14, 71.-1-15, 71.-1-16, 71.-
1-17, 71.-1-18, 71.-1-19.1, 71.-1-19.2, 71.-1-19.2, 71.-1-22,
71.-1-3, 71.-1-4, 71.-1-5, 71.-1-7, 71.-1-8, 71.-1-9, 71.-2-12,
71.-2-14, 71.-2-15, 71.-2-18, 71.-2-19, 71.-2-2.1, 71.-2-20,
71.-2-3, 71.-2-4, 71.-2-5, 71.-3-3, 71.-3-4, 71.-3-5, 71.-3-6,
71.-3-7, 71.-4-1.1, 71.-4-1.2, 71.-4-10, 71.-4-11, 71.-4-6, 71.-
5-1, 71.-5-10, 71.-5-11, 71.-5-12, 71.-5-13, 71.-5-17.2, 71.-5-
18, 71.-5-19, 71.-5-2, 71.-5-20, 71.-5-23, 71.-5-24, 71.-5-4,
71.-5-5, 71.-5-7, 71.-5-8, 71.-5-9, 71.-6-1, 71.-6-10, 71.-6-11,
71.-6-12, 71.-6-13, 71.-6-14, 71.-6-17, 71.-6-18, 71.-6-19, 71.-
6-20, 71.-6-21, 71.-6-22, 71.-6-23, 71.-6-24, 71.-6-26, 71.-6-5,
71.-6-6, 71.-6-7, 71.-6-8, 71.-6-9, 71.-6-9, 72.-3-10, 72.-3-12,
72.-3-14, 72.-3-15, 72.-3-16, 72.-3-17, 72.-3-18.1, 72.-3-18.2,
72.-3-19, 72.-3-2, 72.-3-20, 72.-3-23.2, 72.-3-24, 72.-3-26,
72.-3-3, 72.-3-6, 72.-3-7, 72.-3-8, 72.-4-10, 72.-4-13, 72.-4-
14, 72.-4-3, 72.-4-4, 72.-4-5, and 72.-4-9.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning – March 2013”, from CBD-60 to CBD-
85: 70.-6-1.1, 70.-6-14, 70.-6-15, 70.-6-17, 70.-6-18, 70.-6-19,
and 70.-6-20, 70.-6-21.
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from CBD-60 to CBD-
140: 69.-4-1, 70.-5-3, 70.-5-4, 70.-5-5, 70.-5-7, 70.-5-8, 70.-5-
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 9 of 10
9, 70.-4-4.1, 70.-4-4.2, 70.-4-4.3, 70.-4-4.4, 70.-4-5.1, 70.-4-
5.2, and 70.-5-10.
Section 4. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from CBD-60 to CBD-
100: 69.-1-1, 69.-1-11, 69.-1-14, 69.-1-3, 69.-1-4, 69.-1-6.2,
69.-1-7, and 69.-1-8.
Section 5. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from CBD-85 to CBD-
60: 70.-3-15.
Section 6. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from B-1b, B-1a, and
P-1 to CBD-50: 61.-2-10.2, 61.-2-6, 61.-2-8, 61.-1-16, 61.-1-3,
and 61.-1-4.
Section 7. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from B-2c to B-2d:
71.-5-23, 71.-5-24, 71.-6-13, and 71.-6-14, and a portion of
71.-6-15 and a portion of 71.-5-22.
Section 8. Chapter 325, Section 325-5 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Ithaca, entitled “Zoning Map” is hereby amended to
change the zoning designation of the following parcels, or some
portion of these parcels, as shown on the attached map entitled
Item # 4 a
5/2/2013
Page 10 of 10
“Proposed Downtown Rezoning - March 2013”, from CBD-60 to CBD-
120: 69.-4-1.
Section 97. The City Planning and Development Board, the City
Clerk and the Planning Department shall amend the zoning map and
the district regulations chart in accordance with the amendments
made herewith.
Section 108. Severability. Severability is intended throughout
and within the provisions of this local law. If any section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local
law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion.
Section 119. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
Item # 4 a
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner Item # 6 b
DATE: April 4, 2013
RE: Proposal to Amend §325-3B, Definitions and Word Usage, to Add a Definition of
“Green Space”
The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information on the proposed ordinance to
amend §325-3B, Definitions and Word Usage, of the City’s Zoning Code to add a definition of
green space. Green space is essential for a healthy and thriving community. Over time, the loss of
green space has had a negative cumulative impact on the city’s neighborhoods. While the City has
mechanisms to control factors such as off-street parking and lot coverage by buildings that
contribute to this loss, there are currently no requirements to provide or preserve green space. The
proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts include requirements for a minimum percentage of
green space to be provided on each property, and it may be desirable to consider similar
requirements in other zoning districts in the future. In order to adopt such requirements, the City
must define green space. The proposed ordinance would amend the City’s Zoning Code to add the
following definition:
Green space: a portion of a lot that is set aside for public or private use without any
construction or parking areas. The space may be used for passive or active
recreation, may be reserved to protect natural areas, or may serve as a buffer between
adjacent lots or uses. The area may be naturally occurring or landscaped. Where a
minimum green space requirement applies, at least 75% of the required area shall be
softscape including trees, shrubs, natural plantings, garden areas, lawns, and other
live vegetative coverings. The remaining area may include pedestrian amenities such
as sidewalks or patios. Required green space must be permanently maintained in a
healthy growing condition at all times.
Attached are the draft ordinance and short environmental assessment form for your review. Staff
will attend the April 10th Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting to discuss the
proposal and seek permission to circulate it for further comment. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Megan Wilson at mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
4/3/13
Item # 6 b
Page 1 of 1
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Amend the Definitions and Word Usage
to Add a Definition of “Green Space”
WHEREAS, green space is a vital ecological, recreational, and
aesthetic component of the urban environment, and
WHEREAS, as the city continues to densify, it is essential to maintain
adequate green space to ensure the health, wellness, and quality of
life of the city’s residents, and
WHEREAS, the loss of green space has had a negative cumulative impact
on the city’s neighborhoods over time, and the City currently does not
have any requirements to provide green space, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts include
requirements for a minimum percentage of green space to be provided on
each property, and this minimum green space requirement may be
considered in other zoning districts within the city in the future;
now, therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be
amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-3B of the Municipal Code of the
City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
GREEN SPACE – A portion of a lot that is set aside for
public or private use without any construction or parking
areas. The space may be used for passive or active
recreation, may be reserved to protect natural areas, or
may serve as a buffer between adjacent lots or uses. The
area may be naturally occurring or landscaped. Where a
minimum green space requirement applies, at least 75% of
the required area shall be softscape including trees,
shrubs, natural plantings, garden areas, lawns, and other
live vegetative coverings. The remaining area may include
pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks or patios. Required
green space must be permanently maintained in a healthy
growing condition at all times.
Section 2. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as
provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Planner Item # 6 c
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Deputy Building Commissioner
DATE: April 1, 2013
RE: Proposal to Amend §325-3B, Definitions and Word Usage, to Modify the Definition
of Building Height
The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information on the proposed ordinance to
amend §325-3B, Definitions and Word Usage, of the City’s Zoning Code to modify the definition of
building height. The proposed ordinance would amend the current definition of “height of
building” and would change the method used to measure a building’s height. Currently, building
height is measured from the average finished grade adjacent to the building to either a) the highest
point of a flat or mansard roof; or b) the average height of a pitched, gabled, hip, or gambrel roof.
This current definition is inconsistent with New York State Building Code. In addition, this method
of measuring building height is not conducive to sloping sites with a significant difference in grade
across the property. It also allows the site to be altered by mounding soil immediately adjacent to
the building in an effort to skew the height measurement. The result, in both cases, can be one or
more facades of a building that are significantly taller than desired.
To address these concerns, the proposed ordinance would change the point on grade from which
building height is measured. Building height would be measured from an established “grade plane.”
On level sites, the grade plane would still be defined as the average grade adjoining the building. On
sloping sites, the grade plane is defined as the lowest point between the building and a point 10 feet
from the building (or the building and the property line, if it is less than 10 feet away). Overall
building height would then be measured from the grade plan to either a) the highest point of a flat
or mansard roof; or b) the average height of a pitched, gabled, hip, or gambrel roof.
Attached is a draft of the proposed ordinance for your review. Staff will attend the April 10th
Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting to discuss the proposal and seek
permission to circulate it for further comment. If you have any questions or comments prior to the
meeting, please feel free to contact Mike Niechwiadowicz at miken@cityofithaca.org or Megan
Wilson at mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
3/8/13
Item # 6 c
Page 1 of 2
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Amend the Definitions and Word Usage
WHEREAS, the City’s current definition of “height of building” is
inconsistent with New York State Building Code, and
WHEREAS, the current definition does not adequately address building
height on sloping sites or the mounding of soil adjacent to the
structure and can allow one or more facades of a building to be
significantly taller than desired, and
WHEREAS, amending the City’s definition of “height of building” will
provide consistency with New York State Building Code while providing
a more effective method for measuring building height on all sites
within the city; now, therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be
amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-3B of the Municipal Code of the
City of Ithaca is hereby amended to read as follows:
GRADE PLANE - A reference plane representing the average of
finished ground level on each side of the building at
exterior walls. On the sides of the building where grade
is level, the measurement will be taken at a point
adjoining the building. Where the finished ground level
slopes away from the exterior walls, the measurement shall
be taken at the lowest point within the area between the
building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more
than 10 feet from the building, between the building and a
point 10 feet from the building.
HEIGHT OF BUILDING - The vertical distance measured from
the average finished grade grade plane to the highest level
of a flat or mansard roof or to the average height of a
pitched, gabled, hip or gambrel roof, excluding bulkheads,
housing for mechanical equipment, towers and similar
constructions not intended for human occupancy or necessary
equipment carried above roof level. Where a building
contains sections of a roof of varying heights, the height
of that building shall be measured using that section of
the roof that has the highest elevation from the average
finished grade level grade plane. See the definition for
determining grade plane. The average finished grade level
shall be determined from data established by the average
elevation of the finished grade adjoining the exterior
walls of the building.
3/8/13
Item # 6 c
Page 2 of 2
Section 2. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as
provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590
COMMON COUNCIL
Telephone: 607/274-6570 Fax: 607/272-7348
Item # 4 d
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Graham Kerslick, 4th Ward Alderperson
Date: March 29, 2013
Re: Proposed Amendment to City of Ithaca Code Chapter 258 - Rental Housing
What’s the problem?
We are seeing an increasing number of complaints from students, and other rental tenants, that they are
facing unreasonable pressure to sign leases earlier and earlier each year. In many cases renters are
signing leases 12 months before the lease actually starts. Tenants are also experiencing pressure from
landlords to renew existing leases almost as soon as they move into rental units.
Some landlords claim they are simply responding to demands from prospective renters to show properties
earlier each year. Others suggest that these demands can be counterproductive, leading to ill formed
decisions, which can lead to tenants attempting to get out of leases early.
Many groups including the Cornell Collegetown Student Council and the City’s Rental Housing Advisory
Commission have discussed this issue in recent months. The Commission has suggested that a proposal
be developed to provide tenants and landlords with a period of time before leases are renewed or rental
apartments are shown for the next renting period.
An important factor contributing to this problem is high demand for rental housing. According to data from
the 2010 Census 74% of Ithaca’s housing units is renter occupied. The vacancy rate for this rental
housing market is very low (2.4% for the City, 6.8% average for NYS), and in some neighborhoods the
vacancy rate is even lower. While in the long term increased development will alleviate this problem it is
unlikely to resolve the problem, especially in high demand areas, such as Collegetown and South Hill.
What is being proposed?
Landlords will be required to provide a minimum of 60 days written notice before (i) renewing current
lease, (ii) showing property to prospective new tenants or (iii) signing a lease with new tenants. This
notice can be given at any time during the lease period, beginning at the start date of the lease.
This period of notice will not be required if landlord and tenant mutually agree, in writing, that they waive
this requirement. This may happen, for example, when tenants know in advance of signing a rental
agreement that they are not interested in renewing a lease.
What is the intent?
The intent of the proposal is to provide tenants and landlords with an opportunity to make better-informed
decisions regarding rental agreements. The proposed notification to tenants is intended to provide
“breathing space” to both renters and landlords. Renters will have the opportunity to experience their
actual living situation before making longer-term lease commitments. Landlords will have the chance to
learn more about current tenants and will also be able to advise prospective tenants regarding requests to
view apartments and sign leases.
While the proposal requires landlords to provide the notification it is also intended to provide a clear
message to prospective renters that they should not press landlords to show apartments in an untimely
manner.
Will this resolve the problem?
The proposed notification period will help renters and landlords make better-informed decisions before
signing rental agreements. When combined with increased information about rental housing and future
development it will reduce the pressure being experienced in the rental housing market.
Improving access to information and the exchange of information about the rental housing market will
also help alleviate this problem. The Rental Housing Advisory Commission, student organizations, off-
campus housing offices and other groups need to play a significant role in this effort.
In the longer term increased development of well-designed, well-built rental housing will also help reduce
pressures in the rental housing market.
Item # 4 d
Chapter 258. RENTAL HOUSING
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca 10-7-1992 by
Ord. No. 92-12. (Section III of this ordinance provided that it shall apply only to rental
agreements entered into or renewed on or after November 1, 1992.) Amendments noted
where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Rental Housing Advisory Commission — See Ch. 100. Fair housing — See Ch. 215, Art. I.
§ 258-1. Findings of fact; statement of purpose.
A. The City of Ithaca has a significant tenant population.
B. Equitable landlord-tenant relations are a matter of public welfare.
C. Prompt, reasonable return of security deposits is an important factor in tenants being
able to obtain subsequent housing.
D. The issue of return of security deposits is a source of potential conflict between
landlords and tenants which may result in a burdensome effect on the court system.
§ 258-2. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
LANDLORD
The person who has the right to exclusive possession of certain premises and who, for
consideration under a rental agreement, agrees to relinquish that right to another
temporarily, retaining a right of reversion of the premises upon termination of such
agreement.
NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR
The deterioration which occurs, based on the use for which the residential unit is intended,
without negligence, carelessness, accident or abuse of the premises or equipment or
chattels by the tenants or members of his/her household or their invitee or guests. The
term "normal wear-and-tear" does not include sums or labor expended by the landlord in
removing from such residential unit articles abandoned by the tenant such as trash. If a
rental unit was leased to a tenant in a habitable condition or if it was put in a habitable
condition by the landlord during the term of the tenancy, "normal wear-and-tear" does not
include sums required to be expended by the landlord to return the rental unit to a
habitable condition, unless expenditure of those sums was necessitated by action of the
landlord, events beyond the control of the tenant or actions of someone other than the
tenant or members of his/her household or their invitee or guests.
RENTAL AGREEMENT
Item # 4 d
A written or oral agreement embodying and fixing the terms and conditions for the transfer
of possession and the use and occupancy of premises, whether or not for a definite period
of time.
RESIDENTIAL UNIT
Any premises which are used for residential purposes under the terms of a rental
agreement.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
The total of all payments and deposits given by a tenant to the landlord as security for the
performance of the tenant's obligations.
TENANT
A person entitled to exclusive possession and occupancy of a residential unit and the right
of use of the appropriate appurtenances as provided in a rental agreement, including any
other person 18 years of age or over who shares such unit with the knowledge and consent
of the landlord.
§ 258-3. Renewal of rental agreements; notification to tenants.
Landlord shall provide a minimum of 60 days written notice to current tenants of a
residential unit before doing any of the following:
a) renewing the current rental agreement
b) showing the residential unit to prospective new tenants
c) entering into a rental agreement with new tenants
Such written notice may be provided at any time during the rental agreement period, from
the effective start date onwards. This provision of notice shall not apply under any of the
following conditions:
1) The current rental agreement period is less than nine months.
2) A summons and complaint to recover possession of the premises has been filed and
served on the current tenant in accordance with all applicable laws and rules.
3) Landlord and tenant mutually agree, in writing, to waive the notice period.
§ 258-4. Penalties.
Any landlord or agent who violates any provision of §258-3 shall be liable for a civil penalty
of up to $500. Factors to be considered when assessing the fine would include the number
of tenants, number of units on the property etc.
§ 258-35. Ownership of security deposit; trust provisions.
Whenever a tenant shall deposit with the landlord a security deposit, such deposit, or any
portion thereof, until repaid or rightfully applied for obligations of the tenant to the
landlord, shall continue to be the money of the tenant and shall be held in trust by the
Item # 4 d
landlord with whom such deposit shall be made and shall not be mingled with the personal
moneys or become an asset of the landlord.
§ 258-46. Notification to tenant.
Whenever a tenant shall provide to the landlord a security deposit, the landlord shall
provide to the tenant a written receipt for the security deposit and shall further
inform the tenant, in writing, of the location where the deposit is held; if the deposit is
being held in a banking organization, the name and address of the banking organization in
which the security deposit is being held; and a statement as to whether or not the deposit is
being held in an interest-bearing account.
§ 258-57. Obligation of tenant to clean premises.
The tenant shall have the obligation of placing the residential unit in an overall clean
condition as it was when the tenancy commenced, excepting normal wear and tear.
§ 258-68. Return of security deposit by landlord to tenant.
A. Within 30 days after the termination of tenancy or the surrender of the premises,
whichever occurs later, the landlord shall return to the tenant the full security deposit
deposited with the landlord by the tenant or, if there is actual cause for retaining the
security deposit or any portion of it, the landlord shall provide to the tenant a written
statement specifying the reasons for such retention, including a good-faith estimate of the
cost for each item of damage. The written statement specifying the reasons for the
retention of any portion of the security deposit shall be accompanied by a full payment of
the difference between the security deposit and the amount retained. Nothing contained in
this section shall preclude the landlord from retaining all or a portion of the security
deposit to cover the costs of storing and/or disposing of unclaimed property, for
nonpayment of rent and for nonpayment of utility charges which the tenant was required
to pay directly to the landlord.
B. If there is a provision in a rental agreement that a tenant is responsible to reimburse or
apply from a security deposit any amounts due from tickets written pursuant to Chapter
178 of this Code for the property or residential unit being rented, it shall be the landlord's
responsibility to give the tenant notice of that ticket in a timely fashion as a condition to
enforce that provision, and in order to help the tenant correct and prevent the condition for
which the ticket was issued. Timely notice shall be no later than three weeks from the date
the ticket is sent from the court to the landlord. Failure to provide such notice shall serve as
the landlord's waiver of reimbursement or application of security deposit for any ticket for
which notice was not given. [Added 10-3-2012 by Ord. No. 2012-10 Editor’s Note: This
ordinance also redesignated former Subsection B as Subsection C. ]
C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to imply other than it is the landlord's
responsibility to return the tenant's security deposit or balance as soon as reasonably
possible.
Item # 4 d
§ 258-79. Wrongful retention of security deposit.
In the event that the landlord willfully and without good cause fails to return all or a
portion of the security deposit, a court may award to the tenant up to triple the amount of
that portion of the security deposit wrongfully withheld from the tenant, together with
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. In determining whether to award such treble
damages and/or attorney's fees, the court may consider the past practices of the landlord
regarding return of other security deposits. Treble damages and/or attorney's fees shall
not be awarded pursuant to this section where a
landlord has made a good-faith effort to estimate the amounts which properly should be
withheld from the security deposit and has returned to the tenant the balance of the
security deposit in a timely manner. Should the landlord, within the aforesaid thirty-day
period, fail to return the entire security deposit or fail to provide the aforesaid written
statement specifying the reasons for the retention of all or a portion of the security deposit,
accompanied by full payment of the difference between the security deposit and the
amount retained, it shall be presumed that the landlord is willfully and without good cause
retaining the security deposit.
§ 258-810. Burden of proof.
In any court action brought by a tenant for the return of the security deposit, the landlord
shall bear the burden of proving that the withholding of the security deposit or any portion
of it was justified.
§ 258-911. Waiver of provisions void.
Any attempted waiver of the terms of this chapter by a landlord or tenant, by contract or
otherwise, shall be deemed to be against public policy and shall be considered void and
unenforceable
Item # 4 d
Graham Kerslick 5/3/2013
Proposed Amendment to City of Ithaca Code Chapter 258 - Rental Housing.
WHEREAS the City Code of Ithaca (§ 258-1.B.) currently recognizes that “Equitable
landlord-tenant relations are a matter of public welfare”, and
WHEREAS there is increasing concern that conditions in the rental housing market are
placing unreasonable pressures on renters and landlords, and
WHEREAS the City recognizes that increased development of rental housing will probably
help reduce these pressures, and
WHEREAS the City does not seek to impose unnecessary constraints on the rental housing
market, but wishes landlords and tenants to have the opportunity to make well-informed
decisions about rental agreements; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the following be added to §258 of the City Code,
§ 258-3. Renewal of rental agreements; notification to tenants.
Landlord shall provide a minimum of 60 days written notice to current tenants of a
residential unit before doing any of the following:
a) renewing the current rental agreement
b) showing the residential unit to prospective new tenants
c) entering into a rental agreement with new tenants
Such written notice may be provided at any time during the rental agreement period, from
the effective start date onwards. This provision of notice shall not apply under any of the
following conditions:
1. The current rental agreement period is less than nine months.
2. A summons and complaint to recover possession of the premises has been filed and
served on the current tenant in accordance with all applicable laws and rules.
3. Landlord and tenant mutually agree, in writing, to waive the notice period.
§ 258-4. Penalties.
Any landlord or agent who violates any provision of §258-3 shall be liable for a civil penalty
of up to $500. Factors to be considered when assessing the fine would include the number
of tenants, number of units on the property etc.
Item # 4 e
Proposed Resolution
Planning and Economic Development Committee
April 19, 2013
2013 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds to meet
community development needs through the HUD Entitlement program from the Community
Development Block Grant program (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnerships program (HOME)
funding sources, and
WHEREAS, the City submits an Action Plan each year to HUD to access the Entitlement Program funding
allocated to the City, and
WHEREAS, the 2013 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community development activities
to be funded from the 2013 HUD Entitlement allocation, and
WHEREAS, the allocation level of the 2013 Entitlement Program is anticipated to be as follows:
$644,062 CDBG
$446,009 HOME
$1,090,071 Total, and
WHEREAS, $142,000 in program income is projected to be received from loan repayments in program
year 2013, which funding is also allocated as part of the 2013 Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, additional funds of $165,514 remain from the 2012 HOME program and will be allocated to
eligible projects via this 2013 Action Plan, and
WHEREAS, additional CDBG funds are available and are being allocated via the 2013 Entitlement Grant
as follows:
Recaptured funds from 2011 $ 10,000
Program Income from sale of $ 30,000
the Court St. Shelter (a 1984
CDBG project)
Reallocation of prior-year $100,000
Program Income
Total $140,000, and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for development of the
2013 Action Plan in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan, and
WHEREAS, the IURA adopted a Proposed Action Plan at their March 29, 2013 meeting by consensus and
at their May 1, 2013 meeting by resolution, now, therefore be it
Item # 4 e
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts the attached table titled the ‘IURA Proposed Action
Plan’ – dated May 1, 2013 for allocating a projected 2013 HUD Entitlement award along with the
additional funds available, as listed above, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that should the IURA determine that any of the proposed projects in the Action Plan encounter
feasibility issues that would hinder their timely completion or adversely affect their eligibility prior to the
HUD submission deadline, the Common Council authorizes the IURA, upon approval by the Mayor and the
Chair of the Planning & Economic Development Committee, to make adjustments in the application to
resolve feasibility and eligibility concerns, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby renews its designation of the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) as the lead agency to develop and administer the HUD Entitlement
program on behalf of the City of Ithaca, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities funded in the adopted 2013
Action Plan.
j:\community development\entitlement grants\cdbg 2013\action plan\reso council adopt 2013 action plan.doc
Ac
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
M
a
t
c
h
2
0
1
3
C
D
B
G
An
ti
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
2
0
1
3
Ot
h
e
r
C
D
B
G
*
*
2
0
1
3
H
O
M
E
2
0
1
2
H
O
M
E
T
O
T
A
L
Re
q
u
e
s
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
I
n
c
o
m
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
:
$6
4
4
,
0
6
2
.
0
0
$
1
4
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
4
6
,
0
0
9
.
0
0
$
1
6
5
,
5
1
4
.
0
0
$
1
,
5
3
7
,
5
8
5
.
0
0
Summary Description
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
1
St
on
e
Q
u
a
r
r
y
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
*
IN
H
S
$3
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
6
4
8
,
7
0
0
$3
7
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$370,000.00Construct 35 new affordable rental housing units, 6 of which are HOME subsidized.
2
Ho
me
o
w
n
e
r
R
e
h
a
b
2
0
1
3
IN
H
S
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
2
,
4
7
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$100,000.00Rehabilitation of 4 owner-occupied homes
3
Mi
ni
R
e
p
a
i
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
2
0
1
3
IN
H
S
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
,
4
6
5
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$30,000.00110 small house repairs for low-income seniors and people w/disabilities
4
Ho
us
i
n
g
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
s
h
i
p
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Le
a
r
n
i
n
g
W
e
b
$9
3
,
2
0
4
$
3
7
,
6
6
0
$2
8
,
4
8
6
.
0
0
$
4
9
,
5
1
4
.
0
0
$78,000.00Rental assistance for 8 homeless youth
5
Se
cu
r
i
t
y
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ca
t
h
o
l
i
c
C
h
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
$4
8
,
0
0
0
$0
$
3
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$1
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$19,200.0032 security deposits ($16,000) and delivery expenses($3,200) for low income tenants
6
70
1
C
l
i
f
f
S
t
.
IU
R
A
$5
2
,
6
5
0
$0
$
4
2
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$52,650.00Demolition and site preparation at 701 Cliff Street
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
7
ED
L
o
a
n
F
u
n
d
(
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
I
n
c
o
m
e
)
IU
R
A
$1
4
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
8
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$126,000.00New loans creating at least five (5) FTE jobs.
8
Ho
sp
i
t
a
l
i
t
y
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
G
I
A
C
$8
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
,
3
3
5
$
5
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$86,000.00Training and placement for 10-15 young adults to enter hospitality field
9
Do
wn
t
o
w
n
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
L
o
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
I
t
h
a
c
a
A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$100,000.00Assist 4-5 businesses impacted by the Commons construction w/ below market financing - $100,000 financial guarantee allocated from the IURA CD Revolving Loan Fund (CD-RLF)
10
Wo
rk
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
W
P
2 J
o
b
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
His
t
o
r
i
c
I
t
h
a
c
a
$7
8
,
5
0
0
$
5
6
,
6
9
5
$
7
8
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$78,500.00Entry level job training for 20 young adults
Pu
b
l
i
c
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
11
Rt.
1
3
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
I
t
h
a
c
a
$2
5
2
,
9
4
5
$
6
9
1
,
1
4
7
$
1
4
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$143,000.00Pedestrian and bicycle improvements at Rt. 13/ Third and Rt. 13/ Dey Streets
12
DI
CC
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Dr
o
p
-
I
n
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
'
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
$2
4
,
0
0
9
$0
$
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$7,000.00Install concrete extension of sidewalk in tree curb lawn for increased safety.
13
Em
er
g
e
n
c
y
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
R
e
h
a
b
A
d
v
o
c
a
c
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
$1
5
,
2
5
0
$1
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6,000.00Match funding to capitalize a replacement reserve fund to make repairs to the domestic violence shelter (such as front porch/steps, bathroom, and painting)
14
So
ut
h
s
i
d
e
G
y
m
A
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
s
So
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
$3
7
,
0
3
7
$0
$
1
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$17,000.00Improve the acoustics in the Southside gym
15
It
ha
c
a
S
k
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
Te
m
S
k
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
/
S
o
c
i
a
l
V
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
9
,
2
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$40,000.00Expansion of the skateboard park at Wood St. park
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
16
NL
I
J
o
b
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
s
h
i
p
Co
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
$1
9
,
4
0
6
$2
,
6
5
1
$
1
2
,
9
3
6
.
0
0
$12,936.00Entry-level job training & mentoring as a step toward unsubsidized employment for 4 adults
17
Te
mp
o
r
a
r
y
R
a
m
p
L
o
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fi
n
g
e
r
L
a
k
e
s
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$6
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$10,000.00Reusable ramps to be installed at 3 low-income households with a temporary access need
18
2-
1-
1
/
I
&
R
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Hu
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
3
,
0
2
6
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$10,000.00Support for the 2-1-1 call center assisting 455 eligible callers
19
It
ha
c
a
F
r
e
e
C
l
i
n
i
c
It
h
a
c
a
H
e
a
l
t
h
A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
,
2
2
3
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$20,000.00Operating support for the Free Clinic providing healthcare services for 600 people
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
20
CD
BG
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
IU
R
A
$1
2
8
,
8
1
2
$1
2
8
,
8
1
2
.
4
0
$128,812.40Planning, Administration and Monitoring for the CDBG Program.
21
HO
ME
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
IU
R
A
$4
4
,
6
0
1
$4
4
,
6
0
0
.
9
0
$44,600.90Planning, Administration and Monitoring for the HOME Program.
To
t
a
l
s
:
$1
,7
7
2
,
4
1
4
$
1
0
,
3
9
8
,
5
7
2
$
6
0
5
,
0
9
8
.
4
0
$
1
2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
4
3
,
0
8
6
.
9
0
$
1
6
5
,
5
1
4
.
0
0
$
1
,
4
7
9
,
6
9
9
.
3
0
* CHD
O
s
e
t
-
a
s
i
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Bre
a
k
d
o
w
n
o
f
A
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
U
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
F
u
n
d
s
$9
6
,
6
0
9
CD
B
G
:
$5
4
,
9
6
3
.
6
0
re
s
e
r
v
e
f
o
r
e
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
s
$5
2
,
9
3
6
HO
M
E
:
$2
,
9
2
2
.
1
0
un
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
$5
7
,
8
8
5
.
7
0
20
1
3
H
U
D
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
I
t
h
a
c
a
,
N
Y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
**O
t
h
e
r
C
D
B
G
=
R
e
-
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d
P
r
i
o
r
Y
e
a
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
I
n
c
o
me
($
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
,
C
D
B
G
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
u
r
t
S
t
.
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
(
a
19
8
4
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
)
a
n
d
r
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d
f
u
n
d
s
f
r
o
m
2
0
1
1
#
1
5
-
Jo
b
s
B
u
i
l
d
(
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
)
.
C
H
D
O
S
e
t
-
A
s
i
d
e
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
:
$
6
6
,
9
0
1
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
C
H
D
O
s
e
t
-
a
s
i
d
e
s
:
$
3
7
0
,
0
0
0
(
A
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
1
5
%
o
f
H
O
M
E
f
u
n
d
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
H
O
M
E
f
u
n
d
e
d
u
n
i
t
s
.
)
IUR
A
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
corrected 5/1/13
CD
B
G
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
a
p
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
(
1
5
%
)
:
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
:
Item # 4 e
1
To: Svante Myrick, Mayor Ray Benjamin, Acting Superintendent of Public Works
Common Council Conservation Advisory Council
Julie Holcomb, City Clerk Planning & Development Board
Aaron Lavine, City Attorney Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Acting Building Commissioner
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning & Development
Edward Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning
From: Megan Wilson, Planner
Date: April 16, 2013
RE: Proposal to Establish the Collegetown Area Form Districts and Rezone Portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b,
R-3a, R-3b, U-1, and B-2b Districts to Collegetown Residential (CR) and Mixed Use (MU)
The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information on the proposal to establish the Collegetown Area Form
Districts and rezone portions of the R-1b, R-2a, R-2b, R-3a, R-3b, U-1 and B-2b zoning districts in the Collegetown area
to Collegetown Residential (CR) and Mixed Use (MU). In late spring 2012, a Collegetown working group was
established to refocus on the implementation of the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines,
endorsed by the Common Council on August 5, 2009. The working group, including Govind Acharya, JoAnn Cornish,
Graham Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, Mike Niechwiadowicz, Phyllis Radke, and Megan Wilson, decided to concentrate on
the preparation of a form-based code. The Collegetown Area Form Districts is one of the key recommendations of the
“2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines.” The proposed zoning is a hybrid code in that it is a
mix of a form-based code and traditional zoning. It includes regulations of physical form that are focus of form-based
codes but also includes regulations of use and density found in traditional zoning. Through this mix of form-based and
traditional zoning elements, the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts are intended to:
• Encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction;
• Regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between higher-density and lower-density
zoning districts;
• Concentrate additional development in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character of the
established residential neighborhoods;
• Preserve and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic component of the urban
environment; and
• Promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of alternate modes of transportation.
If adopted, the proposed Collegetown Area Form Districts would result in the establishment of six new zoning districts
and the rezoning of approximately 245 properties in the Collegetown area. While each district has its unique
characteristics, the six districts can be grouped into three categories, as follows:
• The Collegetown Residential 1-3 districts are residential districts where the intent is to maintain the existing
housing stock and protect the character of the established residential neighborhoods. Mandatory architectural
elements, such as front porches and pitched roofs, ensure that any new construction will be in keeping with the
existing built environment.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
Item # 5 a
2
• The Collegetown Residential 4 district is a residential district that serves as an essential bridge, both in density
and built form, between the Collegetown Residential 1-3 and Mixed Use districts. Redevelopment is encouraged,
but it is essential that new construction meet the district requirements to ensure a consistent transition between the
higher-density and lower-density zoning districts.
• The Mixed Use districts are designed to create a dynamic urban environment in which uses reinforce each other
and promote an attractive, walkable neighborhood. Located in central Collegetown, the Mixed Use districts
allow the highest density within the Collegetown Area Form Districts. Redevelopment is anticipated and
encouraged, and the intent is to concentrate the majority of additional development within these districts. Given
this emphasis on redevelopment, the Mixed Use district regulations have been designed to encourage exceptional
urban design and high-quality construction. The code also proposes to eliminate minimum off-street parking
requirements within the two Mixed Use districts; however, property owners would still be permitted to construct
off-street parking if they would like to do so.
The current draft of the Collegetown Area Form Districts, dated April 16, 2013, and the accompanying draft ordinance are
attached for your review. An environmental review of this action has been completed and the draft Full Environmental
Assessment Form is also attached. The Planning and Economic Development Committee will hold a public hearing and
discuss the proposed zoning at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 2013. Your comments are respectfully
requested prior to that date. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 274-6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
Item # 5 a
E
B D
C
A
F
§325-45 COLLEGETOWN AREA FORM DISTRICTS
ITHACA, NEW YORK
APRIL 16, 2013
DRAFT
DRYDEN RD
OAK
A
V
E
HOY RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
ITH
A
C
A
R
D
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
MITCHELL ST
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
BL
A
I
R
S
T
CO
B
B
S
T
WORTH ST
N
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
RIDGED
A
L
E
R
D
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
FE
R
R
I
S
P
L
VALLEY RD
MILLER ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
E SENECA ST
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
E BUFFALO ST
CATHERINE ST
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
OXFORD PL
EDGEMOOR LA
W
O
O
D
C
O
C
K
S
T
HARVARD PL
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
Q
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
FROSH ALLEY
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MA
P
L
E
G
R
O
V
E
P
L
MITCHELL
S
T
VALLEY RD
CR-1
CR-1 CR-1CR-1
CR-1
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2 CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3CR-3 CR-3
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
MU-1
MU-1
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
Item # 5 a
Collegetown Area Form Districts
DRYDEN RD
OAK
A
V
E
HOY RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
ITHA
C
A
R
D
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
MITCHELL ST
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
BL
A
I
R
S
T
CO
B
B
S
T
WORTH ST
N
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L.
K
.
J
R
S
T
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
RIDGED
A
L
E
R
D
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
FE
R
R
I
S
P
L
VALLEY RD
MILLER ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
E SENECA ST
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
E BUFFALO ST
CATHERINE ST
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
OXFORD PL
EDGEMOOR LA
W
O
O
D
C
O
C
K
S
T
HARVARD PL
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
Q
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
FROSH ALLEY
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MA
P
L
E
G
R
O
V
E
P
L
MITCHELL
S
T
VALLEY RD
CR-1
CR-1 CR-1CR-1
CR-1
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2 CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3CR-3 CR-3
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
MU-1
MU-1
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
Item # 5 a
SECTION 325-45 COLLEGETOWN AREA FORM DISTRICTS
CONTENTS
325-45.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ......................................................................1
A. Short Title..................................................................................................1
B. Intent .........................................................................................................1
C. Applicability .............................................................................................1
D Review and Approval Required ..................................................................1
E. Other Applicable Provisions .......................................................................1
325-45.2 DISTRICT STANDARDS ......................................................................3
A. Establishment of Districts ..........................................................................3
B. Definitions and Related Standards .............................................................3
C. District Map .............................................................................................6
D. Height Map ..............................................................................................7
E. Collegetown Residential (CR-1, CR-2, CR-3) ...........................................9
F. Collegetown Residential (CR-4) ..............................................................17
G. Mixed Use (MU-1, MU-2) .....................................................................21
325-45.3 USE TABLE ..........................................................................................29
Item # 5 a
This page left intentionally blank
Item # 5 a
1Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
325-45.1 General Provisions
A. Short Title
This section shall be known as the “Collegetown Area Form Districts.”
B. Intent
The intent of this section is to implement the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines, endorsed by the
Common Council on August 5, 2009. This section establishes the zoning regulations necessary to guide implementation of the City-
endorsed vision for the redevelopment of property within the Collegetown area. Specifically, the Collegetown Area Form Districts are
intended to:
(1) Encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality construction;
(2) Regulate elements of building form to ensure a consistent transition between higher-density and lower-density zoning
districts;
(3) Concentrate additional development in the central areas of Collegetown and protect the character of the established
residential neighborhoods;
(4) Preserve and enhance green space that is a vital ecological, recreational, and aesthetic component of the urban environment;
and
(5) Promote attractive, walkable neighborhoods that prioritize accommodation of alternate modes of transportation.
C. Applicability
(1) No building or part thereof within any district of the Collegetown Area Form Districts shall be erected, moved, or altered on
its exterior unless in conformity with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located.
(2) In the event that provisions of the Collegetown Area Form Districts conflict with other sections of the City Code, the
Collegetown Area Form Districts shall prevail.
(3) In cases of nonconforming uses, buildings, and lots, refer to Chapter 325 Zoning, Article VI.
D. Design Review and Approval Required
(1) All new construction (including parking lot construction or expansion) is subject to the design review process set forth in
Chapter 160, Design Review, of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code.
(2) No building permit shall be issued or structure or building shall be erected, and no exterior of an existing building or
structure shall be altered, remodeled, enlarged or extended until the project or development has design review approval.
E. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Review and Approval Required
(1) Regardless of the underlying zoning, all new construction (including additions) within a designated local historic district or
on the same tax parcel as an individually designated local landmark is subject to review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission for compliance with Sections 228-5(B) and (C) of the Municipal Code.
F. Other Applicable Sections
The following sections of Chapter 325 shall apply in the CR and MU districts. Those sections of Chapter 325 not listed below do not
apply within the CR and MU districts.
(1) § 325-2. Statutory authority, and purpose.
(2) § 325-3. Definitions, and word usage, except as modified in § 325-45.2 (B), Definitions and Related Standards.
(3) § 325-4. Establishment of districts.
(4) § 325-5. Zoning Map.
(5) § 325-6. Interpretation of boundaries.
Item # 5 a
2 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16, 2013DRAFT
(6) § 325-7. Application of regulations.
(7) § 325-8. District regulations.
(8) § 325-9. Standards. (Special Permits)
(9) § 325-10. Accessory Apartments.
(10) § 325-14. Application.
(11) § 325-15. Use regulations.
(12) § 325-16. Height regulations, except as expressly modified in this section.
(13) § 325-17. Area regulations.
(14) § 325-18. Yard regulations.
(15) § 325-20. Off-street parking.
(16) § 325-23. General standards applying to all land uses.
(17) § 325-25. Location of accessory structures.
(18) § 325-26. New structures along streams or inlets.
(19) § 325-29. Landmarks.
(20) § 325-29.1. Adult uses.
(21) § 325-29.3. Dumpsters.
(22) ARTICLE VA. Telecommunications Facilities, and Services.
(23) ARTICLE VI. Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Lots.
(24) ARTICLE VII. Administration and Enforcement.
(25) ARTICLE IX. Amendments.
(26) ARTICLE X. Penalties.
Item # 5 a
3Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
325-45.2 District Standards
A. Establishment of Districts
Six zoning districts are established for the Collegetown area. Districts are as follows:
Abbreviation District
CR-1 Collegetown Residential 1
CR-2 Collegetown Residential 2
CR-3 Collegetown Residential 3
CR-4 Collegetown Residential 4
MU-1 Mixed Use 1
MU-2 Mixed Use 2
B. Definitions and Related Standards
The definitions of §325-3 shall control, except where a definition is provided below.
(1) Building Height
(a) The existing definition of building height shall apply (refer to § 325-3 - “Height of Building”).
(b) Building heights in the CR and MU districts are regulated using feet and stories.
(c) The only parts of the building which may exceed the maximum building height are bulkheads, housing for mechanical
equipment, towers and similar constructions not intended for human occupancy, provided that the requirements of
§325-45.2B(7) are met.
(2) Top Story Limitation
(a) A third story with habitable space in CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 districts must be contained within a pitched roof. The
sloping portion of the roof shall terminate at a maximum one foot high exterior knee wall. The exterior knee wall height
does not apply to gable ends. Projecting eaves and dormers are permitted. The aggregate width of the dormers cannot
exceed 50% of the width of the roof on the side where the dormer(s) are located, except as may be allowed by design
review.
(b) Knee Wall
(1) Definition: A partial height wall, the height of which is measured from the top of the ceiling framing of the level
below the wall to the top plate of the wall.
(3) Required Vegetative Buffer
(a) A minimum 10’ vegetative buffer from the rear property line is required for all properties within CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3
districts.
(b) Accessory structures can be located within the vegetative buffer but must conform to required rear and side yard setbacks.
(c) Required landscaping must be permanently maintained in a healthy growing condition at all times.
(4) Parking Setback Line
(a) Definition: A line which extends vertically and parallel to the street, in front of which parking on the site is not allowed.
(b) Surface parking areas shall be located behind the parking setback line.
(c) The parking setback line does not apply to on-street parking.
Item # 5 a
4 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16, 2013DRAFT
(5) Front Porches
(a) A front porch must be a minimum of 6 feet deep, not including steps.
(b) A front porch must cover at least 33% of the street-level story facade width of the building.
(c) A front porch must be roofed and edged by balustrades (railings) or low walls, and posts that extend up to the roof. The
entire front porch must be of open air construction with all exterior faces being at least 50% open.
(6) Front Stoops
(a) A front stoop shall be a maximum of five feet deep, not including steps, and a maximum of six feet wide.
(b) A front stoop may be roofed but not enclosed.
5’
max
(7) Utilities and Mechanical Equipment
All utilities and mechanical equipment must be screened from public view.
(a) Incorporation of mechanicals into stories with occupiable space is encouraged; if this is done, mechanicals will be
calculated as part of building height.
(b) Alternatively, mechanicals will not be measured as part of building height, provided that:
(1) The mechanical equipment is not incorporated into stories with occupiable space; and
(2) The mechanical equipment is architecturally integrated into the building per design standards; and
(3) The mechanical equipment is less than one-third of the building footprint and does not exceed 12’ in height above
the roof.
(8) Building Projections
No part of any building shall encroach into any setback or beyond any build-to line or area, except as described below:
(a) Overhanging eaves and bay windows may project up to two feet into any required setback.
(b) In CR districts, awnings and balconies may extend up to 5 feet from a lot line between adjoining parcels.
(9) Sample Footprint
In diagrams used to illustrate district standards, a sample footprint shows one possibility of building configuration. It is not
meant to regulate buildable area, but rather to show a possible placement of structures on the lot.
6’
min
Item # 5 a
5Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank
Item # 5 a
6 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16, 2013DRAFT
C. Collegetown Area Form Districts
DRYDEN RD
OAK
A
V
E
HOY RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
ITHA
C
A
R
D
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
MITCHELL ST
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
BL
A
I
R
S
T
CO
B
B
S
T
WORTH ST
N
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
RIDGED
A
L
E
R
D
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
FE
R
R
I
S
P
L
VALLEY RD
MILLER ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
E SENECA ST
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
E BUFFALO ST
CATHERINE ST
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
OXFORD PL
EDGEMOOR LA
W
O
O
D
C
O
C
K
S
T
HARVARD PL
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
FA
I
R
V
I
E
W
S
Q
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
FROSH ALLEY
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MA
P
L
E
G
R
O
V
E
P
L
MITCHELL
S
T
VALLEY RD
CR-1
CR-1 CR-1CR-1
CR-1
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2 CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3CR-3 CR-3
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
MU-1
MU-1
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
Item # 5 a
7Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
D. Maximum Height (in stories) Map
(1) Building heights in the CR and MU districts are regulated using feet and stories. A table illustrating the range of height
appears below:
MAX. & MIN. HEIGHT IN STORIES & FEET
District Max.
Stories
Min.
Stories Max. Feet Min. Feet
CR-1 3*2 35’19’
CR-2 3*2 35’19’
CR-3 3*2 35’19’
CR-4 4 2 45’19’
MU-1 5 3 70’30’
MU-2 6 4 80’45’
* Top Story Limitation - A third story with habitable space in CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 districts must be contained within a
pitched roof. The sloping portion of the roof shall terminate at a maximum one foot high exterior knee wall. The exterior
knee wall height does not apply to gable ends. Projecting eaves and dormers are permitted. The aggregate width of the
dormers cannot exceed 50% of the width of the roof on the side where the dormer(s) are located, except as may be allowed by
design review.
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
E
L
M
W
OO
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
WO RTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLI STER D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL S
T
3
3 3
3
3
33
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
33
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
44
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
Item # 5 a
8 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16, 2013DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank
Item # 5 a
9Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
E. Collegetown Residential 1-3 (CR-1, CR-2, CR-3)
PURPOSE & INTENT
The Collegetown Residential 1-3 (CR-1, CR-
2, CR-3) districts contain predominantly
residential structures occupied as single-family
homes, as duplexes, or as multiple residences
often rented by university students. The
intent is to maintain the existing housing
stock. Significant redevelopment within these
districts is neither anticipated nor encouraged.
Any new construction shall be similar in
form and scale, and the zoning requirements
of these districts are intended to protect the
character of the established residential
neighborhoods. Mandatory architectural
elements, such as front
porches and pitched roofs, ensure that new
construction is in keeping with the existing built
environment. All three districts have a maximum
building height of three stories, provided that the
third story is completely contained within the
required pitched roof. In addition,
buildings cannot exceed 35’ in height.
The Collegetown Residential 1-3 districts
accommodate single-family, two-family,
and multi-family uses, depending on the
district. More uses are permitted in those
areas closer to central Collegetown, and more
protections are provided in those areas
approaching primarily owner-occupied
neighborhoods.
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVING
P
L
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL S
T
CR-1
CR-1 CR-1CR-1
CR-1
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2 CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-2
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3CR-3
CR-3
Item # 5 a
10 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Garage door setback Sample footprint
(1) Collegetown Residential 1 (CR-1)
SETBACKS
Front setback, min 10’
Garage door setback, from front facade, min 20’
I Surface parking area setback at front
facade
J Side setback, min 5’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
L Accessory structure, rear setback, min 6’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 30%
Green space, min 35%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family detached dwelling 6,000
2. Other uses 7,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 45
2. Other uses 50
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 3*
Height, max feet 35’
B Height, min stories 2
Height, min feet 19’
*A habitable third story must be contained within
a pitched roof. See §325-45.2B(2)
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min 9’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd story floor to floor, min 9’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
E
B D F
A
C
D
B C E
A
L
G
H
J
J
K
F
F
H
I
G
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
11Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
ELEMENTS USE
Collegetown Residential 1 (CR-1)
PERMITTED USES
Q Principal structure Residential
R Accessory structure Parking, Residential (by
Special Permit)
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS^
None
^Minimum off-street parking requirements currently
under consideration.
ROOF
Pitched roof required
Shed roof not allowed as primary roof
Pitch of principal gable, min/max 6:12/12:12
Height of exterior knee wall, max 1’
STREET FACADE
N Length of blank wall, max 12’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
O Functioning entry on the street-facing
facade, min
1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is
required on a street-facing facade
PORCH
P Front porch required
N
O
P
M
Q
R
M
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
12 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Garage door setback Sample footprint
(2) Collegetown Residential 2 (CR-2)
SETBACK
Front setback, min 10’
Garage door setback, from front facade, min 20’
I Surface parking area setback at front
facade
J Side setback, min 5’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
L Accessory structure, rear setback, min 3’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 35%
Green space, min 35%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 5,000
2. Other uses 6,000
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 45
2. Other uses 50
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 3*
Height, max feet 35’
B Height, min stories 2
Height, min feet 19’
*A habitable third story must be contained within
a pitched roof. See §325-45.2B(2)
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min 9’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd story floor to floor, min 9’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
D
B C E
A
L
G
H
J
J
K
F
H
I
F
G
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
13Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
ELEMENTS USE
Collegetown Residential 2 (CR-2)
PERMITTED USES
Q Principal structure Residential
R Accessory structure Residential, Parking
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS^
None
^Minimum off-street parking requirements currently
under consideration.
ROOF
Pitched roof required
Shed roof not allowed as primary roof
Pitch of principal gable, min/max 6:12/12:12
Height of exterior knee wall, max 1’
STREET FACADE
N Length of blank wall, max 12’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
O Functioning entry on the street-facing
facade, min
1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is
required on a street-facing facade
PORCH
P Front porch required
N
O
R
S
P Q
R
M
M
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
14 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Garage door setback Sample footprint
(3) Collegetown Residential 3 (CR-3)
SETBACK
Front setback, min 10’
Garage door setback, from front facade, min 20’
I Surface parking area setback at front
facade
J Side setback, min 5’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
L Accessory structure, rear setback, min 3’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 40%
Green space, min 30%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 3,000
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses:3,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 30
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses 40
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 3*
Height, max feet 35’
B Height, min stories 2
Height, min feet 19’
*A habitable third story must be contained within
a pitched roof. See §325-45.2B(2)
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min 9’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd story floor to floor, min 9’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
D
B C E
A
L
G
H
J
J
K
F
I
F
H
G
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
15Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
ELEMENTS USE
Collegetown Residential 3 (CR-3)
PERMITTED USES
R Principal structure Residential
S Accessory structure Residential, Parking
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS^
1. Residential: 1 space for every 2 resident occupants
2. Home occupation: 1 space
3. Neighborhood commercial facility: 1 space per 500
gross SF of floor area.
4. Other Uses: See §325-20.
^Minimum off-street parking requirements currently
under consideration.
ROOF
Pitched roof required
Shed roof not allowed as primary roof
Pitch of principal gable, min/max 6:12/12:12
Height of exterior knee wall, max 1’
STREET FACADE
N Facade length, max 45’
O Length of blank wall, max 12’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
P Functioning entry on the street-facing
facade, min
1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is
required on a street-facing facade
PORCH
Q Front porch required
P
O
R
S
Q R
S
M
M
N
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
16 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16,2013DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank
Item # 5 a
17Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
F. Collegetown Residential 4 (CR-4)
PURPOSE & INTENT
The Collegetown Residential 4 district primarily contains
multi-family dwelling units, and while single-family and two-
family residential uses are permitted, it is expected that multi-
family residential will remain the predominant use. The
intent is this will be a medium-density residential district,
consistent with the vision outlined in the 2009 Collegetown
Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines to concentrate
additional development in the central areas of Collegetown.
This district serves as an essential bridge, both in density and built
form, between the Collegetown Residential 1-3 and Mixed Use
districts. Redevelopment is encouraged, but it is essential that new
construction meet the district requirements to ensure a consistent
transition between the higher-density and lower-density zoning
districts. District regulations permit buildings of up to 4
stories and 45’ in height; a building must meet both requirements.
Maximum lot coverage by buildings is greater than in the
Collegetown Residential Districts 1-3 but not as high as allowed in the
Mixed Use Districts. In terms of form, the district requirements provide
property owners with choices between architectural features intended
to create buildings compatible with those in adjacent zoning districts.
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRVIN G PL
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIA MS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL S
T
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
CR-4
Item # 5 a
18 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT
SETBACK
G Front setback, min 10’
H Garage door setback, from front facade, min 20’
I Surface parking area setback at front
facade
J Side setback, min 5’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
L Accessory structure, rear setback, min 3’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 50%
Green space, min 25%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 3,000
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses:3,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 30
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses 40
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 4
Height, max feet 45’
B Height, min stories 2
Height, min feet 19’
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min/max 9’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd-4th story floor to floor, min/max 9’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Parking setback Sample footprint
(1) Collegetown Residential 4 (CR-4)
A
D
B
C E
K
J
J
LF
D
D
F
G
I
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
H
Item # 5 a
19Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
PERMITTED USES
Q Principal structure
Residential, Residential with
Internal or Underground
Parking*
R Accessory structure Residential, Parking
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS^
1. Residential: 1 space for every 2 resident occupants
2. Home occupation: 1 space
3. Neighborhood commercial facility: 1 space per 500
gross SF of floor area.
4. Other Uses: See §325-20.
*Internal or underground parking must be wrapped by
residential uses on street-facing facades (except for neces-
sary entries/exits) and may not be visible from a public
street. Other form requirements shall not interfere with
the location of necessary entries/exits to the internal or
underground parking.
^Minimum off-street parking requirements currently
under consideration.
ROOF
Pitched or flat roof allowed
STREET FACADE
M Facade length, max 45’
N Length of blank wall, max 15’
FRONT DOORS AND ENTRIES
O Functioning entry on the street-facing
facade, min
1
For corner lots, one functioning entry is
required on a street-facing facade
FRONT PORCH, FRONT STOOP, OR RECESSED ENTRY
P Required for each functional entry.
ELEMENTS USE
Collegetown Residential 4 (CR-4)
Q
R
M
N
PP
OO
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
20 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16,2013DRAFT
This page left intentionally blank
Item # 5 a
21Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
G. Mixed Use (MU-1, MU-2)
OAK AVE
DRYDEN RD
ED
D
Y
S
T
I
T
H
A
C
A
R
D
HOY RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
COOK ST
IRV ING PL
WORTH ST
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
RIDGEDALE RD
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
OXFOR
D
P
L
HARVARD PL
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
E SENECA ST
MAPLE AVE
WILLIAMS ST
MILLER ST
FROSH ALLEY
E BUFFALO ST
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCADIL
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
MITCHELL
S
T
MU-1
MU-1
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
PURPOSE & INTENT
The Mixed Use districts accommodate retail, office, service,
hotel, and residential uses, and in most cases, multiple uses
will be combined within the same building. The purpose is to
create a dynamic urban environment in which uses reinforce
each other and promote an attractive, walkable neighborhood.
Located in central Collegetown, the Mixed Use districts allow
the highest density within the Collegetown Area Form Districts.
Redevelopment is anticipated and encouraged, and the intent is to
concentrate the majority of additional development within these
districts.
The Mixed Use district regulations have been designed to
encourage exceptional urban design and high-quality
construction. The Mixed Use 1 district permits buildings of up
to 5 stories and 70’ in height while the Mixed Use 2 district allows
buildings of up to 6 stories and 80’ in height. A building cannot exceed
either requirement. While it may be feasible to design a
building with a greater number of stories within the maximum allowed
height in feet, the intent of the district regulations is to meet both
requirements. The additional building height in feet has
been allowed for the purpose of providing adequate space for
mechanicals and accommodating high-quality design features and
finishes.
An objective of both Mixed Use districts is to create an urban
form that gives priority to pedestrians and encourages year-round
commercial activity at the street level. Required form elements,
such as a maximum distance between entries and a maximum
length of blank wall, activate the street-level of buildings to
engage pedestrians through this highly-traveled section of
Collegetown. In addition, front setback requirements have been
incorporated to ensure adequate space to provide wider sidewalks,
and a safer pedestrian environment. A required 10’ chamfer or
additional setback at corner lots within the Mixed Use 2 district
will allow greater visibility and natural light at busy intersections.
Item # 5 a
22 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT
SETBACK
G Front setback, min 10’
H Surface parking area setback at front
facade
I Side setback, min 5’
J Principal structure, rear setback, min 20’
K Accessory structure, rear setback, min 0’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 75%
Green space, min 10%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 3,000
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses:3,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. One-family or two-family dwelling 30
2. Multiple dwelling and other uses 40
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 5
Height, max feet 70’
B Height, min stories 3
Height, min feet 30’
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, commercial, min 12’
Floor to floor, residential, min 10’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D 2nd-5th story floor to floor, min/max 10’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
E Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
SITING
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Parking setback Sample footprint
(1) Mixed Use 1 (MU-1)
A
D
B
C E
D
D
D
J
I
I
KF
H
G
F
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
23Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
PERMITTED USES
P Principal structure Retail, Services, Office,
Residential, or Hotel
Q Accessory structure Residential, Parking
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
None
*Internal or underground parking must be wrapped by
one or more permitted use on street-facing facades (except
for necessary entries/exits) and may not be visible from a
public street. Other form requirements shall not interfere
with the location of necessary entries/exits to the internal
or underground parking.
ROOF
Pitched or flat roof allowed
STREET FACADE
L Facade length, max 75’
M Length of blank wall, max 15’
FRONT DOORS AND ENTRIES
N Distances between functioning entries, max 35’
Commercial entries must be functioning and
usable during business hours.
FRONT PORCH, FRONT STOOP, OR RECESSED ENTRY
O Required for each functional entry.
ELEMENTS USE
Mixed Use 1 (MU-1)
P
Q
L
M
O O
DIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
N
Item # 5 a
24 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16,2013DRAFT
HEIGHT
SETBACK
G Front setback, min/max 0/2’
I Surface parking area setback, from front facade,
min 30’
J Side setback, min 0’
K Principal structure, rear setback, min 10’
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
Lot coverage by buildings, max 100%
Green space, min 0%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Area in Square Feet
1. All uses 2,500
Width in Feet at Street Line
1. All uses 25
* See §325-45.2G(2) Siting Exceptions
(2) Mixed Use 2 (MU-2)
BUILDING HEIGHT
A Height, max stories 6
Height, max feet 80’
B Height, min stories 4
Height, min feet 45’
STREET-LEVEL STORY HEIGHT
C Floor to floor, min 12’
UPPER STORY HEIGHT
D Floor to floor, min 10’
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
Height, max 20’
Height, max stories 2
Square footage of footprint, max 500
SITING*
C
KEY:
Front setback Property line
Parking setback Sample footprint
A
D
B
I J
J
K
GD
D
D
DDIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
25Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
Mixed Use 2 (MU-2)
ROOF
Flat roof required.
STREET FACADE
Glazing, street-level story facade, min 65%
L Length of blank wall, max 15’
DOORS AND ENTRIES
M Distance between functioning entries, max 60’
Commercial entries must be functioning and
usable during business hours.
ELEMENTS USE
PERMITTED USES
N Street-level story
Retail, Services,
Hotel; Internal or
Underground Parking*
O Upper Stories Retail, Services, Office,
Residential, Hotel
See §325-45.3 Use Table for specific use requirements
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
None
*Internal or underground parking must be wrapped by
one or more permitted use on street-facing facades (except
for necessary entries/exits) and may not be visible from a
public street. Other form requirements shall not interfere
with the location of necessary entries/exits to the internal
or underground parking.
L
M
N
O
O
O
O
ODIAGRAMS TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXT
Item # 5 a
26 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16, 2013DRAFT
(3) Siting Exceptions
(a) The siting requirements for the MU-2 district are subject to the following exceptions:
(1) In order to accommodate wider sidewalks and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment, a setback of a
minimum of 5’ and a maximum of 7’ from the property line that abuts Dryden Road is required for all properties
on the south side of the 100- and 200-blocks of Dryden Road as designated on the map below.
(2) Buildings at all corner lots within the MU-2 district shall be chamfered at least 10’ from the corner or setback a
minimum of 5’ from both street frontages. If chamferred, the chamfer shall extend from the ground to the top of
the building, except for any stories that are stepped back beyond that dimension.
(3) All street-facing facades on corner lots shall be considered front facades.
(4) Street-Level Active Uses Required
(a) Active uses shall be defined as:
(1) Retail store or service commercial facility
(2) Restaurant, fast food establishment, tavern
(3) Theater, bowling alley, auditorium or other similar places of public assembly
(4) Hotel
(b) Active street-level uses are one of the keys to vitality of the Collegetown core area. Within the MU-2 district, active uses
are required on the street-level of all buildings fronting on those portions of College Avenue, Dryden Road, and Eddy
Street designated on the map below.
Street-level active uses required in areas shown in solid red.
ED
D
Y
S
T
DRYDEN RD
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
V
E
OAK AVE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
COOK ST
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
D
E
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLISTER DR
CASCADI
L
L
A
P
L
HARVARD PL
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
BL
A
I
R
S
T
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
MU-2
OA
K
A
V
E
DRYD
E
N
R
D
ED
D
Y
S
T
IT
H
A
C
A
R
D
CO
L
L
E
G
E
A
VE
HOY RD
EL
M
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
CO
R
N
E
L
L
S
T
ST
E
W
A
R
T
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
B
R
Y
A
N
T
A
VE
MITCHELL ST
BL
A
I
R
S
T
N
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
/
M
.
L
.
K
.
J
R
S
T
E SENECA ST
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
E BUFFALO ST
COOK ST
RIDGEDALE RD
IRVING
P
L
F
E
R
R
I
S
P
L
G
I
L
E
S
S
T
WILLIAMS ST
FA
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
A
V
E
CATHERINE ST
WORTH ST
B
R
A
N
D
O
N
P
L
OXFORD PL
EDGEMOOR LA
HARVARD
P
L
OSMUN PL
BOOL ST
S
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
S
T
SU
M
M
I
T
A
V
E
HOLLIS
T
E
R
D
R
EL
S
T
O
N
P
L
FROSH ALLEY
W
O
O
D
C
O
C
K
S
T
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
P
L
ON
E
I
D
A
P
L
CASCAD
I
L
L
A
P
L
ORCHARD PL
ED
G
E
W
O
O
D
P
L
DR
Y
D
E
N
C
T
STATE ROUTE 366
MAPLE AVE
MA
P
L
E
G
R
O
V
E
P
L
MITCHELL S
T
Item # 5 a
27Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
(5) Infill Development
(a) More than one principal structure is permitted on a parcel in the MU-2 district provided that the first principal structure
structure meets all requirements of §325-45.
(b) Any additional structures must meet all requirements of §325-45 except:
(1) Front setback
(2) Distance between functioning entries
(3) Street-level active uses required
(c) If the above requirements are met, §325-8B(1) shall not apply to additional structures on a parcel in the MU-2 district.
Item # 5 a
28 Collegetown Area Form Districts April 16, 2013DRAFT
325-45.3 Use Table
District Permitted Primary Use Permitted Accessory Use
CR-1 1. One-family detached dwelling occupied by:
a. An individual or family or functional family
(see §325-3) plus not more than one unrelated
occupant, or
b. If dwelling is owner occupied, an individual or
family plus not more than two unrelated occupants
2. Church and related buildings
3. Public park or playground
4. Library or fire station
By Special Permit of Board of Zoning Appeals (§325-9):
5. Cemetery and related buildings
6. Public utility structure except office
7. All school and related buildings
1. Private garage for not more than 3 cars
2. Structures for construction purposes, not to remain
over two years
3. Sign in connection with permitted use (see Sign
Ordinance, Ch. 272 City of Ithaca Municipal
Code)
4. By Special Permit: Towers or structures for receipt
or transmission of electronic signals for commercial
purposes or for generation of electricity to be used
on the premises where generated in any district
(see §325-9). Except for personal wireless services
facilities.
5. By Special Permit: An accessory apartment (see
§325-10). Permit required in all use districts.
6. Adult Day Care Home
7. Home Occupations: Special Permits required in
certain situations (see §325-9C{i}).
CR-2 1. One-family detached or semi-detached dwelling
occupied by an individual or family or functional
family plus not more than two unrelated occupants
2. Two-family dwelling, each unit of which may be
occupied by an individual or family plus not more
than two unrelated occupants.
3. Uses 2-4 under CR-1
By Special Permit of Board of Zoning Appeals:
4. Uses 5-7 under CR-1
5. Nursery school, child day care center, group adult
day care facility
6. Neighborhood commercial facility (see §325-3)
7. Bed and Breakfast Homes
1. Accessory uses as permitted in CR-1
CR-3 1. One-family detached, semi-detached, or attached
dwelling or two-family dwelling
2. Any use permitted in CR-1 and CR-2
3. Multiple dwelling (see §325-3)
4. Rooming or boarding house
5. Cooperative household (see §325-3)
6. Townhouse or garden apartment housing
7. Nursery school, child day care center, group adult
day care
8. Nursing, convalescent or rest home
By Special Permit of Board of Zoning Appeals:
9. Any use permitted by Special Permit in CR-1 and
CR-2
10. Hospital or Sanatorium
11. Inns
1. Any accessory uses as permitted in CR-2
2. Required off-street parking^
3. Private garage for 4 or more cars
4. Neighborhood parking area subject to regulations
of §325-20(B)
CR-4 1. Any use as permitted in CR-3 1. Any accessory use as permitted in CR-3
^ Minimum off-street parking requirements currently under consideration.
Item # 5 a
29Collegetown Area Form DistrictsApril 16, 2013DRAFT
District Permitted Primary Use Permitted Accessory Use
MU-1
1. Any use as permitted in CR-3
2. Funeral home or mortuary
3. Business or professional office
4. Bank or monetary institution
5. Office of government
6. Public, private, or parochial school
7. Retail store or service commercial facility
8. Restaurant, fast food establishment, tavern
9. Club, lodge, or private social center
10. Confectionery, millinery, dressmaking and other
activities involving light hand fabrication as well
as sales
11. Theater, bowling alley, auditorium or other similar
places of public assembly
12. Hotel
1. Any accessory use as permitted in CR-3
MU-2
1. Any use as permitted in MU-1.
2. Parking garage
1. Any accessory use as permitted in CR-3
2. Employee, customer, or public parking areas (see
§325-20)
3. Signs as permitted by Sign Ordinance
4. Home Occupation
Item # 5 a
THE NOISE CONSULTANCY, LLC
309 VAN NESTE ROAD
FLEMINGTON, NEW JERSEY 08822
phone: (908)237-0298 fax: (908)237-0792 e-mail: noiseconsultancy@aol.com website: www.noiseconsultancy.com
SENT VIA EMAIL
February 14, 2013
Mayor and Common Council
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Acoustical Consulting Services
Chapter 240
City of Ithaca Noise Ordinance
Dear Mayor Myrick and Members of the Common Council:
This letter is in response to a Request For Proposal from Councilman Murtagh, regarding consulting
services to assist with amendments to Ithaca's Noise Ordinance.
I have extensive experience in New York State, both in my capacity as the President of the Noise
Consultancy, LLC, (TNC) and in my capacity as the Director of the Rutgers University Noise
Technical Assistance Center.
As President of TNC, I wrote or consulted in the amendment of codes for Long Beach, New York
City, Ossining, Yonkers and Plattekill. I have been hired to address various enforcement and
regulatory matters by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, New York City
Law Department, the New York State Office of Attorney General and the Town of Brookhaven.
In my capacity at Rutgers University I have trained enforcement officers all across the state
including: Long Beach, New York City, Shelter Island, Freeport, Rochester, New Rochelle,
Binghamton, North Salem, Ossining, and Plattekill.
Based upon my conversation with Dr. Murtagh, I will propose two approaches to offering my
consulting services: as an hourly rate or as a comprehensive lump sum,. Your decision may be based
upon the extent of the services you desire.
HOURLY RATE: I can provide my services on an hourly basis, if you desire to perform much of
the work in-house, with my assistance in reviewing that work. The rate for my services is
$185/hour, and travel is invoiced at $92.50/hour. Expenses such as mileage, meals and hotels are
additional.
Item # 5 b
City of Ithaca
February 14, 2013
2 | Page
INCLUSIVE PROPOSAL:
One day of on-site consultation, scheduled at a mutually convenient date;
Present an educational seminar on the basics of sound as it applies to noise regulation including:
the various approaches to noise codes (i.e., nuisance codes v. performance codes) and the practical
benefit/drawbacks to each approach, followed by an open discussion to determine the specific
desires of Ithaca regarding what the jurisdictions desires to regulate or exempt from the code;
Tour the jurisdiction, specifically the problem areas;
Conduct sound level measurements of problem sources &/or conduct a demonstration of the
methodology of sound level measurement for enforcement purposes;
Review whatever relevant documents are provided by the City of Ithaca;
Draft a new or amended Noise Code, as appropriate, based upon all information gathered;
Perform whatever redrafting is necessary, until the new or amended Code is adopted, or
declared legislatively dead;
Prepare an "Analysis of Public Comments," if written comments are received and if a formal
response is desired; and,
Remain available for consultation via phone or e-mail.
The inclusive price for these services is $8,000. Expenses are additional, and would include mileage,
meals and a hotel room. Additional days of consecutive on-site consultation will be invoiced at
$1,250/day plus expenses. Additional days of non-consecutive on-site consultation will be invoiced
at $1,750/day plus expenses.
If you have any questions whatever regarding this proposal, please don't hesitate to call me.
I have appended several papers I have written which will help frame our discussion.
I look forward to the possibility of working with the City of Ithaca, and assisting you in your effort
to deliver a better quality of life to your residents.
Sincerely,
Eric M. Zwerling, M.S., INCE, ASA
President
Item # 5 b
ERIC M. ZWERLING, M.S., INCE, ASA
Rutgers University Noise Technical Assistance Center
14 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
The Noise Consultancy, LLC
309 Van Neste Rd
Flemington, NJ 08822
CURRENT POSITIONS
1991-Present Director - Noise Technical Assistance Center
Department of Environmental Sciences
Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey
1999-Present President - The Noise Consultancy, LLC
Noise Consultant/ Expert Witness (Since 1992)
[Expert for the Defendants, City of New York Law Department
-in- Robert Turley, et al., - against- Rudolph Guiliani, et al., ]
1993-Present Noise Enforcement Expert - New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. Contracted (as Director of the RNTAC) to provide technical
expertise on noise related issues to the NJDEP and the State of New Jersey .
1998-Present Instructor - "Noise Hazards" in 'Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene'.
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey , School of Public
Health, Office of Public Health Practice
1998-Present Committee Member - S12 Working Group 41, Model Community Noise
Ordinances. Acoustical Society of America
2001-Present Committee Member - Technical Study Group on Community Noise
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
1994-Present Instructor - "Community Noise" in 'Environment and Public Health Course,"
Rutgers Continuing Education Program, Cook College Office of Continuing
Professional Education.
1992-2005 Adjunct Professor- Rutgers University Department of Environmental
Sciences. Course: 375:336 'Community and Occupational Noise'
1998-2000 Commissioner - Franklin Township (NJ) Environmental Commission
2010-Present Board of Education – Readington Township, New Jersey
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Member - Acoustical Society of America
Member – Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Item # 5 b
EDUCATION
ABD Ph.D. Candidate
Rutgers - the State University of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Sciences
Occupational Hearing Conservationist
Council for Accreditation in Occupational Hearing Conservation.
Graduate Certificate in Environmental Ethics -
Department of Philosophy, University of Georgia .
B.S., M.S. University of Georgia .
JURISDICTIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Approved Noise Control Investigator
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:29 -2.11(a)3
Approved Noise Consultant
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
Pursuant to N.Y.C.A.C. Section 24-231
AWARDS
1997 Advisor of the Year Award
Rutgers College Student Activities Advisory Council
Faculty Advisor - Students for Environmental Awareness
PUBLICATIONS
Zwerling, E.M, A. Myers, C. Shamoon. 2012. In Press. Analysis of the "Plainly Audible"
Standard for Noise Ordinances. Proceedings of Inter- Noise 2012. Institute of Noise
Control Engineering.
Zwerling, E.M., C. Shamoon. 2010. Proactive Regulation Engenders Creative Innovation -
Quieting the Jackhammer. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2010. Institute of Noise Control
Engineering.
Szulecki, S., E. Zwerling, C. Anderson, B. Turpin. 2010. Modeling with CadnaA to estimate
the probability of awakening associated with train horns. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2010.
Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Zwerling, E.M., C. Anderson, S. Szulecki, F. Maimone, B. Turpin. 2009. Study of Train
Noise in Teaneck, NJ. USEPA Agreement Number: X-83245701-0
Zwerling, E.M. 2005. Regulatory Scheme For Noise Enforcement In New Jersey . Invited
paper. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.V.118, No. 3, Pt 2 of 2, Sept. 2005, p.
1849.
Item # 5 b
Zwerling, E.M. 2004. Training as a Critical Component of Successful Noise Enforcement
Programs. Invited paper. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.V.115, No. 5, Pt 2 of 2,
May 2004, p. 2568.
Zwerling, E.M. 2004. Noise Enforcement in Cities. Invited paper. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America.V.115, No. 5, Pt 2 of 2, May 2004, p. 2593.
Zwerling, E.M. 2002. Characteristics of Successful Local Noise Enforcement Programs.
Invited paper. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.V.112, No. 5, Pt 2 of 2, Nov. 2002,
p. 2375.
Zwerling, E.M. 2002. Boom Car and Boom Box Code Drafting. The Quiet Zone. Spring
2002.
Zwerling, E.M. 2002. Hearing Protection. In Encyclopedia of Public Health, ed. Lester Breslow.
Macmillan Reference USA .
Zwerling, E.M. 2001. Vehicle Enforcement. Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center.
Developed for North Salem , NY
Zwerling, E.M. 2000. Regulation of Amplified Sound Sources. Proceedings of Noise-Con
2000. Acoustical Society of America / Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Newport
Beach , CA. December 3-5, 2000 .
Zwerling, E.M. 2000. State of Michigan Model Noise Ordinance. Proceedings of Michigan
Municipal League Annual Convention/ Michigan Association of Municipal Attorneys
Annual Meeting. September 28-30, 2000 , Macinac Island , MI .
Zwerling, E. M. Contributing Editor. 1991-Present. Community Noise Enforcement.
Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center .
Zwerling, E. M. Contributing Editor. 1998. Vehicle Sound Reproduction Enforcement.
Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center . Developed for the City of Rochester , New
York
Zwerling, E.M. 1997. Community Noise Enforcement: A Mature Technology. Hearing
Rehabilitation Quarterly. 22:4, 4-8+.
Zwerling, E.M., D. Pinto, P. Hanna, J. Lepis, B. Turpin. 1997. Local Noise Enforcement
Options and Model Noise Ordinance With Pre-Approved Language for the State of New
Jersey . Rutgers Cooperative Extension Publication #E215.
Zwerling, E.M. 1997. Community Noise Infosheet. Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences Institute. Public Education and Risk Communication Division.
Zwerling, E.M. 1996. Turning Down the Volume: Effective Strategies for Community Noise
Enforcement. The Police Chief. V. 63, Dec. 53-59.
Item # 5 b
Zwerling, E. M. & B. J. Turpin. 1996. Community Noise Enforcement: Reviving a
Moribund Program or Developing One Anew. Proceedings of Noise-Con 96, The 1996
National Conference on Noise Control Engineering. 955-960.
Zwerling, E.M. 1996. Community Noise Pollution Certification and Assistance. Home page
for Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center. http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/org/rntac/
RESEARCH PROJECTS (at Rutgers University, as P.I. or Co-P.I.)
"Assistance Regarding Noise Standards for Wind Turbines on Farms," Granting Agency:
New Jersey State Agricultural Development Commission (SADC), 2011 - 2012.
"Assistance Regarding Noise Standards for Photovoltaic Installations on Farms," for New
Jersey State Agricultural Development Commission (SADC), 2010.
"Railroad Noise in Teaneck, New Jersey" Granting Agency: United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 2005 - 2009.
"Road Noise Educational Outreach Program," Granting Agency: New Jersey Department of
Transportation, 2002.
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
Proactive Regulation Engenders Creative Innovation - Quieting the Jackhammer. Invited
Paper. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2010. Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Baltimore,
MD, April 20, 2010.
Environmental Health and Noise: Issues and Answers. Invited Presentation. New Jersey
Environmental Health Association Annual Public Health Conference. Atlantic
City , NJ March 3, 2008.
Noise Primer For Legal Professionals. Invited Presentation. New York State Bar Association
Environmental Law Section Fall Meeting. Saratoga Springs , New York . October 13, 2007 .
How to Control Noise Pollution in Your Community. Invited Presentation. 90th Annual
Conference -New Jersey State League of Municipalities. Atlantic City , NJ November 15,
2005 .
Regulatory Scheme for Noise Enforcement in New Jersey . Invited Paper. 150th Meeting -
Acoustical Society of America . Minneapolis , MN October 17-21, 2005
Noise Enforcement in Cities. Invited Paper. 147th Meeting - Acoustical Society
of America . New York , New York May 24-28, 2004 .
Training as a Critical Component of Successful Noise Enforcement Programs. Invited Paper.
147th Meeting - Acoustical Society of America . New York , New York May 24-28, 2004 .
Community Noise Impacts. Invited Presentation. Topics in Public Health. New Jersey
Department of Health and Senior Services. April 16, 2003 .
Item # 5 b
Characteristics of Successful Local Noise Enforcement Programs. Invited Paper. First Pan-
American/Iberian Meeting on Acoustics. Jointly Sponsored: Acoustical Society of America ,
the Iberoamerican Federation of Acoustics and the Mexican Institute of
Acoustics. Cancun , Mexico .Dec 2-6, 2002 .
Community-Based Environmental Noise Management, Invited Panelist; The Role of State and
Local Governmental Agencies in Noise Abatement and Control, Invited Panelist. Inter-Noise
2002, The 2002 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control
Engineering. Dearborn , MI Aug. 19-21, 2002 .
Community Noise Regulation and Enforcement: Theory and Practice. American Association
of Code Enforcement. 4th Semi-Annual Education Conference. Bowie , MD. May 1-3, 2002
Regulation of Amplified Sound Sources. Noise-Con 2000. Acoustical Society of
America/Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Newport Beach , CA. December 3-5,
2000 .
Writing and Enforcing a Noise Ordinance. Michigan Municipal League Annual Convention.
Nuts and Bolts of Writing a Noise Ordinance. Michigan Association of Municipal Attorneys
Annual Conference. Macinac Island , MI , September 28-30, 2000 .
Municipal Noise Regulation - Theory and Practice. International Municipal Lawyers
Association, Mid-Year Seminar. Washington , D.C. April 9-11, 2000 .
Effective Strategies for Community Noise Enforcement:
Michigan Municipal League 9th Annual Education Conference. Mt. Pleasant, MI.
March 11, 1998 .
The Association of Towns of the State of New York , Annual Meeting,
Educational Training Courses. New York City , February 16, 1998 .
American Association of Code Enforcement 8th Annual Business and Educational
Conference. Hagerstown , MD , October 20-25, 1997 .
Community Noise Enforcement: Reviving a Moribund Program or Developing One Anew.
Noise-Con '96, The 1996 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, Seattle, WA,
September 29-October 2, 1996.
NOISE ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION COURSES TAUGHT
Community Noise Enforcement
Vehicular Noise Enforcement
Vehicle Sound Reproduction Enforcement
Motor Sports Ordinance Enforcement
Octave Band Analysis for Enforcement Purposes
New Jersey :
Certification and recertification - every three months, 1991 to present.
On-Site:
New Rochelle, NY; Jacksonville, FL (three times); Long Beach, NY (three times); Everett,
WA; St. Augustine, FL (three times), Seattle, WA (twice); Neptune Beach, FL; Gainesville,
Item # 5 b
FL; Anchorage, AK (twice); Binghamton, NY (twice); Washington State Association of
Code Enforcement (three times); Ft. Collins, CO; Shelter Island, NY (three times); New
York City, NY (four times); Rochester, NY; Newport, RI; Platekill, NY; Traverse City, MI;
DeKalb County, GA (four times); Twinsburg, OH; Sandusky, OH; North Salem, NY;
Honolulu, HI; Lafayette, LA (twice); Philadelphia, PA; Barbados, West Indies (twice); Collier
County, FL (twice); Walton County, FL (three times); Greenville County (SC); Vancouver
B.C. (twice); Panama City Beach, FL (twice); Matanuska-Susitna Borough, AK
ON-SITE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS
Lafayette, LA; Traverse City, MI; Plattekill, NY; St. Augustine, FL; Charleston County, SC;
Lansing, MI; DeKalb County, GA; Walton County, FL, Overland Park, KS; Greenville
County, SC, Decatur, AL; Yonkers, NY; Ossining, NY; Newport RI; Monroe County, FL;
Fort Lauderdale, FL; Panama City Beach, FL
PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENTS
City of New York Law Department; City of Philadelphia Law Department, Environmental
& Regulatory Compliance Division; U. S. State Department; City of New York Police
Department; Bergen County (NJ) Utilities Authority; New York City Department of
Environmental Protection; New York State Office of Attorney General; McDonald's
Corporation, Lafayette (LA) Consolidated Government; Gaeta Recycling, Inc.; National
Ecology; Browning Ferris Industries; Township of Manalapan (NJ); Kansas State
Legislature; Readington Township (NJ); City of Lansing (MI); City of Tacoma (WA); City of
St. Augustine (FL); Atlantic Development and Management Corp.; CareMatrix Corporation;
County of Charleston (SC); DeKalb County (GA); Greenville County (SC); Ethicon, Inc.;
City of Yonkers (NY); Walton County (FL); City of Overland Park (KS); City of Newport
(RI); City of Ossining (NY); Alliance to Save Southern Ulster's Rural Environment; Roche
Molecular Systems; Wheelabrator, Inc.; Monroe County (FL); City of Juneau (AK);
Township of Branchburg (NJ); Union County United (PA); City of Fort Lauderdale (FL);
City of Panama City Beach (FL); Stop & Shop Supermarket Company; Track Racket
(Millville, NJ); Green Lawn Cemetery (Columbus, OH); Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
Item # 5 b
Newport Beach, California
NOISE-CON 2000
2000 December 03-05
REGULATION OF AMPLIFIED SOUND SOURCES
Eric M. Zwerling
Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center
Department of Environmental Sciences
14 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
INTRODUCTION
There are few sources of noise that generate more complaints than amplified music. Whether
from a mobile source such as a vehicle or hand-held device, or from a fixed location such as a
bar or party, amplified music can present a difficult enforcement profile if the appropriate
approach is not employed. While solutions to noise enforcement problems are certainly
jurisdiction-specific, the approaches that are ultimately the most successful are those that are
precise, not over-broad, are easily applied by the enforcement officer and are easily understood
by the judicial and regulated communities.
If amplified sources of sound are a problem within the jurisdiction, it must first be
determined where the failure is: the noise code; a low enforcement priority; or inconsistent or
non-deterrent adjudication. Often, a properly drafted code will address the weakness at any of
these levels. Officers will not enforce a code provision that has a poor track record in court, their
command will not allocate staff resources to such enforcement, and the regulated community
neither respects nor fears an unenforced code.
The major differences between nuisance codes and performance codes have been
previously addressed [1][2], and their relative strengths and weaknesses analyzed. As virtually
every jurisdiction has a noise nuisance code the analysis of its efficacy is quite simple. Does it
work? Are non-exempt sound sources controllable? Will a judge rule in enforcement's favor, or
do they demand a more objective standard allowing the enforcement officer less subjectivity?
A call was received at the Rutgers Noise Center from a jurisdiction asking whether
they needed a new noise ordinance. Their current code used a "loud and raucous" standard,
which they recognized as quite subjective. On closer questioning, it was revealed that there are
no noise sources that they cannot apply this standard to, and the standard has never been
successfully challenged in court. After commenting on their jurisdictional luck, it was suggested
that they let sleeping dogs lie.
Many jurisdictions are not so lucky. Their courts require a performance (decibel
denominated) standard, or at least one which is as content-neutral as possible. However,
enforcement of a performance standard is particularly difficult for vehicular and hand-held sound
reproduction systems, as the sound is transient and the source is mobile. Enforcement of an A-
scale permissible sound level limit may be equally unsatisfactory for the low frequency
components of amplified music when masked by moderate levels of higher frequency
neighborhood residual sound.
Item # 5 b
VEHICULAR SOUND REPRODUCTION ENFORCEMENT
While some jurisdictions enforce a curbline sound level limit, the enforcement officer must set
up in advance in the location at which they suspect a violation may occur. A proper field
calibration check of the sound level meter and a measurement of the wind speed are required
prior to any valid sound level measurements and this may take up to several minutes, removing
any spontaneity. Enforcement is extremely effective during the operation of such a field
initiative, but it is only effective at that time and in that place. Such an enforcement initiative
becomes deterrent when its presence becomes generally known. Outside of these parameters,
deterrence is minimal. Some jurisdictions, such as New Rochelle, NY, and Anchorage, AK, have
used this approach to successfully stop 'cruising' on a specific right-of-way, but have sometimes
only moved the problem elsewhere.
An alternative enforcement standard is required to address this specific sound source,
if enforcement is to be regular and predictable, thus providing the desired deterrence. If this
deterrent is not successful, the enforcement standard must lead to successful prosecution. A
review of precedents and court challenges reveals that any successful standard has to be
objective, narrowly crafted and easily understood. A "plainly audible" standard has been applied
in numerous jurisdictions across the United States, and this standard has been held to be neither
vague nor overbroad (State v. Ewing, 914 P.2d 549, Haw. 1996). It is also clearly understandable
to those it is intended to regulate. There is no subjectivity to the determination of a plainly
audible sound source; there is no value judgment associated with such a determination, as there
might be if the standard were "disturbing" or "loud and raucous."
The following language may be used in a municipal noise code to address portable
sound reproduction sound systems:
Definition
"Plainly audible" means any sound that can be detected by a person using his or her
unaided hearing faculties. As an example, if the sound source under investigation is a
portable or personal vehicular sound amplification or reproduction device, the
enforcement officer need not determine the title of a song, specific words, or the artist
performing the song. The detection of the rhythmic bass component of the music is
sufficient to constitute a plainly audible sound. [3]
Restricted Uses and Activities
1. Personal or commercial music amplification or reproduction equipment shall not
be operated in such a manner that it is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet in any
direction from the operator between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., sound from such equipment shall not be plainly
audible at a distance of 25 feet in any direction from the operator. [4]
2. Self-contained, portable, hand-held music or sound amplification or reproduction
equipment shall not be operated on a public space or public right-of-way in such a
manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet in any direction from the operator
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00
a.m., sound from such equipment shall not be plainly audible by any person other than
the operator. [3]
Item # 5 b
Enforcement of this provision for vehicle sound systems is relatively simple, and can
be conducted by an officer in a patrol car. When the officer hears the rhythmic bass of a sound
system, visual contact should be made with the suspect vehicle, and the number of car-lengths to
that vehicle estimated. Car-lengths are a common unit of distance for a patrol officer. If possible,
the officer should allow the vehicle to pass, confirming that it was at this point that the maximum
perceived sound intensity occurred. Fifty feet is approximately three car lengths, and if the
officer allows the vehicle to travel for an additional 1-2 car lengths before making the
determination to curb the vehicle, this is being generous to the alleged violator. Overtly
broadcasting vehicles are often audible at distances equaling or exceeding 200 feet.
Rochester, NY, has initiated a very successful program of enforcing vehicular sound
limits, with both measured and plainly audible standards [5]. Supported by an aggressive
advertisement program in print and broadcast media, previously agitated complainants are now
calling with praise. There are reports of automotive sound system enthusiasts returning their
sound systems to installers in a defensive reaction. This is due in part to the motivated
enforcement of the code, as well as the summary towing of violators [6].
Several states also employ a plainly audible standard for vehicle sound systems.
However, it should be noted that this provision must apply equally to personal and commercial
vehicles (such as ice cream trucks). In 1999, ruling on a Kankakee County case, the Illinois
Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a state statute limiting noise coming from vehicles. The
statute exempted the emissions of "vehicles engaged in advertising".
While noise enforcement programs often reside in the code enforcement or health
department of a jurisdiction, this provision should only be enforced by police. Curbing a vehicle
is potentially confrontational, and represents an unacceptable risk to an enforcement officer who
is untrained to handle this situation.
BASS EMISSIONS FROM FIXED SOURCES
An entirely different set of problems is posed by the bass emissions of fixed sources such as bars
and parties. While a plainly audible standard may be applied to such sources, many jurisdictions
prefer a more objective performance standard when the source is fixed.
The vast majority of performance codes are based upon A-scale permissible sound
level limits. Both the loudness and annoyance of low frequency sounds are underestimated by A-
scale measurements [7]. The A-weighting network is relatively less responsive to these
frequencies as per the ANSI S1.4-1983 [13]. While humans are relatively insensitive to low
frequency sounds of low intensity, they are much more sensitive to high intensity emissions of
the same frequencies, as demonstrated by the equal-loudness contours [12]. The A-scale does not
compensate for the increasing linearity of human loudness perception with increasing sound
intensity.
Various researchers refer to low frequency sounds as having an upper limit of
between 100Hz and 250 Hz [6]. Popular musical notes played with an electric bass guitar are the
low B (B1 - 61.74 Hz) on a five-string guitar and the low E (E2 - 82.41 Hz) on a four-string
model [10] [9]. Thus, the A-scale is often inadequate in measuring or regulating the intrusiveness
of the emissions of a sub-woofer reproducing these popular notes, which can penetrate structures
and result in physical sensation. Human reaction to noise is magnified by noise-induced
vibrations within the human body and the rattling of a residential structure or its contents [8].
Even jurisdictions with properly functioning performance codes may have difficulty
when the source of the complaint is the rhythmic bass of amplified music, which poses two
Item # 5 b
distinct problems. When the dB(A) sound level is measured at the property line, mid-and high
frequency neighborhood residual sounds may mask the measurement of the lower frequency
sounds of the source under investigation. The enforcement officer may not then be able to
document the intrusiveness of the sound source. A different problem may be posed if the sound
levels are measured within a residence. The low frequency sounds at low intensity may not
exceed permissible dB(A) sound level limits, even when plainly audible and annoying to the
complainant.
Numerous alternative regulatory standards may be proposed including 1/1 octave and
1/3 octave band analysis, and Zwicker loudness. However, it must be understood that most noise
enforcement investigations are conducted by police, health and code officers, who have at most a
3-day certification training course. The hazards of requiring a technically complex measurement
method has been discussed [1][2]. It is also important to note that these enforcement officers
work for agencies who will balk at the purchase of relatively expensive sound level meters; some
even refuse to buy meters meeting the standards of ANSI S1.4-1983. Very few of the meters
already owned by enforcement agencies are capable of octave band analysis, much less Zwicker
loudness. If forced to buy a meter costing several thousand dollars, most jurisdictions will buy
only one meter, reducing the frequency of enforcement and increasing complaint response time,
both of which reduce deterrence.
An alternate measurement standard may be applied to these particular sound sources
based upon the C-scale, the measurement of which most sound level meters are capable. At low
frequencies, the relative response of the C-weighting network is significantly greater than that of
the A-weighting network. The C-weighting relative response to a tone of 50 Hz is –1.3 dB, while
the A-weighting relative response to the same sound is -30.2 dB [13].
Before going dormant, the Acoustical Society of America's S12 Working Group 41,
Model Community Noise Ordinances was actively considering recommending a supplementary
C-scale standard for the reasons mentioned above.
The standard recommended below is to be applied to measurements within the
residence of the complainant, which will serve the dual purpose of attenuating any masking
frequencies that would be measured at the property line, and demonstrating the intrusiveness of
the sound under investigation within the living space of the complainant, the latter of which
leads to more intuitive adjudication. The standard is relative and not absolute, and thus flexible
in different environments.
The following language may be amended into a municipal noise code to address bass
emissions from fixed sources:
Definitions
"C" weighted sound level is the sound level as measured using the "C" weighting
network with a sound level meter meeting the standards set forth in ANSI S1.4-1983 or
its successors. The unit of reporting is dB(C). The "C" weighting network is more
sensitive to low frequencies than is the "A" weighting network [11].
"Extraneous sound" means a sound which is relatively intense, intermittent and of
short duration and is neither part of the neighborhood residual sound, nor comes from the
sound source under investigation. These sources of sound are noted, but excluded from
all measurements [11].
"Neighborhood residual sound level" means that measured value which represents the
summation of the sound from all of the discrete sources affecting a given site at a given
time, exclusive of extraneous sounds, and those from the source under investigation.
Item # 5 b
Neighborhood residual sound level is synonymous with background sound level.
Neighborhood residual sounds are differentiated from extraneous sounds by the fact that
the former are more steady state, although they may not be continuous [11].
"Real property line" means either (a) the imaginary line including its vertical
extension that separates one parcel of real property from another; (b) the vertical and
horizontal boundaries of a dwelling unit that is part of a multi-dwelling unit building; or
(c) on a multi-use property, the interface between the two portions of the property on
which different categories of activity are being performed (e.g., if the multi-use property
is a building which is residential upstairs and commercial downstairs, then the real
property line would be the interface between the residential area and the commercial
area) [3].
"Total sound level" means that measured level which represents the summation of the
sounds from the sound source under investigation and the neighborhood residual sounds
which affect a given place at a given time, exclusive of extraneous sound sources [11].
Permissible sound level limit
If the source of sound is an amplified sound reproduction device, and the complainant
states that the rhythmic bass component of the music is disturbing within their residence,
then the noise enforcement officer may take sound level measurements within the
residence of the complainant. No person shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit the
operation of any amplified source of sound in such a manner that it raises the total sound
levels by the permissible sound level limits set forth below when measured within the
residence of a complainant. These sound level measurements shall be conducted with the
sound level meter set for "C" weighting, "fast" response. Such measurements shall not be
taken in areas which receive only casual use such as hallways, closets and bathrooms. For
the purposes of these measurements, the neighborhood residual sound level is that sound
level which is measured in the residence when the sound source under investigation is not
prominent, or in a room on the same floor that is relatively unaffected by the sound
source under investigation. The C-scale is more sensitive to low frequency sound levels
than the A-scale. An increase of 3 dB is perceived by humans as being perceptibly
louder, 5 dB is perceived as quite noticeably louder, and 10 dB is twice as loud [11] [14].
AMPLIFIED SOUND REPRODUCTION DEVICE
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVEL LIMITS
Indoors across a real property line
dB(C) ABOVE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDUAL SOUND LEVEL
School nights
10:00 PM - 7:00 AM
Non-school nights
11:00 PM and 9:00 AM
All other times
3 dB(C) 5 dB(C)
The above discussion could be made more technically accurate but immeasurably
more complex by the introduction of considerations of frequency, amplitude, and phons. For
instance, at 50 Hz, a 6 dB increase results in an increase of approximately 10 phons which
Item # 5 b
implies a doubling of loudness. However, a discussion of the Fletcher-Munson curve with a
municipal attorney will shorten the audience considerably, and serves no significant purpose. If
the above standard is adopted, it is quite progressive and meaningfully protective. The specific
permissible sound level limits may be adjusted, as can be the times within which they are
permitted.
This provision is content-neutral, removes all subjectivity from the determination,
and avoids the A-scale pitfall of an officer hearing an intrusive sound level without the ability to
document an exceedance which would result in prosecution. A properly trained investigator can
complete the entire investigation in fifteen minutes. This standard has already been adopted by
St. Augustine, FL and Lafayette, LA.
CONCLUSIONS
The relatively simple code amendments proposed herein can effectively address the difficult
enforcement profile that amplified sound sources may present, and thus provide an efficient tool
with which to regulate the significant impacts that they have on complainant quality of life.
REFERENCES
1. "Turning Down the Volume: Effective Strategies for Community Noise Enforcement," E.M. Zwerling,
The Police Chief, 63, 53-59 (1996).
2. "Community Noise Enforcement: Reviving a Moribund Program or Developing One Anew," E.M.
Zwerling & B. J. Turpin, Proceedings of Noise-Con 96, The 1996 National Conference on Noise Control
Engineering, 955-960 (1996).
3. "Local Noise Enforcement Options and Model Noise Ordinance With Pre-Approved Language for the
State of New Jersey," E.M. Zwerling, D. Pinto, P. Hanna, J. Lepis & B. Turpin. Rutgers Cooperative
Extension Publication #E215 (1997).
4. "Boom Cars - Boom Boxes," E.M. Zwerling, The Noise Consultancy, LLC Website, "http://www.
noiseconsultancy.com/code_tips, (2000).
5. E.M. Zwerling (contributing ed.), Vehicle Sound Reproduction Enforcement - City of Rochester, New York
(certification course manual, Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center, New Brunswick, NJ, 1998)
6. “Personal communication,” T. Borshoff, City of Rochester - Neighborhood Empowerment Teams (1999).
7. "Annoyance due to low frequency noise and the use of the dB(A) scale" K. Persson and M. Bjorkman, J.
Sound and Vibration, 27, 491-497 (1988).
8. "Sources and effects of low-frequency noise,"B. Berglund, P. Hassmen & R.F. Soames Job, J. Acoust.Soc.
Am., 99, 2985-3002 (1996).
9. "Personal communication," R. Berthelson (2000).
10. "Frequencies for equal-tempered scale" Anon. Department of Physics, Michigan Technological University
Webpage, http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/notefreqs.html.
11. “Lafayette Consolidated Government – Noise Code,” E.M. Zwerling, Lafayette, LA (1999).
12. "The Loudness of Sounds," W.A. Munson, in Handbook of Noise Control (C.M. Harris, ed.), (McGraw
Hill, New York, 1957).
13. “American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters,” ANSI S1.4-1983, (Acoustical
Society of America, New York, 1983).
14. A. Thumann & R. K. Miller. Fundamentals of Noise Control Engineering. (Fairmont Press Inc./Prentiss
Hall, Atlanta, 1986).
Item # 5 b
Analysis of the “plainly audible” standard for noise ordinances
Eric M. Zwerling 1
Rutgers University Noise Technical Assistance Center2
Department of Environmental Sciences
14 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08903 USA
Amy E. Myers, Esq.3
Harrison Sale McCloy, Chtd2
304 Magnolia Avenue
Panama City, FL 32401 USA
Charles Shamoon, Esq.4
Assistant Counsel, NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection2
59-17 Junction Blvd.
Flushing, NY 11373-5108 USA
Noise ordinances which apply a standard of “plainly audible” have advantages which may
outweigh the disadvantages under certain circumstances. Drafting considerations should
include: nature of the noise source; composition of the enforcement agency; legal
precedents or constraints within the jurisdiction; whether the standard can be easily
understood by those it regulates; and, whether the standard provides meaningful guidance
to facility operators and engineers to achieve compliance. A comparative analysis is
provided for the following standards: performance (decibel denominated); nuisance
(subjectively worded); and, “plainly audible”. Performance standards require the use of
sound level meters and trained personnel, and are not easily applied to sources that are
transient or mobile. Nuisance standards can be overturned as vague and overbroad. Courts
across the United States have upheld the validity of “plainly audible” standards for
amplified sound sources, although not uniformly. Case law is discussed. If the “plainly
audible” standard is incorporated into a content-neutral code provision, and is impartially
applied, it has significant utility and addresses noise sources not easily addressed otherwise.
1 zwerling@rutgers.edu
2 The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of their respective
agencies or employers.
3 amyers@hsmclaw.com
4 CharlesSh@dep.nyc.gov
Item # 5 b
1 INTRODUCTION
The goal of a community noise ordinance is to protect quality of life, and to do so in a
manner that is predictable, fair and legally defensible. While the goals appear simple, the
drafting of such an ordinance is not, and its final form should consider a myriad of variables both
internal and external to any given jurisdiction. Critical factors include: the nature of the noise
source; composition of the enforcement agency; legal precedents or constraints within the
jurisdiction; whether the standard can be easily understood by those it regulates; and, whether the
standard provides meaningful guidance for facility operators and engineers to achieve
compliance.
Local government 5 noise ordinances contain provisions that fall into essentially two
categories: performance and nuisance. Performance provisions establish permissible sound level
limits which must be measured with a sound level meter, while nuisance provisions include
prohibitions against the emission of sound deemed to be disturbing noise by a complainant at the
point of reception. In either case, verification of a violation requires investigation by an
enforcement agent (unless the witness/victim swears out a complaint, in which case they are the
plaintiff and have the burden of proof).
There are inherent benefits and drawbacks to both performance and nuisance standards;
many of the drawbacks are obviated with the use of a "plainly audible" standard. Performance
provision investigations are precise and content-neutral, but require equipment, trained personnel
and time. Challenges are less likely and adjudication is more certain. Performance provisions are
inflexible in their application, which can be particularly problematic when the sound level of an
amplified source does not exceed a permissible limit, and the sound is not masked by the
intensity and/or frequency of ambient sounds. Nuisance codes are more flexible, but adjudication
is unpredictable due to the subjective nature of nuisance determination.
A "plainly audible" investigation can be conducted relatively quickly, without equipment or
extensive training, and is based upon an objective standard which has been repeatedly upheld in
court as meeting the requirements set forth by the United States Supreme Court that: “To
withstand constitutional scrutiny, government restrictions must be (1) content neutral, in that
they target some quality other than substantive expression; (2) narrowly tailored to serve a
significant governmental interest; and (3) permit alternative channels for expression 6 .”
2 THE PLAINLY AUDIBLE STANDARD
Plainly audible standards are exactly what they sound like—standards that prohibit plainly
audible sounds at or beyond a distance certain. Sample "plainly audible" provisions follow:
DEFINITIONS
"Plainly audible" means any sound that can be detected by a person using his or
her unaided hearing faculties. As an example, if the sound source under
investigation is a portable or personal vehicular sound amplification or
reproduction device, the enforcement officer need not determine the title of a
song, specific words, or the artist performing the song. The detection of the
5 As used herein, the term “local government” shall mean a city, town, county, or state, or other political subdivision
governed by an administrative body authorized to protect the general health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
6 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (1989).
Item # 5 b
rhythmic base component of the music is sufficient to constitute a plainly audible
sound.
"Real property line" means either (a) the vertical boundary that separates one
parcel of property (i.e., lot and block) from another residential or commercial
property; (b) the vertical and horizontal boundaries of a dwelling unit that is part
of a multi-dwelling unit building; or (c) on a multi-use property, the vertical or
horizontal boundaries between the two portions of the property on which different
categories of activity are being performed.
“Sound production device” means any device whose primary function is the
production of sound, including, but not limited to any, musical instrument,
loudspeaker, radio, television, digital or analog music player, public address
system or sound-amplifying equipment.
SAMPLE PROVISIONS
(1) Personal or commercial music amplification or reproduction equipment
shall not be operated in such a manner that it is plainly audible at a distance of 50
feet in any direction from the operator between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., sound from such equipment
shall not be plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet in any direction from the
operator.7
(2) Self-contained, portable, hand-held music or sound amplification or
reproduction equipment shall not be operated on a public space or public right-of-
way in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet in any
direction from the operator between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., sound from such equipment shall
not be plainly audible by any person other than the operator.
(3) Sound production devices may not be operated in such a manner that they
are plainly audible at a distance of one hundred (100') feet from the building,
structure or vehicle in which they are located.
(4) Sound production devices may not be operated in such a manner that they
cross a real property line and are plainly audible within a residence between the
hours of 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM.
(5) No person shall operate or use or cause to be operated any sound production
device, for commercial or business advertising purposes or for the purpose of
attracting attention to any performance, show, sale or display of merchandise, in
connection with any commercial business enterprise: (i) outside or in front of any
such building, place or premises, abutting on or adjacent to any street, park or
public space; (ii) in or upon any vehicle operated, standing or being in or on any
public street, park or place; (iii) from any stand, platform or other; (iv) from any
airplane or other device used for flying, over the city; (v) from any boat on the
waters within the jurisdiction of the city; or (vi) anywhere on the public streets,
7 Distances are included as examples only. The basis for choosing an appropriate distance is discussed below. It
should be noted that vehicles engaged in overt broadcasting are audible at distances significantly exceeding 100 feet.
In all enforcement actions it is recommended that compliance determination is made at a distance exceeding the
permissible limit. There is also significant value to testimony of impact beyond simple audibility, such as the
inspector stating whether there were prior complaints or whether passers-by noted or exhibited discomfort to or
avoidance of the noise.
Item # 5 b
public sidewalks, parks or places where sound from such reproduction device may
be heard on any public street, sidewalk, park or place.
(6) Motorcycles. No person shall cause or permit any motorcycle to operate on
a public right-of-way where the muffler or exhaust generates a sound that is
plainly audible to another individual at a distance of 200 feet or more from the
motorcycle. (This provision may be used as probable cause to curb the vehicle for
further inspection, if such is desired).
The permissible distance for “plainly audible” sound should reflect jurisdictional character
and will. Consideration should be given to: time of day; location of potentially sensitive
receptors (the average setback of residences from roadways, the proximity of nightclubs to
residences, etc.); population density; and, whether it is the jurisdictional will to protect “the
commons,” or public spaces.
3 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 Equipment and Training
Enforcement of a decibel-denominated performance provision requires the use of a sound
level meter. At a minimum, the meter should conform with ANSI S-1.4-1983, and along with its
calibrator be certified annually at an accredited laboratory. The investigator should have received
training in the use of the meter, and the protocols for compliance determination measurements in
complex acoustical environments. These requirements alone limit the number of practitioners in
even the largest enforcement agency, unless that agency is very highly motivated. However, if all
these requirements are met, and the measurements are properly conducted, legal challenges to
the enforcement action are unlikely to be successful. In fact, a well-documented performance
provision investigation is often deterrent to challenge.
Enforcement of both nuisance and "plainly audible" provisions require no equipment or
extensive training, thus investigations can be undertaken by virtually all field investigators in an
agency. Complaint response time is greatly influenced by the number of qualified meter
operators on any given shift, and whether the investigator always carries the meter. These may
not be issues for a noise source that is relatively static, but they are when the source is either
transient, mobile or both. Enforcement delayed may well be enforcement denied, which has
implications both for immediate relief and long term deterrence. This point is particularly
relevant to sound production devices, whether amplified or not, and whether fixed or mobile.
3.2 Self-Policing
Some of these same considerations, equipment and training, determine whether a sound
source can easily self-police compliance. One of the keys to effectively quieting a jurisdiction is
when sound sources are motivated to action by a credible enforcement program and are capable
of self-policing. A performance provision may well inform them of the permissible limits in
language that is precise, meeting that legal requirement, but they may still not have the capacity
to make such a determination for themselves even if they want to comply in good faith.
Performance provisions establish permissible limits not only in dB(A), which all meters can
measure, but sometimes also dB(C) and octave bands. While some provisions specify the use of
the Lmax metric, others require Leq or even cumulative duration above a threshold. These
Item # 5 b
provisions may be very precise, but they require relatively sophisticated meters that only an
enforcement agency or acoustical consultant may have.
Nuisance provisions have language that is inherently subjective, even while there are
ongoing efforts to define these provisions more precisely, thus more objectively. As such, self-
policing of nuisance provisions may be unreliable, especially if the observer has just been inside
the facility under investigation.
A provision prohibiting "plainly audible" noise at a specific distance from the source or its
property line is an unambiguous bright line for all observers, whether from enforcement or
management, against which they can determine compliance, with virtually no preparation
required. There is nothing about the standard which is vague, another legal requirement to be
adjudged valid.
3.3 Subjectivity and Objectivity
Objectivity is in many ways a corollary to content-neutrality, and this is one of the
underpinnings to a legally defensible provision regulating speech of any nature or type.
Certainly, sound level measurements are influenced only by the intensity of sound, not by its
content, and are thus inherently objective. Nuisance provision enforcement ideally considers
only the intensity, but nuisance provisions often employ subjective adjectives to describe
prohibited acts (e.g., 'disturbing:, "loud" "raucous", "reasonable', etc). Enforcement actions based
on such a provision may well be challenged as lacking objectivity, or the provision itself
challenged as vague or overbroad. That said, through common use and judicial familiarity many
nuisance cases are successful; however, it is also true that many enforcement actions are not
undertaken by agencies that are uncomfortable enforcing such subjective language.
The determination of whether a sound is "plainly audible" is objective and content-neutral,
and this finding has been the upheld in many court decisions. However, challenges to "plainly
audible" provisions have been successful where the provision itself is not content neutral through
unequal application, such as exempting a specific source category within a greater whole (e.g.,
permitting amplified music only from commercial vehicles). Thus, the drafter of any such
provision must be mindful of this point in the construction of the provision and exemptions there
from. As well, people should not draw incorrect and overbroad conclusions from provisions
stricken for lacking content neutrality, understanding the limited basis of this rejection.
3.4 Applicability and Design For Compliance
"Plainly audible" provisions are most appropriately applied to volitional sources such as
sound production devices, whether amplified or not. The operator chooses the time, place and
manner of the emissions, and the operation of the device has only one purpose - to emit sound.
The emissions can be modified quickly and simply to achieve compliance, and also for the
purpose of avoiding enforcement through evasive behavior.
In those cases where physical plant modifications must be undertaken to achieve compliance
with a "plainly audible" provision (e.g., a loud bar), there are numerous remediation and
monitoring strategies that can be employed, much as is the case with facilities seeking
compliance with a performance provision.
In all cases, a conservative approach is required to designing a remediation strategy,
regardless of the regulatory standard. If the jurisdiction enforces a performance provision with an
absolute limit (e.g., 50 dB(A) at or within the property line of an affected person between the
hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM), the endpoint is clear, although the design should be
Item # 5 b
conservative. If, however, the jurisdiction has a performance standard set relative to the ambient
sound level (e.g., 3 dB(A) (or dB(C)) above ambient), even the assumption of the permissible
limit must be conservative, possibly using L90 or Lmin ambient measurements. Much is the
same with designing for "plainly audible" compliance.
Once physical plant modifications are completed (e.g., a double-door system, vibration
isolation mounting of speakers, installation of a compressor/limiter, etc.), sound system settings
can be tuned for intensity and frequency distribution, and once set, physically or electronically
locked down. If the use of a pre-tuned "house sound system" is impractical, a real-time
monitoring program can help insure compliance. Simply, simultaneous
measurements/observations are conducted both in a fixed location inside the bar and at the point
of compliance determination. A "not to exceed" sound level is determined (preferably dB(C)) at
a location inside the bar at which a monitoring microphone can be mounted, remotely wired to a
sound level meter set to threshold trigger at the "not to exceed" level. A light can be wired to
alert the operator of the sound system for real-time feedback when the threshold level is
exceeded.
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection maintains a document on their
web page to assist facilities in achieving compliance: Noise Control Guidance for Nightlife
Industry8 ,
4 LEGAL ANALYSIS
Governments are charged with the general authority to enact regulations that will protect the
general health, safety and welfare of those in their community, though the regulation of noise is
also expressly authorized. The Noise Control Act of 1972 specifically finds that “primary
responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments,”9 and state legislation
often expressly enunciates this specific authority to enact regulations protecting citizens from
excessive and unnecessary noise.10 Though the charge is finite enough, the exercise of this
authority has manifested itself in infinite variations of sound control regulations which rely
largely on the use of nuisance, performance and plainly audible based standards, or a
combination of them.
While the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the use of sound amplification
equipment within reasonable limits is an aspect of free speech protected under the First
Amendment,11 there is no constitutionally protected right to amplify sound, nor is there a
constitutional right to force unwilling people to listen to your speech or expression. As noted by
one Oregon court, “freedom of speech is not intended to protect, and indeed is incompatible
with, a cacophony.”12 Therefore, a local government can constitutionally restrict such
expression, even in a public place, if the limitations on the time, place and manner of the
protected speech are reasonable and content-neutral. Certainly, the plainly audible standard is
one way to do just that.
The appeal of the plainly audible standard to local governments should be apparent from its
practical attributes, as discussed above, but it also provides a measurable amount of comfort for
8 http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_control_guide_comm.pdf
9 42 USC Chapter 65 § 4901(a)(3)
10 By way of illustration and example, the Constitution for the State of Florida provides in Article II, Section 7(a)
that “Adequate provision shall be made by law for the abatement of …excessive and unnecessary noise.”
11 See Ward, 491 U.S. 781 (1989); Saia, 334 U.S. 558 (1948).
12 Portland v. Aziz, 47 Or.App 937 (1980).
Item # 5 b
the general strength of its legal attributes, as will be discussed below. When properly drafted,13 it
is a content neutral regulation that imposes reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on
amplified sound sources; it is not overly broad; it is not vague because it puts both sound
regulators and sound producers on fair notice of what is permissible and what is prohibited; and
it is inherently easily and consistently enforceable. This conclusion is drawn from a review of
the standard’s resiliency upon its examination by courts across the United States which have not
found the standard legally wanting. Even so, the plainly audible standard has been vulnerable to
constitutional challenges long familiar to nuisance and performance based standards--and has
failed, as those do, when it is not content neutral, is not narrowly tailored to achieve the
government's interest motivating the regulation, does not permit alternative channels for
expression, or when it makes unlawful constitutionally protected conduct or permits arbitrary or
discriminatory enforcement.
4.1 Plainly Audible Standards are not (and need not be) Overbroad
The overbreadth doctrine appears to be the most popular form of constitutional attack of
noise regulations, presumably because the plaintiff need not establish that the regulation is
unlawful as applied to him, but may make the challenge on behalf of any and all parties who may
be adversely affected by its reach and therefore render the regulation wholly and immediately
invalid. Further, overbreadth challenges may be sustained either from the text of the regulation
or by demonstration of particular facts unique to the plaintiff or the community. For obvious
reasons, this analysis will be limited to examinations based on the text of the plainly audible
regulations.
An overbroad regulation is one that restricts protected speech or conduct along with
unprotected speech or conduct. When a regulation primarily regulates conduct rather than
speech, the “overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in
relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.”14
Plainly audible standards are not directed at the content of broadcasted speech but rather at
the intensity of sound coming from amplified sound sources, be they fixed or mobile. Courts
have examined provisions with the same or similar language to that set forth in Section 2 above,
and have found that these prescriptions against loud noises are an attempt to control conduct, i
.e., the use of the volume control on a sound production device, rather than an attempt to control
the type of speech being broadcast.15 More importantly for our purposes here, courts have
rejected overbreadth challenges to regulations that prohibit broadcasts of sound from mobile
sources that are plainly audible at distances of ten feet or more,16 and from fixed sources that are
plainly audible at distances of as little as five feet or more.17
13 While it is the intent of this paper to recommend the plainly audible standard for its many merits, this paper does
not and cannot assert the legal infallibility of a standard that relies on the use of the term “plainly audible” to save or
justify it against language in or motives for the same regulation that does not meet constitutional muster.
14 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973).
15 See State v. Dorso, 4 Ohio St.3d 60 (1983).
16 See, e.g. Davis v. State, 710 So.2d 635 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (100 feet); People v. Arguello, 327 Ill.App.3d 984,
262 Ill.Dec. 272, 765 N.E.2d 98 (Ill.App.Ct.2002) (75 feet); State v. Adams, No. 02CA171, 2004 WL 1380494,
(Ohio Ct. App., June 14, 2004) (50 feet); State v. Medel, 139 Idaho 498, 80 P.3d 1099 (Idaho Ct.App.2003) (50
feet); Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wash.App. 533, 954 P.2d 290 (Wash.Ct.App.1998) (50 feet); United States v.
Black, 2009 WL 2960468 (US Dst. Ct Mich. 2009).
17 See, e.g. Kelleys Island v. Joyce (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 92, 765 N.E.2d 387 (6th Dist.) (150 feet);Schrader v.
State, No. 03-99-00780-CR, 2000 WL 1227866 (Tex.Ct.App. Aug. 31, 2000) (30 feet); Commonwealth v. Scott, 878
Item # 5 b
4.2 Plainly Audible Standards are not Vague
Noise regulations challenged for vagueness often overlap with overbreadth and due process
challenges, though the "void for vagueness" challenge itself is independent from either of those.
Fundamentally, a regulation can be vague if it fails to provide person of ordinary intelligence a
reasonable opportunity to understand what it prohibits, or if it authorizes arbitrary or
discriminatory enforcement. Case law has repeatedly and firmly decided that plainly audible
standards are not vague, leaving the courts to focus on other constitutional issues a noise
regulation might present in any given case.
In a series of cases examining a plainly audible standard contained in a Florida statute
regulating the operation of amplified sound devices from motor vehicles 18 , all decided within the
last year to six months of this writing, the most recent Florida Court to have weighed in on the
issue has held that the statute, though unconstitutional on other grounds, provides both "fair
notice of the prohibited conduct" to those who would be regulated by it and "an explicit
guideline to those charged with enforcing" it.19 This Florida court goes on to conclude that the
plainly audible standard itself "is no less precise than the 'loud and raucous' standard approved
by the United States Supreme Court in City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.20
Notably, in these and other cases where the court made quick work of the "vagueness"
challenge set forth, a definition of "plainly audible" was provided within the regulation or in
other policy documents controlling the enforcement of such a regulation, thus preventing elastic
interpretations or ad hoc prosecutions. While helpful for parties regulated and regulating,
however, the lack of a definition of "plainly audible" is not necessarily fatal to such a regulation,
where other language in the regulation will enable a court to imply a reasonable person standard.
The reasonable person standard, though not mathematically precise like a performance standard,
has nevertheless been identified by courts as an objective standard which gives fair notice of
prohibited conduct, thus providing an interpretation courts may rely upon to sustain such
regulation in a way that is not impermissibly vague.
Going forward, it bears noting that this challenge is unlikely to prove a successful means for
striking down plainly audible noise regulations, for two reasons. As a general rule, local
government ordinances are liberally construed in favor of the local government and are
presumed valid. Thus, where a definition of plainly audible is provided in the regulation itself or
supplemental regulations, courts will defer to that definition, and make every effort to find that
the definition is reasonably clear and workable within the greater context and intent of the
A.2d 874 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005) (25 feet); Moore v. City of Montgomery, 720 So.2d 1030 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (5
feet).
18 Section 316.3045, Florida Statutes reads:
316.3045 Operation of radios or other mechanical soundmaking devices or instruments in vehicles; exemptions.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person operating or occupying a motor vehicle on a street or highway to operate or amplify the sound
produced by a radio, tape player, or other mechanical soundmaking device or instrument from within the motor vehicle so that
the sound is:
(a) Plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more from the motor vehicle; or
(b) Louder than necessary for the convenient hearing by persons inside the vehicle in areas adjoining churches, schools, or
hospitals.
(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to motor vehicles used for business or political purposes, which in the normal
course of conducting such business use soundmaking devices. The provisions of this subsection shall not be deemed to prevent
local authorities, with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police
power, from regulating the time and manner in which such business may be operated.
19 See Montgomery v. State of Florida, 69 So.3d 1023 at 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
20 City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993).
Item # 5 b
ordinance. Because of the court's tradition of deference in the presence of a definition, drafters
may shield a regulation from vulnerability on this point by assuring that a definition is provided
in a regulation. Second, the more often a plainly audible standard is examined by courts in the
same jurisdiction or persuasive geographical area, the less discretion the court has to deviate
from its previous conclusions and controlling precedent. Thus, if upon an early examination of
the plainly audible standard a court finds it to be reasonably clear or unlikely to allow arbitrary
or discriminatory enforcement, and upon a subsequent examination finds that either or both of
those findings was upheld in a previous case, it will often defer to the prior decision. Because
there are only two elements of the vagueness test, the arguments that can be raised in this context
are limited. Once a court finds that the standard puts reasonable people on fair notice of the
prohibited conduct, and also finds that the regulation does not lend itself to arbitrary or
discriminatory enforcement, the analysis is over. That appears to be the case for “void for
vagueness” challenges of the plainly audible standard. While as-applied challenges could still
arise, the outcomes of facial challenges, have, on this point, been firmly established.
4.3 Plainly Audible Standards which are Content Neutral may reasonably impose time,
place and manner restrictions on amplified sounds
The United States Supreme Court has provided pivotal guidance in terms of drafting noise
regulations and the shaping of jurisprudence on the constitutional validity of such regulations. In
ruling on a New York City case the Supreme Court declared that: “To withstand constitutional
scrutiny, government restrictions must be (1) content neutral, in that they target some quality
other than substantive expression; (2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental
interest; and (3) permit alternative channels for expression.”21
4.3.1 Plainly Audible Standards are Content Neutral
Government regulation of expressive activity is content neutral so long as it is “justified
without reference to the content of the regulation speech.”22 Reviewed in isolation from other
standards contained in noise regulations, “plainly audible” standards nearly always pass the
content neutrality test, as the central feature of a “plainly audible” standard is its obvious focus
on sound intensity rather than the message or type of sound heard. “Plainly audible” regulations
become vulnerable, however, when they carve out specific exceptions for particular messages or
sources of sound. This is not to say that exemptions are fatal—only that the drafter must consider
them with caution.
If the exemptions are content-based, the entire regulation is presumed invalid unless the
government can demonstrate the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling (not merely
significant) state interest and is precisely drawn to achieve that end.23 The courts do not appear
to have established a clear test for determining whether or when the government interest is
compelling, though it appears the concept is meant to apply to something necessary or crucial
rather than something desired or preferred. Courts have upheld plainly audible standards that
create exemptions for sources emanating from traditional public fora such as schools and public
property. Public forums are those places “which ‘have immemorially been held in trust for the
use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for the purposes of assembly,
21 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (1989).
22 Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).
23 People v. Jones, 188 Ill.2d 352 (1999).
Item # 5 b
communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.’”24 Courts
upholding standards containing such exemptions generally find that exempting public fora from
an ordinance's application clearly serves a significant governmental interest and is consistent
with long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence.25
That said, courts have struck “plainly audible” standards exempting political and business
vehicles,26 and “plainly audible” standards exempting vehicles engaged in advertising.27 These
cases generally rely on an instruction found in a Supreme Court case regarding free speech
which states that “[a] prohibition against the use of sound trucks emitting ‘loud and raucous'
noise in residential neighborhoods is permissible if it applies equally to music, political speech,
and advertising.”28
Examining those cases where exemptions proved fatal in toto, it is noteworthy that the fatal
flaw in those ordinances is not the presence of a regulatory exemption, but rather the
governments’ apparent interest in using those regulations to protect commercial speech to a
greater degree than noncommercial speech—an action which is contrary traditional jurisprudence
that has typically assigned commercial speech a “subordinate position” in the scale of First
Amendment values.29
4.3.2 Plainly Audible Standards are Narrowly Tailored to Serve a Significant
Government Interest
Turning to the significant government interest element of this test, there appears to be little
or no question that government has a significant interest in protecting citizens from unwelcome
or excessive noise. A speech-restrictive regulation will satisfy this requirement so long as it
“promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the
regulation.”30 Great deference is traditionally given to the governing body on this point in most
First Amendment law, though it seems that the Supreme Court’s endorsement in Ward has made
this a point that often appears to be judicially assumed by most courts rather than one that needs
to be demonstratively established in every case by the governing body. Despite the apparent
ease with which this point can be met, drafters are nonetheless wise to include a statement of that
government’s intent for the regulation(e.g., Basis and Background, Declaration of Findings and
Policy, Preamble, etc.), as such text also serves to reinforce the point in the event of a regulatory
challenge.
Importantly for the “narrowly tailored” part of this test, the regulation need not be the
least restrictive means of achieving the government’s interest. “When a content-neutral
regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring
requirement even though it is not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the
statutory goal.”31 While a local government has the burden of proof to show that alternative
avenues exist, the burden is met upon the submission of any alternative avenues.
24 Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983), citing Hague v. CIO, 460 U.S. 37 (1939).
25 Niles v. Leonard, 2010 WL 5550234 (Ohio 2010); See also People v. Arguello, 327 Ill.App.3d 984 (2002).
26 Daley v. City of Sarasota, 752 So.2d 124 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2000); State of Florida v. Catalano, 60 So.2d 1139
(Fla.2nd DCA 2011); Montgomery v. State of Florida, 69 So.3d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
27 People v. Jones, 188 Ill.2d 352 (1999).
28 City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993).
29 U.S. v. Edge Broad. Co., 509 U.S. 418, 430, 113 S.Ct. 2696, 125 L.Ed.2d 345 (1993).
30 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (1989).
31 Costello v. Burlington, citing Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 726 (2000).
Item # 5 b
4.3.3 Plainly Audible Standards Permit Amply Alternative Channels of Communication
Again, plainly audible standards nearly always pass this test, as they generally do not
impose a total ban on the use of amplified sound devices—they only restrict the intensity at
which these devices may operate. According to the Supreme Court in Ward, the fact “that the
city’s limitations on volume may reduce to some degree the potential audience for respondent’s
speech is of no consequence, for there has been no showing that the remaining avenues of
communication are inadequate.”32 As courts also tend to observe, those remaining avenues often
involve the speech or expression which does not require amplified sound. Summed up in the
words of a fairly recent New York City case, “the requirement that ample alternative channels
exist does not imply that alternative channels must be perfect substitutes for those channels
denied to plaintiffs by the regulation at hand; indeed, were we to interpret the requirement in this
way, no alternative channels could ever be deemed ample.”33
5 PLAINLY AUDIBLE PROVISION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A PERFORMANCE
PROVISION IN NEW JERSEY
In the case where a jurisdiction is precluded from employing a performance standard, a
"plainly audible" standard may be substituted. In January 2012, S-2850 was signed into New
Jersey law as P.L. 2011 c. 198. The law states that "It shall not be a violation of the "Noise
Control Act of 1971." P.L. 1971, c.418 (C.13:1G-1 et seq.), or any rule or regulation established
pursuant thereto, for a person to operate (1) a beach bar, existing and operating as of August 31,
2011, during normal business hours, as defined by the department [New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP)], between May 15 and October 15...".
The state noise code (N.J.A.C. 7:29) was drafted and adopted pursuant to NJSA13:1G-4
Codes, rules and regulations; contents; promulgation; enforcement. Authority to enforce the
state code has been delegated to county Departments of Health. Local jurisdictions may adopt a
performance code, containing specific decibel-denominated sound level limits, pursuant to
13:1G-21. Validity of existing civil or criminal remedies; validity of ordinances or resolutions
stricter than this act:
No existing civil or criminal remedy now or hereafter available to any person shall be
superseded by this act or any code, rules, regulations or orders promulgated pursuant
thereto. No ordinances or resolutions of any governing body of a municipality or county or
board of health which establish specific standards for the level or duration of community
noise more stringent than this act or any code, rules, regulations or orders promulgated
pursuant thereto shall be superseded. Nothing in this act or in any code, rules, regulations or
orders promulgated pursuant thereto shall preclude the right of any governing body of a
municipality or county board of health, subject to the approval of the department, to adopt
ordinances, resolutions or regulations which establish specific standards for the level or
duration of community noise more stringent than this act or any code, rules or regulations
promulgated pursuant thereto.
The NJDEP has consistently maintained the position that their authority to review and
approve local ordinances does not extend to nuisance codes, which are not adopted pursuant to
32 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (1989).
33 Masatrovincenzo v. City of New York, 435 F.3d 78, 101 (2d. Cir. 2006).
Item # 5 b
N.J.S.A.13:1G-1 et seq., as they do not establish "specific standards for the level or duration of
community noise" (i.e., are not decibel-denominated). This has extended to "plainly audible"
standards as well.
In State of New Jersey v. Clarksburg Inn 34 , the Superior Court of New Jersey upheld a
challenge to a "plainly audible" provision noting that: "The governing body of every
municipality may make, amend, repeal and enforce ordinances to preserve the public peace and
order and to prevent disturbing noise, N.J.S.A. 40:48-1. In addition, any municipality may make,
amend, repeal and enforce ordinances it deems necessary and proper for the good government,
order and protection of persons and property and the preservation of the public health, safety and
welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, N.J.S.A. 40:48-2. " Thus, the court found that the
authority to adopt a local nuisance code, specifically one containing a “plainly audible”
provision, was found in N.J.S.A. 40:48, not N.J.S.A. 13:1G.
The Court specifically rejected as unpersuasive the argument that "the vague language in the
Ordinance should be replaced with objective criteria for enforcement based upon sound decibel
levels," and the fact that "the New Jersey Noise Control Act regulate(s) noise based upon decibel
levels." "It is not this court's role to require the choice of one method over another when as here
the present language in the Ordinance is neither vague nor ambiguous and reasonably notifies the
public of the conduct it proscribes."
Local municipalities still desiring to protect citizens' health, welfare, and peaceable
enjoyment of their private property may adopt a "plainly audible" provision, while the courts
decide on the inevitable challenges to the P.L. 2011 c. 198 for the favored-class competitive
advantages it confers on (as yet undefined) beach bars, and the unequal protection challenges
from private residents still subject to noise codes from which bars are exempt.
6 CONCLUSION
As stated by the United States Supreme Court: “Condemned to the use of words, we can
never expect mathematical certainty from our language.”35 And in some jurisdictions too, it may
seem that no amount of language precision can predict with certainty the constitutional muster of
a noise regulation. However, not unlike the nuisance ordinance which was the subject of the
Supreme Court’s statement referenced above, the plainly audible standard is marked both by
flexibility and reasonable breadth and the reasonable precision that is the hallmark of
performance based standard as well.
The plainly audible standard has been held to be valid in courts at every level in the United
States. It is a reasonable, common sense, objective standard with which to regulate disturbing
noise. Local governments across the country recognize the ease of enforcement of a plainly
audible provision, and the fact that it is an efficient and effective tool in a noise control program.
34 State of New Jersey v. Clarksburg Inn., 375 N.J. Super. 624 (2005).
35 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).
Item # 5 b
Eric M. Zwerling, M.S., INCE, ASA
Director, Rutgers Noise Technical Assistance Center
Department of Environmental Sciences
14 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
www.envsci.rutgers.edu/org/rntac
Zwerling@envsci.rutgers.edu
732-932-9800 x 6137
Fax: 732-932-8644
SENT VIA EMAIL
February 14, 2013
Mayor and Common Council
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Course Proposal
Community Noise Enforcement Certification
City of Ithaca
Dear Mayor Myrick and Members of the Common Council:
This letter is in response to an inquiry from Councilman Murtagh regarding the options for training
enforcement officers from the City of Ithaca through our certification course Community Noise
Enforcement. The certification conferred by our course has been recognized in courts throughout
New York State.
We have had investigators from across New York State attend the course at Rutgers University,
while other jurisdictions request an on-site presentation of the course. The fundamentals of noise
measurement are the same across all jurisdictions. That said, the regulatory review is geared towards
the jurisdiction, so an on-site course in Ithaca would be customized to your code, while the course at
Rutgers is geared towards the New Jersey State Noise Code.
Regardless of where they attend the three-day certification course, the officers will be fully trained in
the techniques, technology and strategies of sound level measurement and reporting for the purpose
of enforcing a noise code. We also address nuisance enforcement, including investigative techniques
and appropriate testimony. Emphasis will be placed on making the officers comfortable through a
series of field exercises.
If the course is taught in Ithaca, conducting these field exercises in and around the city will be
valuable for the officers. If you desire, we can schedule the course to include Friday night field work
so we can practically address entertainment/party noise.
The course and course manual for an on-site course will be customized to Ithaca's noise code. Also
included will be the following items: use of Rutgers' sound level meters during the course, and
course manuals to all attendees. After the course, exams and Noise Measurement Report Forms (the
field practical exam) will be graded and returned, along with certificates for those receiving passing
grades.
Item # 5 b
This course is offered at Rutgers University on a quarterly basis, and the tuition is $530/person for
non-New Jersey governmental agents. The on-site course fee for up to 10 students is $4250. The
tuition for additional attendees will be $275 per person for attendees 11-14, $225 for attendees 15-
17. Above that number, the course fee is capped at $6000; I don’t know how many people you need
trained.
Expenses incurred for an on-site presentation will be additional and include: mileage; meals; and,
hotel.
The costs outlined above apply if we can simply invoice Ithaca. If you require a formal contract we
will have to involve the Rutgers University Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. The
contracting process can be lengthy and they will impose an overhead fee.
I look forward to the possibility of assisting you in your desire to deliver a better quality of life to the
residents of Ithaca.
Sincerely,
Eric M. Zwerling, M.S., INCE, ASA
Director
Item # 5 b
Item # 8 a
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Jennifer Dotson, Chair; Ellen McCollister, Vice
Chair; Seph Murtagh, Graham Kerslick, and
Eddie Rooker
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick (arrived at 6:00 p.m.)
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning and Development; Lynn Truame,
Historic Preservation Planner, Department of
Planning and Development; Debbie Grunder,
Executive Assistant, Department of Planning
and Development
Others Attending: Aaron (Avi) Lavine, City Attorney
Krin Flaherty, Associate City Attorney
Chair Jennifer Dotson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
There were no agenda changes.
B. Special Order of Business
There was no special order of business.
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
There was no public comment or committee member response.
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports
1. CDBG and HOME Programs Funding – Public Hearing Announcement –
Chair Dotson reported that a public hearing will be held for the CDBG and HOME
Programs Funding on March 22, 2012 and the application deadline will be in early
March. More information can be obtained from the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency.
2. Update on Projects
a. Comprehensive Plan
Kirby Edmonds reported on the current progress of the City Comprehensive Plan.
There is a lot of information being gathered, several meetings are scheduled, and
information can be obtained from the City website at www.cityofithaca.org. He
urged all who are interested in the comp plan to get involved now rather than later.
Item # 8 a
b. Commons Upgrade and Repair
Public meetings have been or are being scheduled as follows:
Thursday, March 1, 2012
City Hall, Common Council Chambers, 108 East Green Street
5:00 -6:00 pm – Project Overview
6:00 -7:15 pm – Discussion of Trees & Vegetation (Lead by Arborist Bill Logan of
Urban Arborist)
7:30 -9:00 pm – Discussion on Pavilions
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Fingerlakes Wine Center, 237 South Cayuga Street
9:00 am - 10:15 am – Discussion on Trees & Vegetation (Lead by Sasaki
Associates)
10:30 am - 11:45 am – Discussion on Pavilions
12:30 pm - 1:45 pm – Discussion on Water and/or Play Features
2:00 pm - 3:15 pm – Discussion of design elements, including furnishings,
lighting, and surface materials
c. Collegetown – Next Steps
Chair Dotson reported that now that the development of the plan has been done, we
really need an update of that plan as the first plan was done two years ago.
The 1st of April 2012 will be the target start date for the Collegetown Plan since the
Comprehensive Plan is currently being worked on.
Alderperson McCollister requested that any changes made be communicated to the
public. Earlier is better than later.
3. Landmarks Ordinance
The ordinance is currently being reviewed again. A large property owner has concerns
to the suggested changes.
4. Planning Department Priority List –
The Priority List has been updated and is attached.
5. Intermunicipal Planning Update
No meeting has taken place since last month. One will be held soon.
E. Action Items
There were no action items
F. Discussion Items
1. Response to Hydrofracking – Advice of Counsel
Avi Lavine, City Attorney, reported to the public that no decisions will be made by this
committee
G. Approval of Minutes
Item # 8 a
There were no minutes to approve.
H. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 to enter into advice from council.
Item # 8 a
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Jennifer Dotson, Chair; Seph Murtagh,
Graham Kerslick, Ellen McCollister, and
Stephen Smith
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning and Development; Phyllisa
DeSarno, Deputy Director, Economic
Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior
Planner, Department of Planning and
Development; Lynn Truame, Historic
Preservation Planner, Department of Planning
and Development; Debbie Grunder, Executive
Assistant, Department of Planning and
Development
Others Attending: None
Chair Jennifer Dotson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
A. Agenda Review
There were no changes to the agenda.
B. Special Order of Business
1. Presentation: A Proposed Preservation Plan for Ithaca (6:00 p.m.)
2. Cornell CIPA Study of Collegetown Parking Study (6:15 p.m.)
Item # 8 a
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members (6:35 p.m.)
Gary Ferguson, Ithaca Downtown Alliance, spoke in favor of the proposed changes to
the downtown CBD-T zoning as well as the proposed tobacco legislation. Regulation is
a common sense step. He urges the committee to look at this proposed legislation.
Ted Schiele, 742 Cobb Street, Groton. Adults have a responsibility to provide our
youth with knowledge and guidance in the use of social tobacco use. We cannot let our
youth try to figure this all out on their own. Managing the number of stores selling
tobacco products is crucial.
Mack Travis, 323 West Tioga Street, spoke in favor on the proposed downtown
rezoning changes. He considers the Commons to be a haven and not a street. It is a
wonderful community space. We need the density to continue to have this area thrive.
Jean McPheeters, President, Ithaca Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of and
agrees with the Ithaca Downtown Alliance’s view on the downtown density. The
downtown needs to be seen as the downtown as the primary focus.
David Lubin, 193 Draht Hill Road, Elmira, spoke on the downtown zoning changes. He
agrees with Mack Travis that the Commons is a vibrant and positive thing. There are
great stores and restaurants that do very well and will continue to do well with the
changes to the downtown zoning.
Mike Cannon, 409 W. Buffalo Street, loves living downtown and is a long-time resident
of the downtown. He thinks the downtown is on the upswing.
Item # 8 a
Evan Nison, 106 East Street Street, spoke in favor of regulating tobacco legislation.
Joe Lanning, CU Facilities, spoke on the Collegetown Parking Study. He urges the City
and Cornell to work together on the parking plan.
Dan Keough, spoke on the parking study. There is a huge disconnect with the cost of
parking fees and the cost of creating the parking area.
Jane Marcham, planning board member, urges the committee to think carefully and
keep an open mind when approving the heights suggested in the proposed downtown
zoning changes.
Alderperson Murtagh commented that there will not be a vote tonight, but is simply a
discussion item.
Response from Council:
Alderperson Ellen McCollister stated that what she’s been hearing from the Third Ward
about people wanting more information on parking and parking studies. This will
certainly add to what the City has and she thinks it’s been great to have this project
especially a probono one and she thanked Megan Wilson who initiated this project.
She likes the methodology used by dividing into teams. There is a lot of information
here. She did find it interesting that among the perceptual disconnects and the
actuality things that Cornell comes out as a bit of an outlier in terms of its perception
because they really don’t have much data on where people park because their
Item # 8 a
students don’t park on campus. She looks forward to more, and thanked the group for
coming and for doing the study. It was very helpful.
Alderperson Graham Kerslick highlighted a few points on the Collegetown Parking
Study. First, he appreciates the effort of the team. In the executive summary, a
comment was made about that usage rates generally stay around 85% which he feels
is a very general statement and possibly misleading. The parking experts in the
country say if you have 85%, you don’t need to do anything because you basically
solved your problem. He wants to make sure we are highlighting exactly where we
might have some opportunities to improving things there. In the full report, the parking
requirement for buildings is mentioned, but there isn’t a whole lot in the executive
summary. Because of the data you stated the current parking space requirement of
one parking space for every two residents is still relevant and viable. This exact issue
is currently being looked at it and something like this should come on in the executive
summary in terms as to what the findings tell you. There is so much data in the report
that needs to be condensed into the executive summary. It’s a real important issue
right now for us in terms of looking at currently proposed development and future
development. He further stated that the group has some really important information
and thanked the group for getting it. He also asked for a copy of the presentation that
was presented tonight.
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports (6:45 p.m.)
1. Intermunicipal Planning Coordination - A meeting will be scheduled soon.
2. Dredging / Hydrilla - No new updates, but we are still on schedule.
Item # 8 a
3. Emerson - No new updates.
4. Commons - This project is moving ahead.
5. Energy Action Plan - No new update.
6. Collegetown Zoning - This project is moving ahead.
7. Minimum Parking Requirements
E. Action Items
1. Support for Intermunicipal (with Town of Ithaca) Development Focus Area
Matching Fund Application (6:55 p.m.) (“Zoning Code Re-Vision for City/Town of
Ithaca,” agreement and materials)
McCollister suggested there needs to be some guidance as to an ethical way in which
to do this and encourages the City Attorney to review this. She supports the project but
has concerns as to any conflict of interest. She also doesn’t understand why the
southwest area was selected.
Kerslick and Murtagh both have the same concerns.
JoAnn addressed Ellen’s question regarding “why the SW area.” In conversation with
those involved, many areas of the city and the SW area seemed to be the least
problematic.
F. Discussion Items
1. Downtown Density – Zoning Change (7:00 pm) (concept memo, map, ordinance
establishing CBD-T)
Item # 8 a
2020 Strategic plan has been approved by council. There are several areas in
the downtown area that are being recommended changes.
Chair Dotson asked the committee if they feel comfortable circulating this,
receive comments, and then move forward with this. McCollister would like to
wait because she doesn’t support the 80’ change. Murtagh would really like to
hear what people have to say about the proposed changes, review the feedback
given, and go from there.
Kerslick moved to circulate this. Carried 4-1 (Ellen).
JoAnn and Jen Kusznir will rewrite the concept memo, pass on to Council
members, and then circulate to for public comment.
2. Noise Ordinance (7:15 pm) (concept memo, sample ordinances/codes)
• Murtagh stated that a working group will be set up and would include people
from the police department.
• McCollister stated that what ever goes forward it’s imperative that the
neighborhoods stay informed.
• The committee agreed that Murtagh would carry on with this.
3. Tobacco Legislation (7:25 pm) (overview, model ordinance)
• In the summer 2011, it became illegal to sell tobacco products without a
retail license to sell these products.
Item # 8 a
Tom Schiele sees this as a youth focused ordinance. Alderperson McCollister
stated that once the Commons is reconstructed she feels this problem won’t be
a problem.
Alderperson Smith asked for clarification when a retailer goes out of business
with a valid license, does any new retailer does not take over the prior retailer’s
license?
Currently stores must have a state license to sell tobacco only in order to collect
sales tax.
Gary Ferguson clarified that if a minimum distance is set; continuance of the
license is only a concern if the retailer goes out of business. No window display
of paraphernalia being sold will be allowed. Restricting what the youth see will
help limit youths’ use of the product.
4. Divestiture of City-Owned Lands (7:35 pm) (concept memo, maps)
• Environmental review will have to be done as Common Council to serve as
lead agency.
• The BPW recommended the divestiture of these properties and to have
Council be lead agent.
5. Agenda Planning – potential upcoming items (7:45 pm)
2013 department and committee workplans, industrial/PUD (planned unit
development), landmarks ordinance changes, public art approval process.
Item # 8 a
• JoAnn asked that any items that any one would like to add to the work plan
should be emailed to her.
G. Approval of Minutes - There were no minutes to approve.
H. Adjournment (8:15 pm)
McCollister motioned to adjourned; seconded by Murtagh. Meeting was adjourned at
9:23 p.m.